John Burton is one of the most experienced and free-thinking of British conservationists. He was a founder and the first chief executive of the World Land Trust. John blogs here.
Robin Page has long been known for his outspoken opinions, and very often, he writes quite a lot of sense. Unfortunately, he also writes quite a lot that is ill informed, and occasionally worse. A good example of this contradictory mixture is here. In particular he claims to be a voice on behalf of ‘country people’. I am not quite sure what he means by country people – a bit like indigenous people, it is something rarely defined and in fact probably impossible to define. The overwhelming number of inhabitants of rural England, like me, do not actually work on the land. In fact as a country dweller, living in rural Suffolk for over 40 years, I can make a few statements of basic facts.
- Very few country people actually farm, or gain a direct living from the land.
- The majority of people who shoot pheasants would not normally be defined as ‘country people
- Pheasants are not ‘wildlife’, they are mostly captive bred for shooting.
- Hunting with hounds is not universally supported by those living in the country.
- Hunting with hounds can cause significant stress to livestock, pet dogs, etc., as the hounds are often difficult (impossible) to control.
- There is a direct and demonstrable connection between illegal killing of protected birds (as well as a wide range of other wildlife), and the rearing and breeding of gamebirds.
And just because something is ‘traditional’ is not a justification for its continuance. Wife beating, incest and various other activities were ‘traditional’ in rural England but…..
[registration_form]
I totally agree, John. Here’s a recent exchange I had with a delightful “countryman” on the “RSPB love nature” facebook page. N.B. the reference to “tiddles” comes from a comment to which I wasn’t referring to.
“Would be a lot more song birds if there wasn’t so many RAPTORS”
“Yet another post totally unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.”
” I suppose you have evidence to the quantery! !!!! Like tiddles wouldn’t do that and raptors only catch wood pigeons not songbirds.”
” Not quite sure what “quantery” means. Perhaps when you’ve looked at these links, you might consult a dictionary as well.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/…/4YFJT1PK3R1AV59K_265…
https://www.bto.org/…/are-predators-blame-songbird…
I also suggest a look here…
https://www.bto.org/about-birds/birdtrends/2016
You’ll find that many of the species most commonly preyed on by Sparrowhawks in particular actually show stable or increasing UK populations.
So, despite the fact that no scientific evidence exists to support your half-baked theory, you post a comment on a page that’s followed by many people who have actually bothered to take the time to learn something about the function of ecosytems and population dynamics. Who, exactly are you trying to kid? Those of us who are genuinely concerned with the state of our natural heritage have been challenging this same tired, discredited drivel for decades, and don’t base their ideas on what they might read in the Daily Mail.”
” I don’t need anyone to tell me about country affairs. As I live in the country (do you) and always have. Tipical of you pick up on a spelling. Still say you ain’t got a clue about country ways.you or RSPB total nons. So you take your not even half baked idea’s and you no were the sun don’t shine. Dick”
“Aah the good old “country ways” chestnut. And resorting to insults like a spoilt kid who can’t get his way. What an educated, well thought out response. That’ll really convince the readers. It seems your knowledge of “the countryside” is about as extensive as that of the English language.”
“Fuckup off dickhead you avnt got a clue”
” You’d go down a storm at the Oxford Union!”
The masked slipped there. What an unpleasant little man he must be. Well done for standing your ground.
If that’s the quality of debate we can expect from the ‘country affairs’ lobby there is little to fear. There are not all as stupid and offensive as that, however.
‘Quantery’ is easily understood as ‘quantify’ in this context.
Surely jaw jaw rather than war war? And on a lesser note, avoiding the possibility of becoming a hostage to fortune is very wise – we all screw up on spelling, grammar and meaning from time to time.
On this patch, 30 years of CBC data show that many common prey-to-raptor song bird species are doing fine despite plenty of Sparrow Hawks and uncontrolled corvids. So I agree with you.
I think he actually meant “contrary”, Murray. However, I really didn’t give a toss about his spelling and grammar (even though he managed to invent a new word, and continued with his illiteracy throughout). My beef with these idiots is that they continually seek to mislead the less informed visitors to such pages, and then hide behind this “countryside” crap when their ignorance/lies are corrected. Some say, “don’t feed trolls”, but I believe they should be challenged and exposed for what they are at every opportunity. And, in this case, the individual involved deserved all the ridicule he received. Another “country gent” continually trolled the same page, parroting that the RSPB “kill thousands of Hedgehogs”. When I posted a link to the actual SNH Hedgehog Removal Project, which explained the full story, I received a thinly veiled death threat, informing me that “your number is up, and many more like you”. He’s been banned by the page admins now (interestingly, the facebook moderators saw nothing wrong with his post), but this illustrates the mentality we’re dealing with here. 😉
Thanks Coops. Yes, of course ‘contrary’ — silly me.
