It can be quite amusing to witness an own goal, or to see a participator in debate hand over an armed guided missile to an opposing speaker. If you enjoy witnessing people making complete idiots of themselves, that is. And always provided they are not supposed to be on your side…
So when I listened to the BBC’s ‘Reunion’ programme (R4 0915 09 September 2011), which brought together representatives of the opposing factions in the debate on foxhunting in the 1990s, I was gobsmacked to hear Robin Hanbury-Tenison, former Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance, refer to coarse fishing as the least defensible field sport he could think of. He referred to the angler ‘catching a fish…weighing it…keeping it gasping…while you get a picture…’ Nobody round the table expressed any disagreement. Though I thought I could hear a gurgle of appreciation, no doubt from one of the antis. There was a representative of the league Against Cruel sports, and someone from the RSPCA.
To crown it all, Hanbury-Tenison went on to say that field sports were in his view ‘all about conservation’. This is a view I heartily agree with. I could point out lots of benefits to the environment which result from coarse fishing: bringing about an ecosystem where kingfishers, herons and other predators thrive is one; a self-interested eye on possible pollutions and on water quality is another.
Even if Hanbury-Tenison is aware of these benefits, he somehow did not get round to mentioning them. His criterion for defensibility of a sport was its usefulness in the control and management of the countryside. It is one idea which the public at large has taken on board, probably to the detriment of angling. I have often spoken to people who ask how I can justify fishing if we are not going to be overrun with fish. Their misconception is understandable, given the foxhunters’ plugging the (in my view mistaken) idea that hunting is the most efficient way of keeping the fox population under control.
A glance at the Countryside Alliance (CA) website will tell you that its mission includes the promotion and defence of ‘fishing’. A further glance will tell you that ‘fishing’ in fact means game fishing. Presumably the CA view is – or at least was when our friend was at the helm – that fishing which results in the catch being killed and eaten is ok, whereas fishing where the catch is returned is not. I wonder where they stand on catch-and-release trout fishing and the modern trend of returning Atlantic salmon, now an endangered species?
None of us should forget the shameful betrayal of anglers by the hunting fraternity in the 1990s. Anglers, or a lot of them, gave their support to the foxhunters. The big countryside march before the critical parliamentary vote on fox hunting was attended by 400,000 anglers, fearful of what might happen to them once the hunt sabs were out of a job. They were rewarded by the foxhunters consistently resorting to the argument in their own defence that nothing could be crueller than fishing. The aim was plainly to divert public attention from foxhunting to something which was supposedly crueller. I well remember in the 1980s witnessing Lord King – of British Airways fame – being asked on television about his association with hunting. He asked viewers to consider what could be more cruel than sticking a hook in a fish’s mouth. The audience must have lapped it up. And remembered it.
Without a doubt, such smear tactics are totally unethical, as well as being the most negative form of defence in PR terms.
But back to the present: one thing that struck me about the ‘Reunion’ programme was the difference between the comments of the two opposing sides. The pro-foxhunters – with one exception that is – were in their own way entirely likeable, reasonable and measured in their statements. And they clearly loved their hunting way of life. But they were completely unfocused. They all clung on to the old argument that hunting was the most effective way of controlling fox populations. The antis were by contrast persistent, obsessed with their banning agendas, and – dare I say it – out for blood. Lindsey Hill, one of the foxhunters, broke down at one point, and referred to her frustration at ‘people’s lack of understanding’ of what her sport was about.
The whole scenario is an object lesson in what can be achieved, and destroyed, by a steady stream of propaganda. Please do not think that I am coming down either in favour of or against fox hunting. If it came to electing an MP who was strongly for or against hunting, then it is in my opinion a matter for the conscience of the individual voter. If I was a huntsman I would make the case for my sport and try to promote it. But I would never, ever point to the activities of a fellow sportsman, particularly one who had expressed his support, as being less acceptable than my own. Those are the tactics of the gutter. And very poor PR as well.
And it is precisely the ‘lack of understanding’ (in the words of Lindsey Hill) of our sport in the population as a whole which anglers and other sportspeople, are up against. I dread to think how many members of the public believe that fish are somehow worse off as a result of angling – especially when our fellow sportsmen hand them a guided missile to fire at us. As individuals and anglers we need to put members of the public right about our sport when we meet them.
And more importantly, we need to consolidate our PR effort and promotion of angling by joining and supporting the single organisation which has the expertise to promote and defend our sport: the Angling Trust.
Rod Sturdy
