Impartiality investigation by the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

Comments

packham

at 13:23 on 18/08/2016 by w

Grouse shooting has had its day .......after I had stopped laughing at this unbelievably niaeve statement , I realised what or indeed whom we are up against . Folk that make such uneducated comments are the sort that spread the poisonous lies surrounding keepers and moorland management. The GWCT is the leader in its field regarding research . If the bird brigade could produce land that was managed half as well as our sporting estates , they may have more respect from the shooting community . It is unknown to most RSPB members that fox and crow control take place on these sanctuaries . What they also do not know is that gamekeepers are asked in certain circumstances to remove foxes from these areas using terriers . This is because the charity condemns the use of terriers . So ..like Packham , they are quite prepared to utilise the services of estates to further their cause ,yet at the drop of a hat , spew their poison over the airwaves when some bird goes missing . Immediately pointing the calloused finger in the direction of the true guardians of our countryside .

Science and Chris Packham

at 1:13 on 18/08/2016 by Iain Gibson

I appreciate the respectful and measured tone of Rob Kerr-Bonner's response to my earlier comment. It makes a change from the abuse I usually have hurled at me by hunting supporters in other social media. However it's unlikely that Rob or any other member of GWCT will ever agree with me; I might be a leftie animal defender type to most of your members, but not a townie, and I appreciate the fact that my comment has not been redacted or censored in any way. I would take issue with a couple of Rob's points. Firstly, I'd be interested to be made aware of which endangered species benefit from grouse moor management. I presume he's not implying that birds of prey benefit, because I could easily challenge that thesis using my own data without having to resort to quoting the extensive scientific research. Or is it breeding waders? In a sense it is true that this group does benefit, but nowhere as much as frequent statements by the game industry would have us believe, and only at the expense of removing most of the natural predators. I often hear gamekeepers arguing that such and such a species has to be controlled (by killing), because "it has no natural predators." This is a rather feeble excuse, but there is an element of truth behind it, in that the removal of one or more levels of predator is actually dangerous for the species which are preyed upon. Most untrained biologists might find this concept counter-intuitive, but predators are important for a number of reasons, including controlling pathogenic infection rates, and in the longer term the natural evolution and adaptability of the prey species. Even day to day behaviour can be affected, for example if Hen Harriers are reared on a relatively fox-free grouse moor, and return to breed on the same moor, they may fail to learn to avoid nesting close to a fox den. Experienced harriers will shift if their first choice of nest location is prone to fox disturbance. They don't necessarily escape predation, but that is only natural, and my own research suggests that where harriers and foxes are "left to get on with it," around one in three harrier nests fail due to fox predation. A two-thirds success rate is perfectly adequate to form a sustainable population growth to occupy all suitable habitat. Going back to the waders, another factor which is rarely reported is that the difference in breeding success between keepered and non-keepered grouse moors is better on keepered moors due to artificially low predator populations, but not significantly enough to affect overall population viability. Secondly, Rob states that the scale of illegal raptor persecution is not substantiated by empirical evidence from prosecutions. I would like to know how this was calculated, particularly how the "unknown" evidence was factored into the equation. The statistics produced by scientists and referred to by Mark Avery, etc., compare the known prosecution rate against gamekeepers with the number of unaccounted but human-inflicted mortality recorded within game shooting areas, specifically in and close to grouse moors compared with other habitats. The results of this analysis are highly statistically significant, suggesting that most of the unresolved fatalities were probably inflicted by gamekeeper activities. There seems little point in contesting this. Finally, I don't always see eye to eye with RSPB, but to be fair to them they did enter into a partnership regarding the Defra plan, but left after a year or two of no progress being made, and losing faith in the grouse shooting sector's commitment to halting persecution. I'm afraid the evidence is clearly on their side, no matter how much GWCT might deny it. Simply condemning criminality is just not good enough.

Science and Chris Packham

at 14:15 on 17/08/2016 by Rob Kerr-Bonner

In response to Iain Gibson, I would suggest that he is correct on two points he raises. Chris Packham does know what he is talking about, or to correct Iain - he knows exactly "what he is not talking about". Chris elects through the fact that his popularity and notoriety will gain greater enhancement for opposing the current flavour of the month topic, to conveniently overlook the benefits to endangered species that flow from responsible moorland game management. Iain is also correct that there are cases of illegal persecution of birds of prey and these must not be tolerated. However the scale and extent suggested by Packham, Avery etc are not substantiated by empirical evidence from prosecutions. Personally I would in no way wish to see anyone's career ended due to their personal views, provided that they are just that personal and kept to one's self. No doubt those employed within the management of moorland for grouse, who abide by the law and relish the ecological benefits they provide would not wish to lose their careers either. Especially when the GCWT offer to work cohesively with the RSPB for the benefit for all moorland bird species has been so comprehensively turned down. I would like to commend the GCWT for posting Iain Gibson's comment as it displays the need to balance the argument, which is sadly lacking in those forums/organisations seeking a ban on driven grouse shooting. It is with a heavy heart I read the vitriol and spiteful uninformed comments that abound such websites as that of Mark Avery. Until such time the RSPB starts to be a conservation charity rather than a preservation one, it will gain no respect from me. To acknowledge that circa 55 million birds are killed by cats each year, but to suggest that this is not detrimental to populations and most would have died anyway is clear example the desire to gain financial strength outweighs any moral intentions.