But I get the impression that this person is not a troll. He therefore needs to be engaged with if possible.
If you met him in the street, and this discussion started up, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t mock his neologisms or quirky articulation.
I imagine you might even be able to bring him round a bit. It’s always worth a try.
Agree, trapping that genuine troll – good work by you.
Excellent analysis. I’ve lived almost my entire life ‘in the country’. I indulge in ‘country pursuits’ – I walk, watch wildlife, count wildlife, photograph wildlife, I garden (badly), I have restored a field from ruin, laid a hedge, built fences and kept sheep. But I’ve never ‘hunted’ and I’ve never shot game. Never will. What I don’t understand is why these people believe that the former list of pursuits needs to be subordinate to hunting and shooting and is somehow less ‘country’.
It isn’t and it’s time that the greater proportion of country dwellers that don’t shoot and hunt rose up and told them to stop and shut the #### up.
Well said, it’s actually the other way round – huntin, fishin n shootin should be subordinate to real agriculture and the activities you mention which are proper country pursuits – genuinely needed and enjoyed by more whilst truly appreciating wildlife and countryside without wrecking it. I get annoyed when animals that are used for ‘sporting’ purposes such as pheasant and stocked carp get labelled livestock – a bit insulting towards real food production.
Excellent piece …… Like many others, I don’t need to justify my rural existence by shooting, poisoning or trapping anything that moves …… nor will I make excuses for those that do ……. Country dwellers are often seen as the weakest in society because they have no need to follow pursuits where psychological torture precedes death, and, as in Coop’s case, responses result in derogatory remarks of a person’s knowledge and capabilities.
Laying a hedge is one of the finest, most-satisfying moments of my life!
I agree 100% with John but I think that many of us (long including myself) been missing an equally important point. We base our opinions on evidence, at least we aspire to. RSPB produces great reams of evidence. None of which matters a jot to decision makers or the self appointed representatives of self defined “country people”.
Climate change, evolution, drugs policy, badgers, magpies and sparrowhawks. Most people do not base their views on evidence, not least because they don’t understand what evidence is. They follow their gut, what they have always known, maybe a little casual observation, and their own life experiences. Their own sense of what their peers regard as correct and what their enemies dislike.
It’s as much about tribal affinity and uninformed and perhaps unconscious self interest as anything else, combined with an aversion to change and challenge that most of us have if we’re honest. Its just that some of us at least try to be objective, while others see that as leftist weakness.
That’s why there is still a political debate about climate change long after the science was settled. Hell, in the US most people aren’t even convinced by evolution though they don’t seem to have a problem with gravity, which we don’t understand nearly as well.
For most people evidence is what you select to justify the opinions you already hold. Debates based on evidence won’t win over people with that understanding of the world – because they will assume that we’ve cherry picked our dodgy “facts” too. Evidence and fact are now widely thought of as subjective.
However we advance this debate – and Mark’s been doing a fabulous job for DGS – evidence isn’t going to win it for us. Appeals to self interest, emotive references to flooded households, the impact on the economy – these give a context in which actual evidence might play a supporting role.
I have two brothers who are farmers. I have spent more than 30 years working in and around nature conservation. Nothing will ever convince them that I know more about wildlife than they do – even though I have no problem at all respecting their knowledge of farming. I bet there are a lot of climate change scientists who would say the same about economists they know, if they know any.
This isn’t just about who is a “country person”.
Many thanks indeed for this follow up to my blog. Adds some very relevant points. And of course the ill informed response defending ‘country pursuits’ merely reinforce what I wrote. It is indeed an accolade to be ranted at by such ill-informed critics.
I personally do not have any issue with those hunt’n and fish’n, provided it is done in a well managed, well monitored way. Shooting wood pigeon (no lead shot) fine. Shooting snipe – absolutely no. Releasing 40 million pheasants into the wild No go. Rampaging across the countryside on horseback with a pack of almost uncontrolled dogs chasing a hare or fox for fun – an outdated and pointless ‘tradition. Etc.
Perfectly articulated, accurate and succinct. Best blog I’ve seen in a while……
Excellent piece. The only thing I could possibly disagree with is that I don’t think Robin Page makes much sense very often.
