lilguy43uk
member
Reged: 10/03/2008
Posts: 4
|
|
The RSPB have, this morning, launched yet another attack on the managers of grouse moors.
In an interview screened on BBC1 news, the RSPB claimed that the "decline" in raptors was caused by the illegal shooting, trapping and poisoning of birds on moors managed for grouse shooting.
Interestingly (and in the BBC's true spirit of impartiality) there was no-one to refute these unfounded allegations and neither was the spokesman challenged on the small matter of proof.
No mention was made of any prosecutions following these so-called events. Perhaps because they only exist in the politically motivated and finance driven minds of the RSPB.
|
hob_nob
member
Reged: 19/07/2007
Posts: 33
|
|
They appear to be repeating this on their rolling news throughout the day - I nearly choked on my salad when I saw the Noon News.
I have just fired off an e-mail pointing out that this was hardly an unbiased report and I suggest everyone else does the same - this is not like the Privilege adverts, which could be seen as a bit of a laugh - but a serious problem of how game keeping and shooting is perceived by the general public, with just over a fortnight until the grouse season opens the timing of their 'evidence' is crucial. I have complained to the BBC by e-mail with this and it couldn't be easier - just follow the link in my post and make your voice heard.
"On the noon news bulletin you ran an item regarding an RSPB report into the illegal killing of raptors by grouse moor owners. Despite having two interviews with two RSPB representatives there was no opportunity for representatives of the main shooting representative bodies to put forward their views on this issue, which concerns all of us. No mention was made of the fact that eagles pose no threat to grouse shooting interests and can indeed be allies as they keep Hen Harrier numbers low. Nor was mention made of other factors in changing moor management as a cause for the decline - in recent years carrion on these moors have declined leading to lower food sources, sheep and deer populations have been reduced and where there are deer stalkers bury the gralloch (i.e the innards) to deter the raven population from growing. The RSPB are able to provide little evidence when the content of their reports is challenged. This distorted view of shooting was disgraceful and does not even deserve to be labelled journalism."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml
|
SlyFox
member
Reged: 25/02/2008
Posts: 18
Loc: Exeter, Devon
|
|
I think your reply sums up pretty much what every person in the shooting community should feel. Mind if I copy and paste?
|
hob_nob
member
Reged: 19/07/2007
Posts: 33
|
|
Go ahead, it was paraphrased from the ST news pages anyway!
Some of the main broadsheets are running with the same article today, again no commentary from the shooting organisations. Sloppy journalism is rife.
|
SlyFox
member
Reged: 25/02/2008
Posts: 18
Loc: Exeter, Devon
|
|
Its quite bad that the shooting community has either not wanted to speak out in this report, or not been allowed to, I hope it is the latter, if not then the shooting community should really be standing up for themselves a bit more when it comes to things like this.
Has complained, I used your phrasing, It pretty much summed up the whole situation.
|
hob_nob
member
Reged: 19/07/2007
Posts: 33
|
|
They have to reply within 10 days so let us know any responses that anyone gets.
The CA and other organisations are usually quite hot about responding to adverse reports in the media, so I would guess there weren't given the opportunity to give their side.
|
Alastair_Balmain
stranger
Reged: 18/08/2006
Posts: 97
|
|
Hi all,
A very interesting thread... We're actually running a story on this in Thursday's issue of the magazine (which will go up on the site too).
Well done HobNob on your very erudite complaint! If only everyone would make their voice heard in the same way, maybe the BBC (and others) would think twice before allowing something so clearly one-sided to be produced.
There was a lot of talk about raptors and the RSPB's position at the Game Fair. The charity focused heavily on the issue of persecution on their stand, in my view to the detriment of a better working relationship with shooters. The RSPB staff said they had a good response from shooters. No doubt — the majority of people condemn raptor persecution. But equally there were a lot of people who felt their stand was very provocative, complete with staff wearing t-shirts bearing the slogan "Standing up for birds of prey".
