This was the final instalment in a week long series of programmes, entitled the 'Big Fish Fight' on Channel 4, inspired by chef Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall, highlighting the wasteful practice of commercial fishing discards.

Around half of the fish caught in the North sea are thrown back. Most of these die.

The commercial fishing for specific species means other unwanted fish are caught, unwanted because there is either no consumer demand, or regulation prohibits fishermen from landing them.

The campaign aimed for 250,000 signatures on a petition calling for change in the Common Fisheries Policy, which is up for reform in 2012. By March they had in excess of 650,000 supporters.

It was television that highlighted the need for action in a balanced pragmatic way, considering the problem from all sides.

Having researched sharks over the previous twelve months, I paid particular attention to Gordon Ramsay's programme on shark finning.

The pre-transmission publicity featured Gordon detailing some dramatic moments during the making of the programme. It came across as perhaps a little too dramatic. So I started to make some enquires with the production company, and Gordon Ramsay's public relations firm.

Phone calls weren't returned, and when I eventually did manage to speak to junior members of the production team, answers to questions still weren't forthcoming. So I watched the broadcast, made some notes, and duly dropped them a line.

The programme was made by a production company called One Potato, formed by Ramsay, under the umbrella of Optomen Television.

Patricia Llewellyn
Managing Director
Optomen Television Ltd;

17th January 2011

Letter of Complaint re- 'Gordon Ramsay's Shark Bait'

Dear Patricia,

I appreciate that many of the names & organisations contained in this letter of complaint will be unfamiliar to you.

I have included these as examples to support the points I have raised, in the hope that my complaint might be taken both courteously and seriously, rather than treated as an inconvenience.

You could ask Sean at One Potato about this.

He will, I am sure, be able to clarify any subsequent questions you may have regarding anything I have referenced.

Hopefully if you do need to speak to Sean, or Steve Rosier, they won't persist in talking over the top of you.

Good luck with that.

Yours sincerely

H E Sawyer

Factual Errors / Balance

The Magic Number

From the Press Release of 8/12/10, (and the Channel 4 web site), under Gordon's Shark Bait it states;

"It's estimated that each year 100 million sharks are killed world-wide and Gordon wants to find out if the slaughter is really necessary."

Obviously having spoken to 'loads' of experts over a period of 'months' in conducting your research, (according to Sean), you will no doubt be aware that the annual catch estimate of 100 million for shark is known as the 'Magic Number'.

This should give you some indication of its unreliability.

The 100 million annual catch was originally published in 1997. That means that in spite of the advancement of fishing techniques, (and the alleged growth in consumption of shark fin soup at an estimated rate of 5% per year), the annual catch, according to your research, as featured on both web site & press release, has not changed over the last 13 years.

The acknowledged scientific work done on the annual catch by Dr. Shelley Clarke, (2006), estimated the catch based on trade data of actual shark fin.

Her calculations of 26 - 73 million are three to four times higher than the Fisheries Observer Agency figures, but are still way short of 'The Magic Number'.

"Once my estimates of shark kills based on the fin trade were published, I naively thought that the 100 million figure would go away. I think if my number had been higher than 100 million it would have, but since it was lower, some NGOs did not want to backtrack and suggest that things had improved.

The fact that 100 million is still commonly used is a clear lesson that impact matters more than facts in some cases. I have to say I have absolutely no insight into what has made people inflate the number over time."

It's worth considering that since the initial publication of 'The Magic Number', 13 years have elapsed with 100 million sharks caught each year. It therefore follows that 100 million could be considered a sustainable annual yield, with sharks taking between six to eighteen years to mature and reproduce.

If the 100 million annual catch had a dramatic impact on shark populations as some conservationists claim, it would be reasonable to expect that 'The Magic Number' you cited in press release and on web site was numerically, and commercially, impossible to sustain.

I personally don't see what the problem is with a figure between 26-73 million, given it's the best scientific calculation currently available, and was calculated by a woman facing far more intimidation than Gordon Ramsay had to put up with.

It's a figure recognised by responsible shark conservationists, such as the Shark Trust and PEW, who fund them, (although PEW only recognise the high end number, not the range - and are credited with coming up with the figure - which they didn't), and it is also acknowledged by people, like myself, who suspect some shark conservationists are inflating the annual catch to further their own ends.

Up to 73 million kills is still a large amount of sharks.

As I am sure you will be quick to point out, you used 'up to 70 million' as the annual catch figure in the programme trailer, & the programme itself.

So from the press release & the web site to the trailer & the programme, the annual catch figure 'improved' by some 30 million.

But what you then need to say, to put the overfishing of shark into context, is to explain that the situation has dramatically improved over the past 13 years, going down from 100 million to 70 million - which you didn't.

