Is the BBC at it again?

[Phil Hackett 2]

On BBC Radio 4s Home Planet Programme today, the presenter Richard Daniels made a comment whilst the programme and panel were discussing Herons, their predator status and past persecution, that these birds ?were not the anglers best friends.? The subtle implication of this statement was that, anglers are still persecuting them.

As any angler of many years standing knows, this has not been the case for over 40 years or more. The SAA has had no reports whatsoever of these birds causing any problems anywhere in the country. Nor have we heard of any being culled by anglers legally or illegally, again anywhere in the country. The EA has never raise in any of the meetings the SAA has had with them, any concerns about anglers persecuting these birds, nor has the SAA it raised any concerns about any problems regarding fish losses to them. On the contrary, we have pointed out that the loss of silver fish to cormorants in our view, will impact on the numbers of other fish-eating bird species including herons, kingfishes, etc.

On the Panel was also Baroness Barber Young the Head Of the Environment Agency, whose comment to persecution of these birds was ?you here less of it these days.? This is somewhat disconcerting coming from the Head of the EA. Not what you would call an outright rejection of persecution by anglers on her part, by any stretch of the imagination. .

Given the above facts, I on behalf of the SAA would pose the following question to both the presenter and Baroness Young
?What evidence do you have that anglers are in recent times still persecuting herons??

To Baroness Young
And why, if you have any such evidence has the EA never raised the issue as a concern at any of the meetings with the SAA, or any other National Angling body?

On behalf of the SAA and angling, I would ask you to register your protest to the BBC and Baroness Young by e-mailing the programme voicing you concerns about these comments at home.planet@bbc.co.uk

For those wishing to make a protest by phone, the contact number is 08700 100 222

To listen to the comments online go to the R4 web site at Home Planet at 11 minutes into it programme on RealPlayer. For those that don?t have RealPlayer, it can be downloaded for free from the BBC.

I?d urge ALL reading this to register a protest.

Phil Hackett
Conservation Officer SAA

 

[Baz]

A couple of years ago I rescued an injured heron from the canal. It was on the far side under the brambles. So I stripped down and went in for it.
I called the R.S.P.C.A. and they came out.
They said the best thing was to have it put down, as it had suffered a broken beak.

A couple of weeks previouse Rolf Harriss had one with the same injury on his vets show. And they repaired it.
But that was for t.v. wasn't it?

In my expierience the B.B.C. are against anything they consider as blood sports, and that includes angling. So I am not surprised to hear this from the radio 4 programme.

 

[Baz]

By the way Phil,
I did phone the BBC a couple of weeks ago over a complaint I had with one of their presenters over an angling issue, or I should say the presenters attitude with anybody that phoned in to speak up for angling. The chap I spoke to made his feelings quite clear, He answered my questions but I still think I was fobbed off.

 

[Steve Hammatt]

Thanks for alerting us Phil, I've just sent my email on this.

 

[Wolfman Woody]

I can't remember the last time herons were mentioned at any angling meeting unless it was to say to the effect "Herons are not a problem, we accept them as a natural predator of inland fish."

I have one, some nights, settles down not 10 yards from me and picks small bleak from the river. He fishes under the light from a sodium spolight and clearly enjoys it there. I've even seen him go for a rat before.

Ok are herons! We had 13 nesting pairs around one of our fisheries one year.

 

[Steve Hammatt]

Well I did send my email, and I've already had a response ! It was from Nick Patrick, although unfortunately it doesn't say what his position is.

Here's his response :

Dear Steve,

I think the panel were making reference to the response to herons 50 or so years ago when, certainly where I live in East Anglia, they weren't always treated in the caring way that you and your colleagues do today... Witness the number of stuffed herons you see in the pubs around these here parts!

Best wishes,



Nick Patrick

 

[Nigel Moors 2]

I'm lucky enough to have a large college owned lake two minuteswalk from my door. In the centre of it is a large island that's home to a heronry, about 100 at last reckoning. Frequently seen when out dogwalking they never fail to stop me in my tracks.

Haven't listened to the prog. yet but by the sounds of it, I hope it was a throwaway comment about how we might perceive them as threats to our pursuit. Presenters of programmes should be a little more careful about how they bandy about their opinions such as this.

 

[Baz]

Presenters should be more carefull with their comments.
This is one of the complaints I made Nigel, but I was told the presenter has a right to his/her own oppinion aswell.

 

[Phil Hackett 2]

Baz my personal view is, and I make it clear here it my personal view and not as the officer for SAA, the BBC is now blatantly taking a very anti-angling stance on National Radio and TV.
Its charter says it must give a balanced viewpoint on controversial issue. If a presenter is giving his/her opinion, pro or anti, he must under that charter afford the counter argument the same facility.
Failure to do this breaches that charter.