Country people are a varied bunch, but among the ‘real countrymen’ there are quite a high proportion of thoroughly unpleasant individuals. Conservation, predators and recreational killing are just three of the issues on which I strongly disagree with them – their attitudes to women, gay people, foreigners, the disabled, people less fortunate than themselves and anyone who disagrees with them are some of the other things I am regularly repelled by.
I suspect their numbers are dwindling, but not quickly enough for my liking.
Mr Page definitely does NOT represent me and from the various criteria offered to define a country-person I would qualify.
Like too many in society today, he shouts loud. Shame that what eminates from the noise if sadly oft nonesense.
Well said John & others.
Excellent blog, but I regret clicking the link to Robin Page’s blog – he just sounds like the drunk at the bar you try to avoid. The blog is so easy to rip apart. My favourite statement is “the destruction of whole eco systems for the production of soya and other fancy food for an assortment of high principled but non-thinking vegetarians and vegans etc.” It could so easily be re-written as “….for an assortment of non-principled and non-thinking carnivores who eat cows fed on soya beans”. And don’t get me started on his bala-clad Chris Packham rant based on hearsay from a bloke in Yorkshire!
Nor would any thinking person of principle use industrial or edible oils, soaps or biodiesel produced from soybean, or eat eggs, poultry meat or pigmeat that account for over 70% of soya use in animal feeds, or eat edamame or tofu more than once.
I gave up reading his trash years ago …… my recovery is progressing well ……
Agreed, apart from Robin Page “very often [writing] quite a lot of sense”.
I am not defending the use of defamatory or insulting language, but for one side to claim some sort of moral high ground on this is ridiculous. I spend my life creating habitat for all sorts of wildlife, including gamebirds, songbirds, deer, bees, butterflies, etc and yes I occasionally go shooting. I enjoy eating venison, rabbit, partridge and pheasant, I enjoy the “fieldcraft” of stalking, flighting pigeons, etc and I make no apology for that, perhaps I am just honest that I still have the hunter-gatherer instinct. I also accept that I can and do undertake many of these activities with a camera and binoculars rather than a gun, I enjoy both.
I realise that some people will never accept that this is how a civilised person can behave in 21st Century Britain, but I clearly see how I behave as harvesting from nature just as generations have done before me. I am, as the vast majority of the population are, an Omnivore who enjoys meat. I buy local produce when I can and enjoy knowing that a piece of Venison that I am eating came from a healthy wild population.
Unlike many other contributors to this post I am not telling other people how to behave or what to think, this is simply my view. We are all different and the stereotyping in this thread is pretty shocking. I 100% accept that there are cases of illegality and bad practice in the fieldsports sector, just like every other sector of society and I do get frustrated when offenders are caught, prosecuted and then dealt with as if they have stolen a bag of sweets from a corner shop. They tarnish the great many “Country People” who are doing fantastic work for wildlife even if they choose to hunt, fish or shoot.
I tried to make clear that people who live in the countryside (of which I am one) are a varied lot, and that we are all a mixture of attributes, some admirable, some less so. Stereotyping is always an over-simplification of reality, but it is often possible to identify common traits that apply to many (but rarely all) members of a given group.
However, I think that killing and harming animals for pleasure is not something to be proud of, and I do claim some sort of moral high ground in that regard. We all have inherited primitive instincts (perhaps resolving conflicts by fisticuffs is one), but many people try to suppress these urges rather than elevating them to virtues.
And I think it is at best self-delusional, at worst totally disingenuous, to describe modern gamebird shooting as ‘harvesting from nature just as generations have done before me’ when tens of millions of pheasants and partridges every year are now reared in captivity and then released to be shot for recreation.
Well said Andy.
At last a well- reasoned response. Thank you
I lived for many years in a small southern English village, and retain close family links in the area. Suburbanisation of villages (weekend cottages, commuters) has been gradually removing the soul, together with most facilities, from many such settlements for over 50 years. I can appreciate why less mobile rural families may feel left behind, and perhaps this can lead to emotional and defensive hankering after imagined country life icons such as field sports, as well as the gleeful rural Brexit vote. In all my time living and going through school in the area I never met anyone involved with ‘country sports’, there was a local hunt, generally regarded as a quaint curiosity. To the list of basic country life facts in the blog I would add (noticed by family members returned to the area) a worrying disregard of drink driving laws, which perhaps share the same gross lack of enforcement as the bird protection laws.