Science and Chris Packham

at 3:46 on 17/08/2016 by Iain Gibson

For an organisation which purports to rely on science, I've got to say that if the comments I've just read through represent your typical supporters, then you've a hell of a lot of education to catch up with. The open hatred of Chris Packham comes across as obsessive and verging on pathological, just for speaking his mind in what is supposed to be a free democratic society. Our fathers, grandfathers and other relatives fought two wars to guarantee us freedom of speech. Some of the comments show a remarkable degree of misunderstanding of UK natural history and ecological interactions. Your introduction emphasised the importance of peer-reviewed science, a term that is now tossed around so much that it is becoming almost meaningless, and often merely a ploy to effect credibility. However, the vast majority of genuinely peer-reviewed research on the effects of grouse moor management by ecological scientists is on the side of Chris Packham. You and those commenting on your side of the debate fail to mention that, which is surely unscientific in itself? In fact, the pseudo-scientific critique of Packham's views is reminiscent of scientists employed by tobacco companies trying to convince us that smoking doesn't cause cancer. From a human rights aspect, it is appalling that people should wish to see someone's career ended due to their own personal version of what is meant by "impartiality." I am a professional ecologist who has spent a large part of my career specialising in Hen Harrier research and biodiversity management of moorland, and can assure you that Chris Packham does know what he is talking about. It seems that what irks the grouse shooting establishment is his passion in caring for the Hen Harrier, which despite the front presented by organisations like GWCT and BASC, remains one of the most hated of all avian predators by the grouse shooting community. The evidence of persecution by gamekeepers is unequivocal, and it is to the industry's shame that they have not self-policed their serious wildlife crime problem. Simply condemning those gamekeepers who are unlucky enough to be prosecuted is not good enough, especially after sixty years of legislation providing protection for raptors. It is time you accepted the scientific facts about the harm done to ecology and the environment by grouse moor management, but I suppose to do that would involve having to admit that grouse shooting has had its day.

Chris Packhame

at 21:44 on 16/08/2016 by Paul Dale

Simon Mansell, I was staggered to read your response from the BBC regarding your complaint about Chris Packham. The reason I am so astounded is because it is, word for word, exactly the same response as I had when I sent in my complaint. I can only assume that either a) the man who replies is extremely busy or b) the BBC have received so many complaints they've had to generate a response.

packham

at 16:31 on 16/08/2016 by john mulrine

why is this baloon allowed to get away with all this stuff, he is "know", as a bbc man!!, and should not be spouting nonsense about grouse shooting, he is a nobody, getting money for nothing from the licence payers, give it a rest daftie..

Chris Packham

at 15:29 on 16/08/2016 by Rob Kerr-Bonner

This is a such a shame. The RSPB has the opportunity to gain the assistance and to a degree trust of landowners and the law abiding shooting industry by accepting diversionary feeding and translocation of Hen Harrier offspring to further territorial expansion of the species. Instead, via the assistance of the media time Chris Packam is granted, it would rather pander to the persecution of those that manage the moors for the better good of a wide variety of species - not just Hen Harriers. The attempt by Chris Packham and his accomplice Mark Avery to fragment the shooting industry by bemoaning driven grouse shooting and yet "accepting" walked up grouse is a clear indication that they have no understanding of what management takes place. However the game shooting industry take note, regardless of the good that is done, it will only take a few high profile cases of illegal persecution to put the conservation benefits gained from responsible game management to the back of decision makers minds. I fear that the positive benefits have yet to be fully and ably illustrated in any of the recent air time the pro-shooting lobby have been granted.

