Countryfile

John Craven, presenter of BBC's 'Countryfile' programme is asking for viewers to send in their comments for the programme when they debate fishing next Sunday.

This will be an ideal opportunity for us to put our views across.

Emails should be clear and consise, so that they can be read out on the programme and should include your name and location.

The address to send your emails to is countryfile@bbc.co.uk

Richard, I have just watched Coutryfile. I was just going to post a thread but see you have beaten me to it. I agree this would be an ideal opportunity for us to put across our views. It is probably better if the more politically correct are the ones who put across our views. I'm afraid my approach to any of the McCartney disciples would be deck the bastards then chuck them in the river.

Well done chaps - lets get composing!

I should have mentioned in the first post that they were asking - If hunting is banned should fishing be next?

I was just thinking maybe i should keep my gob shut Dave.I find pc very confusing and agree in this instance that there are people out there that can speak up for angling better than myself.If your one of them, get to it.

Im going to mail them, but are our Governing bodies taking part.
They should have the PR skills to put across an argument/defence for all the constructive roles angling and anglers play.
Also use this to educate the non angler and make aware the governments support for angling.

It is probably too late to suggest this as, no doubt, they already have a biased agenda for the programme but it would be a good idea if somebody from the ACA (Chris Tarrant or Bob James) could appear.

Although many of our reps do sterling work, I'm not too sure from what I've heard that 100% of them have the PR skills required.

Regardless of any fishing bodies i think we should all "E" mail them and tell them the good we do for the "countryside"not just for fishing "IE" Litter picking and keeping rivers clear as many rivers would fall into disrepair if it wasent for fisherman.

perhaps we should all send short, polite e mails just to register a larger vote for the good of angling. I am.

I've mailed the ACA and several clubs in the SE London areas.also country file.
kept it polite, positive qand constructive.

What happens if no credible angling response is aired or weak angling response made?
are our governing body representatives held accountable?

try contacting the EA on:

www.environment-agency.gov.uk
wales.gov.uk


www.fishonfive.co.uk
www.nfadirect.com
anglersmail@ipcmedia.com

Ashe
in responce to this
"What happens if no credible angling response is aired...."
C/file will pick who they want for this dependant on the way they want to portray it. Even-handedly or biased. The only redress we have is to complain NOT to BBC, but to Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) They are the only one’s who can really take sanctions against such bodies in the visual media.

"or weak angling response made? are our governing body representatives held accountable?

Who determines whether the response was weak or not? Web sites or the groups/bodies membership? Based on what? The programme as edited or the full transcript?

If the NAA is asked to put up a rep it will be Bruno Broughton, who has full command of the science, tactics, angling practices, etc. But as anybody who has had dealings with the TV media will tell you, they shot a lot of footage for a five minutes slot and pick what they want to show not what you want them to.

Somebody suggested the likes of Tarrant et al. Whilst they may be good with the TV media because they work in it. The may only have a superficial understanding of the issue. It’s also interesting to note that these celebrities kept their heads firmly down when the issue broke.
May be you should ask yourself why?

Graham - any chance (or point) in keeping a list of the various posts being made to CF? It would be interesting reading and could help others (ie me!) compose relevant mails.

My email to Countryfile:

Dear Peter

I do hope the forthcoming debate will be fair and give equal opportunity to both sides.

No doubt the debate will centre around the recent reports about fish and pain. These two reports (Dr Rose and Dr Sneddon) were at very distinct odds with each other, and yet both reports were laboratory based where one would assume that the results were based on fact rather than opinion.

Yet where Dr Sneddon?s report is concerned she expresses opinions about? throwing fish back?, which is complete nonsense anyway. No angler ?throws? fish back, they return fish carefully to the water. So straight away we see that she has a moral motive rather than a scientific one.

The Roslin report is flawed anyway, for it claims that the presence of nociceptors, which respond to tissue damage stimuli, indicates that the fish feels pain. That isn?t the case at all, it merely indicates that the fish is capable of reacting to stimuli, which is a different thing entirely.

Why should angling be banned if hunting is banned? Hunting warm-blooded animals and fishing for cold-blooded fish (which do not feel pain) bears little, if any, resemblance.

If your researchers do a thorough job they will find that anglers do more for the welfare of fish than anyone else on this planet.

All any angler asks is that you do not jump on the usual media bandwagon and emphasise all the (perceived) negative aspects of fishing. There are so many positive ones that tell a completely different story, which I have no doubt you will be hearing about from a great number of caring anglers.

Regards

Graham Marsden

--------------------

If anyone wants to copy this, with personal edits, they're welcome to do so.

