This is a bit odd. Almost a year ago a filmmaker approached me (and others) to be filmed about the campaign against driven grouse shooting. I agreed to be filmed and I thought that the film might appear after the Westminster Hall debate. I’d almost forgotten all about it by now.
I was sent the link to the film on Friday evening but I was at a family event so I didn’t look at it then. And I only had a quick look over the weekend as the film seemed quite long and I had other things to do – but I did notice that I was in it, quite a bit, and so was Terry Pickford and, at the end, Natalie Bennett of the Green Party.
I was just going to sit down and look at it this afternoon (after Murray won his match) when I see that BASC have issued a press release about it and the film is now unavailable on You Tube.
Duncan Thomas of BASC said ‘Mark Avery is part of a group which is not being honest with the public in attempts to secure credibility for their campaign against grouse shooting.
This film is littered with misinformation and ill-informed rhetoric, which is no less than we have come to expect from these extremists. But they have surpassed themselves this time by also claiming the film has been commissioned by a national political party, which it has not.
It is also worth noting that while Mr Avery is seen in the film delivering this particular sermon from the comfort of his armchair, those who care about the countryside will have been out on the moors doing the hard work to protect habitats which are at the heart of rural communities.’
Duncan – being in a film does not make me ‘part of a group’ any more than you being filmed by the BBC made you part of a group, I haven’t claimed the film was commissioned by a national political party (though for all I know it may have been), I am not an extremist just because I don’t agree with you about everything and you’ll have to be a bit more specific about the misinformation and ill-informed rhetoric before I could possibly know what you are on about and correct you.
It must have been quite a good film for them to be so riled about it , but I haven’t watched it yet!
[registration_form]
I saw the film over the weekend and would say that whilst there were bits of it that were good, very good some bits were less so, however at no stage did I note anything that was misinformed or ill informed.
Perhaps Duncan Thomas, who often commits both of those sins would care to point out the errors. I’m sure he won’t but one has to ask.
Dear Duncan untrusted and unloved as a wild life cop at least by all but shooting estates and now he is with BASC constantly denying what he was supposed to investigate as a policeman.
The video seems to have been pulled.
Tell Duncan Toys’R Us do plenty of toys to restock his pram
Copyright claim by Fieldsport Television Limited? Well I suppose that is one way of having a film removed from Youtube.
I watched it too – nothing contentious from my point of view, but I didn’t promote it amongst the general populace because it was a bit long and slow.
These pro shooting numpties all sound exactly the same. Had a heated discussion with one on FB recently. The terms ‘extremist’, ‘ill informed’, ‘misinformation’ and ‘armchair naturalist’ were all used, apart from blaming the RSPB for everything.
It’s a strange view that somebody sitting in an armchair (or any chair come to that) necessarily knows less than those who happen to be out on a moor whilst they’re so seated. And are those poor folks out on the moor forever destined never to sit in an armchair? If not, and they’re fortunate enough to be ensconced in their favourite easy chair when Dr Avery is out on the moor (or elsewhere), does that mean he suddenly knows more than them? Nothing underscores Mr Duncan’s inability to think coherently than this risible comment.
In the BASC press release, BASC chairman Peter Glenser is quoted as saying: “The film fails to acknowledge that gamekeepers create outstanding habitat for many rare and endangered birds, which is why the majority of grouse moors are internationally protected.” Really? Are the majority of grouse moors internationally protected?
lizzybusy – not sure it’s most, but it might be. One of the reasons they are designated is because of their raptor populations – their former raptor populations now. It’s rather hypocritical to talk about how great these sites are when much of their conservation interest has been lost to wildlife crime! See this blog from yesterday https://markavery.info/2017/07/10/gulls/
Many grouse moors are part of the North or South Pennine SPAs notified for waders mainly golden plover. North Pennine and Bowland SPAs are also noted for Hen Harrier currently absent due to persecution they should have at least 24 pairs between them, North Pennines also noted for Peregrine, again largely absent.Other grouse moors are often SSSIs again mainly for waders.