Chris Packham

at 14:38 on 16/08/2016 by Simon Mansell

I HOPE YOU HAVE BETTER LUCK WITH YOUR COMPLAINT THAN I DID. HERE IS THE BBC RESPONSE: Dear Mr XYZl Reference CAS-3952549-L99QTC Thanks for contacting the BBC. I understand you feel Chris Packham is in breach of the BBC Charter by ‘promoting an extreme agenda’. Chris’s association with the BBC is primarily for the Watch series of programmes, where he helps to explain the science of nature. This is separate from his work outside of and independent to the BBC. Chris Packham is a naturalist in his own right and is not solely employed by the BBC. We feel he is therefore entitled to express his personal views outside of his BBC employment. We believe our audience is able to distinguish between Chris’s role with the BBC and his external activities. Nevertheless we will remain vigilant to ensure that the distinctions regarding Chris’s activities remain clear to our audience. In relation to the abuse you received on Twitter, I would advise reporting this to Twitter using the information in the following link:

Chris Packham

at 13:07 on 16/08/2016 by Chris Dodson

This has been going on for far too long, with Packman spouting his personal opinion to all who can hear, using the BBC as his microphone. If this was a news presenter airing their political views, they would have been shot down long ago. Time for the BBC to pull their socks up and dismiss Packham.

Chris Packham

at 12:52 on 16/08/2016 by Freddie Wilson

I have watched a number of programmes involving Chris Packham and seen this individual spouting his personal, totally unfounded views on a variety of species form cats to birds of prey. In Packhams world he would exist in a sterile environment which to my mind would fit in with his toxic views on most naturally born hunters including humans. Can someone please shut him up or better still educate him in the way of the Countryside and its wide range of inhabitants which make for a balanced ecological system.

Packham

at 12:49 on 16/08/2016 by Phil Aisthorpe

Anything that Chris Packham says on recorded BBC TV or in BBC publications is subject to BBC editorial control is it not? If you want to complain, shouldn't you be complaining about the BBC's editorial policy or are you just looking to silence views you don't agree with? Play the ball, not the man.

Managed Moorland

at 12:40 on 16/08/2016 by Andy

Managed moorland, heath, woodland and farmland for shooting is a fantastic boost for wild life. A managed habitat for game has considerably more wildlife due to the feeding of game which the wild bird population benefit from especially during the winter months and because of the large number of game birds the predatory birds ie Buzzards, Hen harriers, Kites ect benefit. Don't forget these protected predatory birds need to live on something and if its not game birds it will be only our endangered wildlife. Take a walk through a general piece of woodland in the middle of winter and you will find it virtually deserted of wildlife.

Packham and BBC impartiality

at 12:21 on 16/08/2016 by Mike Kettlewell

I often disagree with Packham's approach to conservation controversies but he is a sound scientist and his information may be unpalatable but is not misinformation. The BBC bends over backwards to offer balance even when the overwhelming evidence is in one direction. Take climate change. 99.9% of scientific data shows that climate change is happening and is human driven yet the BBC brings out the tame sceptic to offer a counter view. Ludicrous. We might just as well produce a 'flat earther' to talk about astronomy. The effect of putting down 40-50 million pheasants annually will alter ecosystems but how and by how much? The lack of Hen Harriers on keepered moors is most likely to be due us humans. It is down to the moor owners to prove otherwise.

Chris Packham

at 12:06 on 16/08/2016 by George Murray

Don't hold your breath, the BBC doesn't know the meaning of giving someone the sack,no matter how bad the are or what they do, so expect to see a lot more of this man,or do as I do switch off!

Chris Packham

at 11:14 on 16/08/2016 by AECC

More power to your elbow! I was shocked to hear him getting prime time TV coverage on the 12th August, spouting his jaundiced and incorrect statements on moorland management, with no challenge or balance being offered. To be fair to the BBC, it was actually on ITV that I saw him, but I daresay he was peddling the same untruths on BBC as well. I was particularly disturbed to hear his views that heather burning contributes to climate change. How indeed? Does he really want a large build up of fuel, so increasing the risk of a hot burn in a summer wildfire, so destroying the underlying peat? Seems he might........

Wildlife status in the countryside

at 11:08 on 16/08/2016 by Roger Ashby

Farming practices are continually being blamed for the decline in the wildlife status of the countryside and it is the effect not the cause. Farming is being forced by tighter economic margins to produce food cheaper and this is relying more and more on a semi intensive chemical approach which is slowly choking the ecosystems. The cheap food policy adopted years ago has succeeded on one hand but at the detriment of the wildlife and to the detriment of the nations health, never before have we had such an unhealthy overweight population and such high levels of food waste. Historically food has never been cheaper and the damage to the wildlife is easy to see. Food and drink prices should double and we would all consume half as much, the population would be fitter and agriculture could use a more cultural approach and thew wildlife benefits would be enormous.

chris packham

at 11:05 on 16/08/2016 by dennis hoare

yes, he is very bright but has got 'too big for his boots' fame has gone to his head, a pity.

15/8/2016

Impartiality investigation by the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

Comments

packham

Science and Chris Packham

Science and Chris Packham

Science and Chris Packham

Chris Packhame

packham

Chris Packham

Chris Packham

Chris Packham

Chris Packham

Packham

Managed Moorland

Packham and BBC impartiality

Chris Packham

Chris Packham

Wildlife status in the countryside

chris packham

Make a comment