David BASC Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Dear All, please see here:https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/packham-misleading-the-public-with-latest-anti-shooting-attack-says-basc/ David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Well written David BUT i'd save the back slapping until u get that article or large extracts printed in the national tabloids or on news shows. It is all very well preaching to the converted, but its not the converted u need to reach out too. I'm usualy pretty supportive of basc but u can write the best most accurate article in the world but no one is going to read it if only on ur own site or odd mentions in shooting publications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted September 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 it has been sent ot the national and local press, I agree that's a key market we must keep getting our message over to, I was simply letting you know what's just gone out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Aye i know david, i sort of regretted posting after i did. Sorry know it's nowt to do with u. But the point is still valid, u do great work writing stuff like this and have a great website, BUT ur key market doesn't seem to want to know and rarely prints anything and even when running a reated story rsarely prints any statements/replies u might give them. I'd love to be wrong but i doubt very much if any of that see a newspaper, (unless its manipulated and used against us) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 (edited) Why is it that we are taking any note of what Packham has sent out? who actually reads it and takes any notice of it? Why aren't we countering this nonsense by bombarding the editors with our side of the story and not reacting to what they are doing. Why aren't the editors being invited to shoots or estates where conservation of wildlife is being protected for the overall good and directly showing our side of the story. We should be proactive on all fronts all of the time. Whenever I hear someone talking stupid about shooting I get straight in there and put the record straight and invite them to come and see our side of the coin. some you can persuade some you can't. ps After reading the basc link , it does look a bit too much basc says. Either they are real facts or just bascs opinion. The real facts need to be promoted and not what basc SAYS. or else you will get the >> well they would say that wouldn't they . That's if anyone actually i interested in reading it. Edited September 27, 2016 by fortune Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Why is it that we are taking any note of what Packham has sent out? who actually reads it and takes any notice of it? Why aren't we countering this nonsense by bombarding the editors with our side of the story and not reacting to what they are doing. Why aren't the editors being invited to shoots or estates where conservation of wildlife is being protected for the overall good and directly showing our side of the story. We should be proactive on all fronts all of the time. Whenever I hear someone talking stupid about shooting I get straight in there and put the record straight and invite them to come and see our side of the coin. some you can persuade some you can't. ps After reading the basc link , it does look a bit too much basc says. Either they are real facts or just bascs opinion. The real facts need to be promoted and not what basc SAYS. or else you will get the >> well they would say that wouldn't they . That's if anyone actually i interested in reading it. Sadly most of the population who think of themselves as countryside lovers read and believe. Agree with the rest of your points, especially joining in when we hear rubbish being spouted. We need to be on the offensive and promote the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rimfire4969 Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Dear All, please see here:https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/packham-misleading-the-public-with-latest-anti-shooting-attack-says-basc/ David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 But mibee we should be attacking packham far more strongly and exposing his lies, generlly we've sat on our hands for 30 odd years and seen shooting/ferreting/fieldsports go from being a normal hobbythsat most folk had no opinion on to 1 where we're constantly on the back foot trying to defend ourself's and mainly from complete lies. As the general public becomes more city bound and unattached from nature only going to get worse. Unless basc and other orgs really get in to the tabloids and main news outlets and social media these stories will never get out. nd really get into schools and universities esp journolism or biology/environmental degrees and doing wot fortune talked about educating them and field trips out to estates for there tutors I beyt if i mentioned the Musto, Purdey or silver lapwing awards most shooters wouldn't have a clue wot i was on about?