John,best blog ever,a pity though to pick one particular blog of Robin Page which he was particularly eccentric.
He has done some very good things and his idea of breeding Turtle Doves in captivity and feeding here in the winter in the hope they would stay must at least be worth exploring as he says RSPB have bred Corncrake and for sure Turtle Doves are on the way to extinction in UK unless more is done.
Robin Page in one of his articles derided anglers that blamed otters for declining fish stocks, he pointed the finger at them instead for removing the cover fish need to make fishing a bit easier. I was gobsmacked by this because it was quite a brave and accurate comment at odds with his usual predator bashing, pretty much the last person I would have expected to come out with that. All in all I think he has done more harm than good which is a great shame and his anti ‘townie’ rants are just ludicrous.
Given the pressure on nature and in particular rural land use, from upland moors to the agribusiness infested fenlands, in an ideal world all those with a close interest ranging from GWCT to Mark would get around the table and work on solutions in a civilized manner. And I would invite Robin Page to that table for I feel he has some sense to say and, more importantly is not just pontificating (there’s plenty around who do that) but “walking the walk” through his Countryside Restoration Trust. http://www.countrysiderestorationtrust.com/ (No, I am not a member).
The trouble with Mr Page is that the sense he is capable of speaking is now regularly smothered in such bile that I just consider it all a sad waste. Here is a case in point where I took him to task over his crass dismissal of the RSPB Big Garden Birdwatch. I followed it up by forwarding some of the RSPB’s tweets showing children getting involved in the schools’ birdwatch to prove how wrong he was about it – urban youngsters being “ideologically enforced” to look at nature through the lens of the RSPB – disgraceful! Unfortunately he never seems to have the courtesy of sending a reply. https://skylarkwarrior.wordpress.com/2017/01/19/birding-beating-and-jumping/
As I say it’s a shame the bitterness drowns out the value of what he is expressing at times. Getting booted off the Telegraph seems to have really upset him!
I support Mr Pages Countryside Restoration Trust,if more land was farmed to his ideals we would all be better for it.
Trapit – you must be joking!
Why the put down Mark? Have I missed some context here?
Yes all good, the usual rediculous comments about raptors killing song birds and so on, we would be better off with a ‘chav’ cull.
I really think you need to read Owen Jones’ book “Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class” before making such an absurd nd unpleasant statement.
Good thought. Good book.
I was purely commenting on the standard of farming the trust aspires to, and is beginning to achieve, on its properties.
I wasn’t aware that that wife beating, incest and “various other activities” were the exclusive preserve of the rural population, or that they were ‘traditional’. Is there any evidence for these assertions or are they urban myths?
It’s difficult not to conclude that the attitude that seems prevalent in some quarters, that simply by virtue of living in the countryside, you have a unchallengeable insight into wildlife which is immune from, and superior to, any number of scientific studies is a subset of the Dunning–Kruger effect. That is a form of cognitive bias, whereby persons with a modest knowledge of wildlife suffer the illusion of superior understanding by wrongly confusing their cognitive ability/knowledge in such matters to be greater than it actually is simply by living in the countryside.
Nicely put, John.
Also, regarding the recent spate of illegal persecution incidents in North Yorkshire, guess where the intellectually challenged individual I’ve referred to earlier claims to reside?
‘country people’
About a month ago I went to see a livestock farmer in the West Mids, after a mutual contact had suggested he took some advice on the management of a 12-acre woodland he owned, which formed part of a wider woodland network and was located on the edge of his farm.
He was a third generation farmer, and was born and raised on the 120-acre family owned farm, and a very pleasant and amiable chap – and clearly a good farmer. He wasnt particularly forthcoming with information about the wood, for reasons that later became clear.
I hadn’t had any time to do any background research prior to my visit, so I was delighted to discover it was indeed clearly ANSW woodland with a luxuriant ground flora teeming with ancient woodland indicators, and no non-native species. The walk around just got better when I recorded not only some ancienr small-leaved lime coppice stools, but also five native black poplars growing on some damp flushed areas! I was well and truly in my element by this stage and remarked to my host that the woodland was fantastic and that he must be really proud of it, when he informed me that was indeed actually the first time he had ever actually been in it! He had lived within half a mile of this wood for nearly 55 years of his life but had never been in it!
‘Not even as a child I asked?’
‘Not that I can I ever recall’ he said, ‘I perhaps wish I had now – nice isnt it?’
Sounds like a perfect gem. And it appears he hasn’t trashed it with pheasant rearing.