There was much chat about working together etc, etc, and then they decided to publish their latest report into bird crime on Sunday while shooters and the key shooting organisations were all at Blenheim. Uncanny timing.
Naturally, legitimate shooters (the sort who read Shooting Times, join membership organisations and post here) condemn raptor persecution. It is illegal. So we get fed up to the back teeth with the RSPB ramming this kind of thing into the public domain. No-one's denying raptor persecution takes place, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with the overwhelming majority of shooters. So why should we be held to account for the action of others and our reputation dragged down?
If the RSPB talked to shooters, keepers, landowners, etc, rather than browbeating the law-abiding majority by association at every given opportunity, perhaps there would be a chance at some sort of meaningful dialogue and a solution on the issue.
Until that happens, shooters will continue to take a dim view of an association that actually shares a lot in common with us.
Just my two pence worth…
Alastair.
--------------------
Alastair Balmain, Deputy editor, Shooting Times
Edited by Alastair_Balmain (29/07/2008 13:30)
|
hob_nob
member
Reged: 19/07/2007
Posts: 33
|
|
[quote]Well done HobNob on your very erudite complaint! If only everyone would make their voice heard in the same way, maybe the BBC (and others) would think twice before allowing something so clearly one-sided to be produced. [/quote]
I couldn't have done it without the knowledge gleaned in Shooting Times magazine, I don't shoot at the present but every week find it the best of the countryside magazines for news coverage and informative articles.
We need to make sure that we have our voice heard, don't just sit back and think 'oh someone else will write in/send the e-mail/complain for me'
|
davestocker
stranger
Reged: 19/08/2006
Posts: 16
|
|
Bang on, Alasdair. They clearly timed it for the Game Fair weekend, to get a clear run without any opposition. Are broadcasts viewable again on the BBC's I Player?
Now I'm not a shooter, and whilst it may be wrong to kill unwanted raptors, it seems entirely reasonable to me that shooting interests should be allowed to deter airborne predators from nesting where they are likely to cause a problem. Now I know that this is illegal, but regardless of the law, were some protected creature that I didn't want on my property to start setting up home in my garden, I'd have no hesitation in taking deterrent measures.
|
hob_nob
member
Reged: 19/07/2007
Posts: 33
|
|
Dave, it is comments like that which taken out of context can be used as ammunition against us. A recent Daily Telegraph opinion piece used a jokey thread on a Hunting Forum to portray folk in the West Country as stalkers likely to threaten Anne Widdecombe.
|
davestocker
stranger
Reged: 19/08/2006
Posts: 16
|
|
I see a world of difference between killing a protected animal and deterring them from nesting. Sorry, but I think someone has to say it. And I don't think that the public would be unreceptive to this point of view. Remember, I'm not a shooter, so look at these things as an outsider. But as an angler I'm seeing my club fisheries shut down as a result of otter predation, and I'll bet that if beavers make a comeback they will at some point impact negatively on salmonid spawning habitat.
Let's get real; the RSPB would like to put grouse moor owners out of business without any compensation, for the sake of hen harrier populations. They put the interests of birds before those of people. As a general principle, I put human interest before those of animals.
|
hob_nob
member
Reged: 19/07/2007
Posts: 33
|
|
I'm not saying you can't hold those views, my point was be careful where you let them be posted - one hunting prosecution used postings from a message board in their evidence and sloppy journalists will happily take quotes to bolster their articles.
|
davestocker
stranger
Reged: 19/08/2006
Posts: 16
|
|
Point taken, Biscuit Boy. I know for a fact that the police are monitoring sites like this and indeed social networking sites in general. But because I don't shoot, nor do any gamekeepering, I'm never likely to face any problems for my views on raptors, or the craziness of protected species legislation.
Interestingly, I found a dead hen harrier in Cumbria a couple of years ago. Seems the carcass was examined and it was found to have died of natural causes (and no doubt the stress of being completely wired up to a transmitter). Did we ever hear about it? No.
