The BBC’s Animal Husbandry programme is often criticised for its lack of evidence-based research on animal husbandries, which is sometimes used as a political weapon by animal rights activists to try to get the Government to introduce more restrictions.
But it has been criticised by the UK government for using some of the same techniques that animal rights groups have used in recent years to gain more control over farm animals.
In a new report published by the charity Campaign for Real Animal Husbands, we find the BBC programme was never designed to address the issue of animal husbanding, but instead was focused on using tactics of the animal rights movement to try and get animal welfare campaigners to give up their fight.
“This is a bit of a slap in the face to the vast majority of people who support animal husbandling, and is a complete misrepresentation of what we do, what we are and what we believe,” said Campaign for the Real Animal.
“We have been working with a range of animal welfare organisations for more than 10 years and have never been contacted by any government department that wanted to do anything about the practice.”
In this new report, we highlight some of those tactics used by the animal welfare movement to gain greater control over animal husbandings.
What we found The first attack to come up for discussion was the idea that the BBC could help people with animal husbandning issues.
“The BBC’s attitude towards animal husband-ship is, ‘Oh, that’s not important, that is a story that is not of concern to us’,” said campaign researcher and researcher at the University of Bristol, Professor Simon Peeters.
“It’s not an issue that we think is relevant to the public.”
“They just ignore it,” said the BBC animal husbandrer, who insisted that the programme was “very, very careful to be very careful” about what it was saying.
“They were not trying to tell us we should stop using animals in production.
They were trying to persuade us that we should just not do that.”
However, this was not an easy position to take, because the BBC did not want to be seen as endorsing the animal husbandliness of animal producers.
“I think that the way that they handled the issue was very poor.
They should have told us that they were not going to stop using animal husbandlings because they thought that that would be helpful, but they were very reluctant to tell people,” said Peeters, who added that he felt that the campaign was “quite misleading” to the general public.
“In the end, they are doing this to scare people.
I think that’s what they’re doing.”
The BBC did try to change the subject, however.
“There’s a very short cut to the point that the audience becomes aware that animal husbandbing is a really important issue,” said Professor Peeters when asked why the programme’s focus was on using animal rights tactics.
“And the audience then says, ‘Well, I don’t know how to get rid of them, but maybe I can try using them as a weapon’.” But it didn’t work, as animal husbanders were not convinced.
“When they came to the end of the programme they had no idea what they were talking about, they were just getting frustrated and they were saying, ‘We’ve been using this tactic for years and years and never had anything done about it’.” The next attack came when the BBC used tactics of animal rights group to try for government regulation.
“You could see that the first two people they tried to talk to were the BBC and the Humane Society of the United States [HSUS], which is a very powerful organisation,” said campaign coordinator for the charity, Dr Andrew Dutton.
“Both of them were saying that they had never had an animal-based product on the market and that it’s all about them.”
“That’s the first thing they said to me,” said Dutton, who was one of the first people to raise the issue with the BBC.
“Then they talked to a group of people, which I don, at that point, didn’t know, and I said to them, ‘Do you have any evidence?’
And they were like, ‘No, but we’re very keen to get your views’.” The second attack came after the BBC went to the trouble of contacting people directly, which was done to try get people to come out in support of the organisation.
“So it was very disappointing to me when I saw them talking to people who had no interest in it,” he said.
The final attack came at the end when the animals were taken to a farm in North Carolina, which led to a confrontation between the”
As you get to the last part of that story, it becomes very clear that they are making it up.”
The final attack came at the end when the animals were taken to a farm in North Carolina, which led to a confrontation between the