Was he surprised at the significance of your extraordinary ancient woodland indicator list?
A small farm with a farmer who talks and listens — more pluses.
I wonder what the corners of his fields have in store for you.
“Kruger effect. That is a form of cognitive bias, whereby persons with a modest knowledge of wildlife suffer the illusion of superior understanding by wrongly confusing their cognitive ability/knowledge in such matters to be greater than it actually is”
Swap “wildlife” for “farming” then liberally apply to all comment above ?
Robin Page implies that you have got to be a country man in order for your opinion on what goes on in the countryside to have any validity (e.g. “armchair naturalists”, “urban politicians and people who misinform their “followers” on social media”, “…British culture be outlawed by a large urban, uninformed majority…”, “the RSPB and its spin-doctors as the late arrivals in the wildlife conservation of the general countryside”.
The original post and the comments that follow it take issue with this view and counter with the (surely uncontroversial) view that not all country people are farmers and not all (including farmers and others closely associated with the industry) are supportive of hunting and shooting. It is Page who is claiming superior, exclusive knowledge and understanding, not the people commenting here. I can’t honestly see which comments you think imply the commenter has a deluded sense of his/her knowledge of farming.
If we follow the logic of Page’s view that only ‘true countrymen’ can comment legitimately on countryside issues then does this mean that country folk are not entitled to comment on ‘urban issues’? I am sure you would agree the idea is preposterous. You, I believe, are a farmer, but that does not preclude you from having – or expressing -informed views on, say, urban air quality.
I could have misunderstood but I took Julian’s comment to refer not to the original post but to widen the scope of the Dunning-Kruger distraction – whereby persons whose knowledge of farming having been gained perhaps from “Countryfile” or “Farming Today”, suffer the illusion of superior understanding by wrongly assessing their cognitive ability/knowledge in such matters to be greater than it actually is. Which would be spot on. But then again I could have misunderstood his intent.
There may very well be such people, Filbert, but Julian referred his comment quite specifically to “all comment above”. The people who made those comments may or may not suffer from DK syndrome but, if so, I don’t think it is manifest in any of the comments.
“There may very well be such people …”
… but I couldn’t possibly comment
“but I couldn’t possibly comment”
Well not again anyway 🙂
Filbert, yes spot on. Johnathon you might have subliminal DK ? I might have it as well. This is getting worrisome?
I assure myself that I don’t have DK but perhaps that is simply a symptom of the syndrome? Someone else will have to judge.
Do you think Robin Page is right to imply that those who live in towns cannot have a legitimate opinion about what goes on in the countryside?
The worrying thing is, of course, that if you do suffer from the DK effect then, almost by definition, you’d be the last to know. Hence if you’re utterly convinced it can’t be you then perhaps that’s good evidence that it actually is! 😉
Hi Johnathon
I think Robin Page has a wonderful nack of winding people up. I’ve never heard him say that but I sort of get what he’s saying. I’ve lived my life in a small corner of N Essex and been immersed in a society dominated by rural characters as a farmer. It’s hard to explain how dramatic a change I’ve seen in my life in who lives and works in the countryside; rural society now has none of the intricate web which woved itself into all aspects of the rural environment; even the remaining fam workers and gamekeepers don’t really have that deep understanding that came from a life born and bred in the countryside as were their parents and who knows how many generations before them. In the main that’s all been lost and most of the knowledge that went with it. On your question I just find the whole subject of who knows more town or country hardy worth a thought as to be frank we both know very little in comparison to what’s been lost.
I have a vivid memory of going to see really the last of that generation who was called Fred Hunt who was then doing a part time keeping job in his retirement having been a farm worker all his life. He was born in 1914 and for most if his life ploughed with horses and we were great friends even if I was only a boy ! Fred was sitting in his kitchen infront if his coal fired stove which was the only warm place in the cottage; he was plucking a pheasant for his supper that night and the feathers were all over the floor like snow. We sat and talked for ages and I always had to listen really hard as he had a thick North Essex accent which was almost Australian or East End which you never hear now. As I was leaving and getting back into the car it suddenly hit me in a wave of sadness that he was the last of his breed and once he was gone it would all just be a memory. He died a few months after that but I did get to see him again in hospital shortly before he died. I don’t think Fred was a rural myth as John Burton seems to think nor do I think that people who now live in the countryside who come from an urban background are incapable of having a link with the environment that they now live in. The difference is that Fred Hunt depended on the countryside for his existence and actually today none of us do.