One of the joys of the web, were plod's hand ever to alight on my shoulder, is that you can always say 'it was a joke', 'I never meant it' or 'it was just a wind-up'. Serious intent is, I suspect, very hard to prove.
|
hob_nob
member
Reged: 19/07/2007
Posts: 33
|
|
They have 3 more days to meet their target for a response - If I haven't had anything back by the time I return from Honiton I will be chasing for an explanation!
Biscuit Girl is on the case!
|
VinceGreen
member
Reged: 11/05/2008
Posts: 19
|
|
The trouble is they have the upper hand in this story because nobody is now going to believe anything except their version of events.
People like the RSPB and the RSPCA are seen as the good guys and people with guns, well say no more.
The fact that the shooting community does more to protect and manage vast tracts of land in this country just gets passed over.
|
hob_nob
member
Reged: 19/07/2007
Posts: 33
|
|
Well I've had a response. Unsatisfactory doesn't even begin to describe it - here it is in full: they have managed to completely ignore every point I made, while attempting to argue that it was a balanced report! Has anyone else had a response to their complaints?
Thanks for your e-mail regarding the midday news on the BBC's News channel
broadcast on 27 July. Please accept my apologies for the slight delay in
replying.
I understand you were disappointed with the coverage of a new report
released by the RSPB on the increase in the death of endangered birds.
Though the day's coverage of the report didn't include an interview with a
spokesperson for a body such as The British Association for Shooting &
Conservation, the RSPB spokesman who was interviewed did say that "estates
which manage grouse are unfortunately shooting trapping and poisoning birds
like golden eagles." But he went on to explain that there were law abiding
gamekeepers - and they needed to stand up and be counted.
Also, to add balance to the coverage the BBC reporter, Angus Crawford did
put it to the RSPB that "people who are doing this (shooting birds of prey)
are claiming that it's damaging their sport and their way of life."
BBC News feels it would have been interesting to interview a game keeper,
or indeed a representative from BASC to get their point of view on the
topic. But they don't accept that it was absolutely necessary to balance
the piece or indeed the BBC's overall coverage. It's entirely possible that
when the story is covered in the future that it will include input from a
representative of one of the main shooting bodies who will elaborate on the
detail you feel was needed to add balance.
I trust this explains the coverage of the RSPB report in more detail.
Nevertheless, please be assured that your correspondence has been
registered and thanks again for taking the time to contact the BBC.
Yours Sincerely
Andrew Martin
Divisional Advisor
BBC Complaints
|
JohnS
member
Reged: 23/07/2008
Posts: 12
|
|
Oh, dear. Well, hob_nob, the BBC's reply was to be expected. It's pretty well standard and one with which we here in Canada are not unfamiliar--in our case, the CBC and private broadcasters being the respondents. The problem appears to be that you were relying on politely framed correspondence as opposed to a personal visit to a newsroom or corporation "public affairs" operation. I have been a reporter and editor in both the electronic and print media, and a PR practitioner for many years. Even in retirement, I am still plugging away with the occasional news release as well as with personal interviews in my chosen "avocation" of amateur boxing. Given my personal experience, I would suggest that a group of you take time to organize, study the situation and the individuals involved very carefully indeed (no hearsay!), and then move ahead with a concerted and planned PR campaign. I fully appreciate that there are all sorts of other pressures in your daily lives, but if the cause is just, as they say, the effort will always be worthwhile. You may not win all the fights, but you will certainly establish the credentials which will serve you well in future endeavours. And now, please accept my apologies for assuming that I know anything at all about the situation as well as my best wishes for the advancement of your cause.
|
VinceGreen
member
Reged: 11/05/2008
Posts: 19
|
|
The point is the RSPB and the BBC are making an open allegation of criminal activity against certain individuals. This alone is illegal and slanderous. They offer no proof.
Setting aside for a moment the need for balance surely that fact alone requires a compaint from our beloved shooting associations to the broadcasting standards people.
Forget bias, they can't go round making allegations against people like that.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