Unless of course everyone in shark conservation secretly believes the 1997 'Magic Number' figure was wrong in the first place, in which case why are some conservation groups still using it today? Bite - Back & Shark Savers off the top of my head. And you were using it in the press release. For a programme that's just been transmitted.

Balance

There was mention in the programme of the percentage of sharks of some species that have been lost in under a decade. All true. However if you read "Patterns and Ecosystem Consequences of Shark Declines in the Ocean", by Dr. Boris Worm of Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, you will find it contains some equally good news for sharks.

Of the species Dr. Worm evaluated globally, 4.1% are endangered, with 2.4% critically endangered, and shark decline is not universal across all species.

In the North Pacific for example, blue sharks have increased by 20%, relative to their 1970's levels, making them one of the most abundant species.

You didn't mention this in the programme. I understand why, but you weren't painting a particularly fair or balanced scientific picture.

Regulation

In the pre-transmission interview with the Mail Online, (5/1/2011), Gordon Ramsay is quoted as saying about the shark fin trade;

"It's a multibillion-dollar industry, completely unregulated"

This isn't exactly true. There is in fact lots of regulation; the problem is, enforcing it, as to be fair you recognised in the programme

Suggesting that the trade is 'unregulated' lends to the belief that no one in authority knows shark finning is happening, or if they do, they are unwilling to try to bring in regulation.

In the programme itself, Gordon Ramsay talks at a dock worker about regulations, (rather than talking to a dock work about regulations - a habit he shares with Sean. And Steve Rosier), but it is rather one-sided, given English is obviously not the dock worker's first language, so Gordon tends to ask leading questions, pushing his agenda.

He has absolutely no way of proving if the bags of fins 'match' the carcasses, but his own bias and frustration at not getting anyone to talk to him - or indeed take him seriously - leads him to encourage the viewer to the conclusion he has already made. (He should try being a member of the public trying to ask questions of his own production company. Pot & kettle etc.)

And when we do see sharks being landed with fins at a private dock, (showing that at the very least some regulations are being followed some of the time), because there is no illegality, Gordon says how 'sick' he feels, incessantly driving home how it's all about the fin - although the carcasses are clearly there - & how distressed he is, how relentless it is - how when they kill things back home, its somehow more noble & civilised.

I appreciate he's not a trained journalist - and that although he went out on a fact finding mission, he is biased, but that came across as petulant. It was like he couldn't accept that here at least, something was being done legally. That the regulations in this one instance had worked.

And whilst Sean might try to distance comments made in the Mail interview from the programme itself, that is rather disingenuous, given that Gordon Ramsay made the comments to the Mail promoting a programme where he is the talent, where the programme title carries his name, and where the show is made by a production company which he helped form, which he benefits from in terms of his brand, and the revenue stream it provides.

You indicate that you pay a great attention to detail, so I would assume this would include not only the programme, but also the pre-transmission publicity.

Sensationalism

One of the biggest problems facing shark conservationists is the media's obsession to depict the shark in a sensational, stereotypical style. This was not helped by the motion picture Jaws', which Gordon mentioned during the making of the programme - but why mention it?

It's like an albatross round the neck of shark conservation.

'Jaws' the film had nothing to do with the content of this programme, and whilst it was obviously a personal off-the-cuff remark it only has negative connotations for shark conservation with the general public.

This makes it harder to bridge the gap between the need to conserve and protect something the majority of the public fear. Sharks lack the appeal of a giant panda after all.

Shark conservation is therefore especially difficult in the wake of the recent shark attacks in the popular tourist resort of Sharm el-Sheik

And in the programme Gordon Ramsay even acknowledges that they are seen by some people as killers, so why the emotive language to reinforce this?

In the Press Release of 8/12/10, under Gordon's Shark Bait it states;

"To understand more about the kings of the ocean, Gordon plunges in to swim with the deadly bull shark in his scariest challenge to date.

Sharks are both terrifying and beautiful, but experts believe overfishing is threatening to drive a third of the world's open ocean shark species to extinction."

Obviously dramatic language has been used, but all that has happened is you have resorted to type; 'the deadly bull shark', 'his scariest challenge', and 'Sharks are both terrifying and beautiful'.

This is extremely unhelpful language from a programme trying to conserve sharks, although it might be argued that it is extremely helpful language from someone trying to hype and promote a programme, and to convince a wide variety of journalists to do likewise on their behalf.

Why does the bull shark have to be 'deadly' and described as 'lethal'?

Why does the challenge have to be his 'scariest' and 'most dangerous'?

Why does Gordon Ramsay have to approach shark encounters 'fearlessly'?