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 (edited) This guy needs to be discredited, his claims need to be shown to be what they are.....the deliberate lies and inaccuracies of a protectionist zealot designed to misinform and mislead, and as a consequence, influence public opinion in favour of his covert anti shooting crusade! Packham is cynically using the massive personal exposure he has been given, and resultant "celebrity" status he has attained purely by virtue of his employment as a TV wildlife presenter, to maximise exposure through social and other media, in order to influence public opinion to support his own biased, protectionist, political agenda.....surely this must breach broadcasting guidelines? Or at the very least he should have declared a political bias/ interest with his employer? This guy needs to be discredited, his claims need to be shown to be what they are.....the deliberate lies and inaccuracies of a protectionist zealot designed to misinform and mislead, and as a consequence, influence public opinion in favour of his covert anti shooting crusade! Packham is cynically using the massive personal exposure he has been given, and resultant "celebrity" status he has attained purely by virtue of his employment as a TV wildlife presenter, to maximise exposure through social and other media, in order to influence public opinion to support his own biased, protectionist, political agenda.....surely this must breach broadcasting guidelines? Or at the very least he should have declared a political bias/interest with his employer? Dunno what happened there? But the post may bear repeating? Lol! Edited September 27, 2016 by panoma1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewluke Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 (edited) here's a list of birds on the RED list,not many there which are targeted by shooters so what's the reason for the decline in numbers??? This update shows that many bird species are increasingly at risk. Nineteen species were red-listed for the first time due to worsening population status, and one species (Merlin) was returned to the Red list. In most cases, this is due to evidence from monitoring schemes such as BTO/JNCC/RSPB Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) of increasingly severe declines in breeding populations (e.g. for Curlew, Nightingale, Pied Flycatcher, Whinchat Grey Wagtail and Mistle Thrush), surveys of scarce breeders such as Dotterel, Black Redstart and Slavonian Grebe, or by seabird monitoring (e.g. Kittiwake and ****). Puffin is red-listed due to its global assessment as Vulnerable. From green to red Two species moved directly from the Green to Red list: White-fronted Goose on account of the non-breeding population decline and Long-tailed Duck as a consequence of being classified as Globally Threatened. In addition to White-fronted Goose, three other species (Red-necked Grebe, Ringed Plover and Pochard) are red-listed for the first time due to increasingly marked declines in wintering populations, the latter also classified globally as Vulnerable. Woodcock joins the Red List, as a consequence of severe declines in breeding range. These changes increase the Red List to 67 species, more than 25% of all those assessed. https://www.bto.org/science/monitoring/psob Edited September 27, 2016 by andrewluke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Wouldn't it be more logical to ask Packham to present the evidence for his claims? Where is he getting his info' from; is he plucking it from fresh air? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveshoots Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Well said Scully take a drink of that pint some anti or other is giving him advice on this he can't be coming up with all this rubbish on his own can he?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Wouldn't it be more logical to ask Packham to present the evidence for his claims? Where is he getting his info' from; is he plucking it from fresh air? I was inferring this in my posting #9......but you put it more directly! Lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Wouldn't it be more logical to ask Packham to present the evidence for his claims? Where is he getting his info' from; is he plucking it from fresh air? Hopefully he, and/or the other anti shooting zealots involved, will be required to repeat their allegations, reveal their sources and present the evidence to substantiate their claims regarding moorland management, predator control, driven grouse shooting etc, at the upcoming parliamentary hearing they secured via the petition! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Hopefully he, and/or the other anti shooting zealots involved, will be required to repeat their allegations, reveal their sources and present the evidence to substantiate their claims regarding moorland management, predator control, driven grouse shooting etc, at the upcoming parliamentary hearing they secured via the petition! Yes, it would be nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDog Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 Packham does not need evidence, he has the media in his hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted September 27, 2016 Report Share Posted September 27, 2016 (edited) Hopefully he, and/or the other anti shooting zealots involved, will be required to repeat their allegations, reveal their sources and present the evidence to substantiate their claims regarding moorland management, predator control, driven grouse shooting etc, at the upcoming parliamentary hearing they secured via the petition! That isn't how this works? The media never lets the truth get in the way of a good story? The antis just throw loads of misinformation into the media cloud knowing full well that the general public are too lethargic to seek out the real facts? Showing just the same lethargy that most sports people/organisations can't decide to come together to present a sensible unified front? Not much good expecting our illustrious politicos to take a reasoned approach due to the way the system allows tampering behind closed doors? It's likely to end badly? Edited September 27, 2016 by old man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.