There was no member of the panel who countered the presenter?s statement, as I?ve heard them do on many occasions in the past on the programme. Neither did any panel member indicate they had any knowledge whatsoever of angling.

The comment from Barbara Young the head of the EA was in my personal view a tacit agreeing statement with the presenter. This does not surprise me given that before her appointment to this body she was the head of the RSPB.

If Young has any evidence that anglers are persecuting herons (which she does not) then it should be put in the public realm, and opened up to public debate and scrutiny.

Given that she has no evidence, then she should make a Public Statement withdrawing what she said, to clear up any misunderstanding her comments may have lead people to believe.

 

[Phil Hackett 2]

As an add on to the above posts You might like to contact the programme call FEEDBACK on R4. This programme is the complaints on air programme.

The more complaints they get the more likely they will cover someone's e-mail on air.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Phil,

I have sent an e-mail complaint, although if the past record of the BBC is anything to go by I am not going to hold my breath, for their reply.

The BBC have for quite some time apparently and conveniently forgotten their Charter as we are constantly being trested to presenter's personal views without any opportunity of recourse.

I wonder if they realise the impact of this when the BBC becomes an optional subscribed service?

 

[Ron Troversial Clay]

Herons do eat fish of course. But one of this birds favourite foods is frogs.

And years ago I once saw a heron tackling a small grass snake on the Upper Ouse.

The only group of anglers I can think of that don't like herons, and I hate to say it - are Sheffield matchmen!

 

[Baz]

I will re-submit my original complaint which was over a G.M.R. presenter and remind them of the charter.

 

[Nigel Moors 2]

Ron - and my brother-ln-law! He's an angler but built an enormous pool, filled it with koi and didn't stop to think about all those herons on the local lake which are nearer to his place than mine!

I think that Baroness Young typifies what's wrong with a lot of organisations in this country. They are 'headed' up by people who seemingly have no knowledge of that organisations role beyond the surface which anyone can glean from their websites. What should have happened with her EA hat on was a counter argument when the presenter made his remark.

Not sure if her failure to do this was down to previous RSPB involvement, more like incompetence if you ask me. That's nothing more than I expect from a lot of these people.

Does involvement in the RSPB and the work it does detract from an angler or angling officers credibility?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I stand not only corrected, but also rather amazed inasmuch as I have recieved a very swift reply from the producer of the programme.

Whilst I do not have his permission to reproduce his reply I can tell you that he believed that the balance of question and answer was indeed a fair representation.

Apparently this programme will be off the air until early in 2005 and the producer intimated that there may well be the chance for anglers to use the platform of his programme to promote the good work that we do for the fish, the fisheries and the environment in general.

I am going to try to maintain contact with the gentleman with a view to actually seeing if we can get such a programme aired.

 

[John Lock]

Sorry Phil and others. I think you are over reacting here. That throwaway comment and the reply have probably been long forgotten by the listeners who heard it. To push for 'clarification' or right to reply or an apology, will merely give Richard Daniels the chance to expand on his comment and, perhaps, widen the argument to other aspects of angling. Leaping in to object to every little real, or imagined, dig at angling just makes us look defensive.

 

[Phil Hackett 2]

John with respect the BBC is being monitored for it's anti-angling stance, which it has. And I can assure you this is the second time this particular programme has made anti-angling comments on its last programme of its series run.
As to being forgotten by the listener, I doubt it! Its listeners are not those type of people.

John there is a proverb from the last war by a Jewish person (don't know who or a name) that goes like this

First they came for the communists, and I did nothing!
Then they came for the socialists, and I did nothing!
................
................
.................
Then they came for me!

 

[John Lock]

Phil, I understand the concerns about the beeb's anti-angling stance but I think there's a time to react and a time to let it all wash over you. By reacting to every little thing we will just play into their hands. Every time they want a reaction they'll throw out some contentious statement and there we'll be, backs to the wall, defending ourselves against their out-of-context, sensationalised accusations based on half-truths and urban myths. All it will do is turn a molehill into a mountain. I take the point about that Jewish saying (it's a very good saying, I'd not heard it before). What a pity that some here (in other threads) seemed glad to see fox hunting banned. I've never hunted foxes and have no desire to but I hoped they'd win against the ban because once that fell the next domino could be angling.
Even so, I don't think we should rise to every bait the antis dangle, otherwise, being seen to be constantly on the defensive, the public might start thinking "Methinks they doth protest too much" (Shakespeare).

 

[Baz]

Another little proverb John.
The best form of defence is attack, isn't this what they are doing?
I do see your'e point though.

 

[John Lock]

Baz, I guess we're just arguing tactics here. We all have the same overall strategy (the protection of angling) in mind. Is a one-line throwaway comment an attack? It's worth noting and keeping on record for possible future use sure. But does it merit a response? Not in my view. Now, if the bloke had gone into a 5 minute anti-angling rant, that would be a different matter.