.is the best way I can sum up a lot of BBC UK wildlife programmes. The recent ‘Springwatch’ programme on otters was no exception. Virtually the only accurate part of this hour-long bit of wildlife triumphalism was that otters are lovely animals. There is no doubt about that – they are. Superficially that is. I well remember the reaction of the studio audience in a ‘Springwatch’ programme when a stray baby otter was brought in: they were all cooing and drooling over the lovely little pussy cat-faced waif. The appealing whiskery countenance and the reaction to it spoke volumes about the public perception of wildlife.
One of the elements of the otter programme I really took exception to was the slavish repetition of the rosy EA line on rivers: that they have never been healthier. Rivers are cleaner, clearer and less polluted than they have been within living memory, so goes the cosy official story, and part of the evidence for this is the presence of cormorants and the return of the otter to river systems. In other words, rivers must be healthy and full of fish because predators are being attracted to them. There was no mention at all of the fact that many, many parts of our rivers fall below European standards of purity and presence of fish life. No mention of the fact that rivers are being killed off by abstraction; no mention of the fact that runs of migratory fish are down to a mere fraction of what they should be. No mention of the catastrophe of signal crayfish, with no doubt other alien species set to cause more devastation in the future. And definitely no mention of the catastrophic decline of the particular species which is supposedly the otter’s preferred food: the eel.
Seeing this programme prompted me to take a look at a BBC ‘Springwatch’ publication (2012) on British wildlife. It was a real eye-opener. Of the total 240-plus pages in the book, no less than 120 are devoted to birds, the very first photograph being a sea-eagle, a huge, and very controversial, predator beloved of the wildlife elite. Mammals take up 40 pages. But the section on freshwater fish (coarse), which I thought makes up a quite significant part of our wildlife, takes up a mere 2 pages! There are 3 pages on game fish. The text states unambiguously that ‘of all our freshwater fish.salmon and trout are the most sought-after by anglers.’ Really. And there was I thinking that the humble roach was top of the list. Or maybe these days, the carp. Or even barbel.
There is no mention of course, in the section on trout and salmon, of the part played by anglers in the clean-up of rivers like the Tyne, which now enjoys a (residual) salmon run. In the section on birds there is a reference to anglers objecting to cormorants taking ‘their’ fish, quite failing to mention that in a lot of cases, the fish in question have actually been stocked by anglers: they are then therefore legitimately ‘their’ fish. The only reference to there being any life under the surface of the sea is a 3-page section on sharks. Like I said earlier: amateurish, inaccurate and biased.
The trend to ignore life as it exists beneath the surface of the water is not however confined to the BBC; it is part of a general trend in the media. Neither is it a plot against anglers, although there may of course be a strong anti-angling element in media circles. It is simply due to the fact that the media respond to public demand. And since for most people fish life is at best a mystery and at worst irrelevant, the media can get away with leaving it out of the equation. It reduces the need for proper research. They will always skimp on facts and trade in ready-formed opinions as long as they are not held properly to account.
So who is to blame for this sorry state of affairs? Well you are actually – yes, you the angler – because you have not made your voice heard properly. How many of you who saw the programme made a comment or complaint to the BBC? Not one of you, I’ll bet. How many of you are aware that the Angling Trust has written to the BBC with a formal complaint about the slant of the programme, and with a request that they should in future be consulted on matters concerning fish life? How many of you are actually Angling Trust members? Pathetically few, is the answer which immediately springs to mind. And this I find frustrating, because if anglers really got their act together, and if even half of them were members of the organisation which campaigns on their behalf, there would be no such problems. We would be making the running, rather than just defending our interests with slender resources.
Just consider, the RSPB has a membership (and hence a substantial income and assets to go with it) which exceeds the total number of members of all political parties in the UK. Angling could easily match this in terms of numbers. You take my point?
We anglers, or any other special interest group come to that, will ultimately get what we deserve. If we do not support the single organisation which represents us, we will be the losers in the end. If the media are allowed to paint a biased picture of a specialised subject, then the general public will tend to take it all as gospel.
My recent experience shows that more and more anglers are beginning to see the writing on the wall as regards the future of the sport they love. So get on board now. And add your voice and your support to the organisation which fights on your behalf.