Paul – thanks. Of course the SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) protection is UK recognition, SPA (Special Protection Area, EU Birds Directive)(and SAC, EU Habitats and Species Directive (Special Area of Conservation)) is EU recognition chosen by UK government.
You can easily check what species SSSI Moorland is ‘notified’ for. This link takes you to the Government Magic Map portal (I think the link I copied takes you to a grouse moor between Swaledale and Wensleydale?) http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?startTopic=Designations&activelayer=sssiIndex&query=HYPERLINK%3D%272000028%27
Move around the map and simply search Google for the name of the SSSI you want to find out about. When the relevant NE page opens up hit ‘view citation’ and Robert’s yer uncle.
Just a warning though, this can become addictive.
Martin WW – and sometimes the info is a bit vague, to be fair.
(Sorry my last post shouldn’t really have gone as a ‘reply’ to Mark, rather a point on its own. I’m sure both Mark and Paul are more than familiar with this information)
Mark,
If the film has been viewed, pulling from Youtube doesn’t remove it from archive. If you know anyone who is knowledgeable in this respect, they should be able to recover it.
It would be interesting to find out exactly why the video was removed. If it turns out Fieldsports TV made a false claim, then their own account could be terminated by Google.
Innocent – I suspect they made a valid claim.
Interesting that Field Sports Television claims copyright whilst the people it propagandises on behalf of are complaining about the cintent. If they owned it and had editorial control how come they don’t like it? Are they even more incompetent than I think they are?
I do hope the film-maker got paid (otherwise the copyright is his / hers) or else they might have a fight on their hands.
Simon – there is a portion of footage of grouse shooting that is the contentious issue.
“It is also worth noting that while Mr Avery is seen in the film delivering this particular sermon from the comfort of his armchair, those who care about the countryside will have been out on the moors doing the hard work to protect habitats which are at the heart of rural communities.”
Why is it relevant where ‘Mr Avery’ made his comments from? Does Mr Thomas never sit down himself? Where and how were his comments recorded? I refuse to take them seriously if it transpires they were written in his office!
Amusing little attempt at character assassination by association at the end:
“This filmmaker, Tom Wood, joins a long list including Russian hackers and African poachers, against whom we have issued copyright ‘strikes’.”
Oh, the restraint they showed in not adding paedophiles and people traffickers to that list! 🙂
In the first of an occasional series, here’s a photo of Bert Burnett, committee member of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and gamekeeper, in his armchair:
http://petercairns.photoshelter.com/image?&_bqG=1&_bqH=eJwzSXeqqAwoNslKsSwvDgkNLvdI9g93DjcxKQm1Mja3MjQwAGEg6RnvEuxsm56Ym5qdmlqQWqQGFoh39HOxLQGyQ4Ndg.I9XWxDQYpNPQJDnf2zInMLDdTiHZ1DbItTE4uSMwAeciFb&GI_ID=
Bloody armchair gamekeepers!
This is the same BASC which the Labour Party fawns over every year without fail at its party conference. Despite Comrade Corbyn and his pals making out they are so compassionate you will never find the Labour Party coming out with a policy against this awful business.Anyone who dares is immediately shut down, same with snaring.
Michael – you are busy with your comments. Welcome!
You’ve made three comments this evening and they are all about the Labour Party more than about the subjects of these blog posts. You’ll have to be a bit more subtle if you are not to look as though you might have your own agenda.
I dare say the Labour Party ‘fawned’ over the RSPB, NFU, and almost every other group that came to their party conference to talk to them – they may just have been being polite.
BASC and the RSPB, and a host of others, were almost always at ‘all’ major political party conferences each year. Partly because we in the RSPB were keen to work with politicians of all political parties, and partly because we could hardly only go to some without being accused of favouritism or bias.