When I go diving with sharks I wouldn't consider myself as 'fearless' for doing so, & I suspect neither would most divers.

In the first part of the programme he talks about his daughter and how she wants to go diving with sharks with him.

And Gordon says, "If I come back". This is emotive and adds an element of danger, but is that really necessary to the content of the programme about conserving sharks?

What comes over in the programme is that Gordon Ramsay is fascinated by sharks - not terrified by them.

If the shark conservationists complain about how the tabloid media represent the shark, with sensational reporting, (and they do), then look at the sensational language you've used trying to conserve sharks.

Is it fair for conservationist to be able to use emotive, sensational, and dramatic language in their reporting - yet journalists writing about shark attacks should not, & are wrong to do so?

And there was a massive discrepancy between the Mail version of the dramatic events of making the programme and what we actually saw.

On the boat the fishermen showed him the bag of fins voluntarily - we didn't see Gordon dramatically diving under the boat to remove it from the keel.

'In a quiet moment I dived from the boat to swim with marlin. I swam under the keel and saw this sack tied to it. I opened it and it was full of shark fins, huge ones from 20-year-olds.'

There was no evidence of Gordon doing this whatsoever.

The minute I threw this bag on deck, everyone started screaming and shouting.

Or footage of this, or the dramatic reaction.

A black car with blacked out windows does not necessarily make the car 'dodgy' - as Gordon's mate Beckham will testify.

There was no evidence of the car trying to 'block them in', either.

In fact it appeared that people in the trade didn't want to talk to him throughout the film. No one was chasing him, or threatening him - they obviously just wanted to be left alone - which given their activities is understandable.

And something that "smells like petrol" isn't necessarily petrol, especially when it obviously wasn't an irritant he needed to wash off. From the Mail;

"When I got back downstairs, they tipped a barrel of petrol over me.'

Intending to set you alight?

'Yes.'

I didn't see any evidence of this. (the intent to set Mr Ramsay alight)

'A van pulled up and these seedy characters made us stand against a wall. The police came and advised us to leave the country. They said, "If you set one foot in there, they'll shoot you."'

I didn't see any evidence of this either. That of course doesn't mean it didn't happen, it's just that I'm employing the same level of scepticism as Gordon has for what he's told by people in the shark fin trade.

"The day before we got there, a Taiwanese crew landed a haul of hammerhead sharks – police searched the boat and found bails of cocaine."

Strangely this wasn't mentioned on camera during the finished edit of the programme, and there's also no mention of this incident being reported in the Tico Times, which covered both the attacks on both Gordon Ramsay and another environmentalist.

Although their reporting of the held at gunpoint/petrol attack of Gordon Ramsay came off the wire from the Mail article.

However Randall Arauz, who was on the programme, related a story about cocaine being transported with sharks to another journalist - but this story happened way back in 2009.

It just seems unusual that the Tico Times would report a story about attacks on people looking to expose the shark trade in Costa Rica, but not include the 'cocaine & shark' item that, had happened just the day before Gordon Ramsay arrived, which would have enhanced the story.

Cultural Bias

Based on the programme, people would naturally assume the Chinese consume shark fin soup and that the named countries involved are Costa Rica and Taiwan. (I think Mozambique was mentioned in print.

Yet strangely there was no mention that the EU fishing fleet provides a third of the shark fin sold in the Hong Kong market - the world's largest trading house for shark fin.

There's no mention that Britain fishes for shark fin to sell to the Chinese. As do the Spanish, French, Italians, or Portuguese.

The finger of blame seems to be pointing away from our shores and towards the developing world. Why would the programme fail to mention that our own fleet sells the product to the Chinese, as does the other member states of the EU, of which we are a member, for that matter? Or that the American fishing fleet also goes after shark fin?

Whilst I assume you would point to the developing world as proponents of finning, as opposed to home grown shark fishers, who obviously land sharks with fins attached, I would stress that a trophic cascade happens because sharks are fished out - with or without their fins.

If it is worth taking the moral high ground and being disgusted at the practices of poorer people overseas, shouldn't the same disgust be directed at those richer nations closer to home? Even if we are one?

What makes the developing world's shark catch so worthy of contempt, and ours so unworthy it is completely ignored by the programme?

The Financial Exploitation of Sharks

It is, as Gordon Ramsay says, a multibillion-dollar industry. And your programme has just added to that.

Obviously I have no idea how much a show like 'Gordon Ramsay's Shark Bait' makes after costs, but I would assume the show turns a profit. It would at the very least enhance Gordon Ramsay the brand.

I haven't bothered to do much research on this I admit, and I'm sure you'll know the details, but it was reported that All3Media believes