If anyone else wants to post a copy of their email to Countryfile on this thread then please go ahead.

Can I suggest one small addition to the points Graham has made. I think we should major on welfare of the fish AND the environment. Citing examples of early polution warning, clearing up water ways, developing new wildlife areas (nee commercial fisheries!!).....the list should be endless.

Remember that guy who took out a private prosecution of a WA???

Ive just quoted from the BBC's own web site on Otter populations. Can you ever imaging the antis fighting for cleaner rivers??

"But improved water quality and fish stocks, coupled with changes in riverbank management, have reversed the English
otters' fortunes." BBC

I bet 99% behind this happening is due to angling conservation assocation membership, fishing licences, and fishing subscriptions.

I hope the BBC realises this if they try to suggest angling is a NEGATIVE thing for this country.

Its a bit fustrating limiting the argument to just one reason!!

My email to Countryfile.

Dear Countryfile,

Should fishing be banned if hunting is banned? Definately not!
The two things are totally different and shouldn't be brought together in this way as a target for the 'antis' to aim for anyway.

Riders on horseback with accompanying dogs charging through the countryside for a single fox in the name of pest control I strongly disagree with and is the complete opposite to a lone figure, sitting quietly on the bankside trying (often unsuccesfully) to outwit the fish.
If foxes are the pest they're made out to be, then lets treat them as such and deal with them in the proper manner, not make a sport out of it.

Angling has come under attack from various directions in the past, and although we're quite happy to defend what we do, it does annoy me. Angling is a tranquil pastime, enjoyed by millions of people. We shouldn't have to keep on justifying what we do.

Stories in the media concerning swans ingesting lead shot and suffering from lead poisoning is a common one, but lead shot in the sizes most used by anglers was banned years ago, most of the lead shot that now scatters the countryside is, presumably, from shotgun cartridges.
Anglers took responsibility then and continue to do so, perhaps it's time that shotgun cartridges were filled with lead-free shot?

Another, more recent story, concerned whether or not fish feel pain. This research by Dr Sneddon, in which trout were injected with bee venom, is seriously flawed. The control group they used were injected using a needle with a saline solution and showed no behaviour indicating that they were in pain, only those fish injected with the venom showed any signs of discomfort.
To me this would suggest that hooks, being similar to needles, do not cause pain in fish, it was the injected bee venom.

Another reason for angling not to be banned is pollution, or rather the lack of it.
The Anglers' Conservation Association was started in 1948 to tackle the ever increasing problem of pollution. Funded by anglers, the association has only ever lost three cases. Without anglers, our rivers, streams and ponds would be grossly over-polluted and devoid of all fish and other wildlife.
So anglers are the unsung heroes of fish welfare, spotting and reporting the first signs of pollution. In fact, there is currently a problem on the R. Ribble (and others), where sanitary products are causing pollution after every flood.

Finally, I will be watching the programme on 11th May, hoping that you report back in a fair and unbiased manner.

Richard Drayson

Southampton, Hampshire.

...........................................
I haven't posted this email to them yet as I'd rather wait and see if anyone thinks it could be improved upon in some way.

On a slightly different tack, here is what I intend to email,any comments? I don't mind making a d**k head of myslfe but I don't want to let the side down.

Dear Peter

Regarding the forthcoming debate which I hope will be fair and give equal opportunity to both sides. No doubt the debate will centre around the recent reports about fish and pain. The two reports (Dr Rose and Dr Sneddon) will no doubt be discussed by people qualified to comment on their validity.
Here are the views of an angler of no importance: -
From being a little boy, brought up on the adventures of Mr Crabtree, to a mature, experience and reasonably well read angle, I’ve never considered myself to be anything other than someone who cares deeply about the welfare of the fish I catch. Fishing is not just a sport but more away of life, and like many other anglers I’m willing to spend time with those just starting to fish both young and old, and I do my bit cleaning up the bank side and report any pollution as it happens. A reasonable amount of my expenditure associated with my sport goes to support the Environmental Agency via my rod licence and in the cost of environmental work and the stocking of fish by the clubs to which I belong.
My feelings regarding a bill to ban fishing are such that if the current government decided to support such a bill I would terminate my membership of the Labour Party. If the analogy, put forward by PETA, of hanging a dog up by an hook through it’s lip is the same as hooking a fish, and such an analogy is endorsed by the government. Then I must make a similar analogy that a ban on fishing bill, endorsed by the government, is the same as that government calling me a curl man.

Regards
John Conway
May be an angler of some importance?

Between Graham, John and Richard I think all that needs to be said has been. If it's ok with the three of you I will plagiarise with abandon and put together my own version. I doubt very much I could make any real improvement on you words.