Norman McCanch was born in South Wales and trained as a taxidermist, then worked as a Lighthouse Keeper with Trinity House, before studying Graphics and Illustration in Kent. He subsequently worked in a boat yard, in the Agricultural supply industry, as a part-time gamekeeper and as warden of two different Bird Observatories. He worked on temporary posts for the Environment Agency and Hop Research International, before gaining a BSc in Environmental Biology from the Open University. He completed a PhD in Avian Ecology as a part-time, external student with the University of Liverpool, based on research carried out during four years as warden on the Calf of Man. He finally ended his working career teaching Biology and Chemistry at a Grammar school in Kent and is now retired, while still birding, drawing, gardening and painting.
Real country people
We live in an aspirational society, where many people seek to align themselves with particular groups or identities as a way of justifying or defining their life choices. This can lead to some odd juxtapositions; the recent petition in support of driven grouse shooting (an aspirational sport if ever there was one) showed some of its highest concentrations of signatories in some of the most affluent and exclusive London boroughs and constituencies. Presumably these people identify themselves as “real country people”, but are they, really?
Does wearing a particular brand of clothing, driving a certain type of vehicle, owning a particular breed of dog or owning a big chunk of the countryside really make you a country person, especially if by choice you spend a good deal of your time away from the rural environment?
I would say, well, not necessarily. Field sports, especially shooting, are one of the real bastions of this aspirational trend; over the past fifty years of my experience increasing numbers of people have taken up ‘Field Sports’, principally shooting, with an attitude that rather implies it gives them rural credibility, when they are largely weekend refugees from urban or suburban environments.
It is also fair to say that the activity formally known as ‘birdwatching’ has experienced a similar shift in recent years, so that it now largely involves large numbers of people armed with digital cameras but no binoculars or appreciable field skills, dependent on others to find and identify their chosen targets.
So, who are these ‘real country people’ we hear so much about? Opinions differ, but away from quaint rustic stereotypes my view is that they are people who work and live in the rural environment, mostly, but not exclusively, in land-based industries. That gives us a pretty wide catchment which is exactly as it should be. Within that cohort are people with varying degrees of knowledge about nature, farming, business, gardening, machinery and diverse livestock, with a fair smattering of older skills such as coppicing, hedging and ditching, pruning, rabbit catching and general farm labouring.
Rural communities are necessarily diverse, made up of all kinds of people doing all kinds of different things, bound together by the support of the communities they comprise, mostly derived from elements of kinship and friendship. These days it hardly seems relevant to expect people to have been born locally ( I was not born anywhere near my adopted village), given the tendency for developments in rural areas and the mobility of specialist labour, but it is a reality that many of the people moving into new builds in rural villages have a work, business or social focus away from the community where they sleep, ‘dormitory villages’ in effect, with a mass exodus before dawn of cars heading for the nearest railway station, town or city.
Not surprisingly, given the decline in local employment, the generally lower levels of wages and higher living costs in rural areas there is often a bit of a social gulf between these separate groups in the community, not helped by a certain attitude of distrust manifest on both sides.
If this all makes it somewhat problematic to recognise ‘real country people’, we can pick up a few clues to recognise ‘pretend country people’, based largely on my own observations and, sadly, my prejudices!
First, clothing; we all recognise a number of brands which feature very prominently in those very glossy magazines aimed at a certain demographic. Suffice it to say that when I bought my most recent waxed jacket (a good while ago) I could have purchased five of my chosen brand for the price of just one of the brand with the greatest social caché! Without casting aspersions on my friends, most of them would not win the ‘best dressed man (or woman) in the village contest. Clothing that is functional and comfortable tends to develop a certain careworn, lived in look and cannot be described as either smart or stylish.
The same can be said for vehicles; new, clean or shiny tend not to describe any of our regular vehicles, and we usually only have just the one per household . Covered in mud, odd scratches or dents, the residues of straw bales and poultry or stock food in the back, spare wellies, spare waterproofs, an assortment of tools which would make an urban policeman bristle and possibly a flask of tea (or coffee) and a sandwich are in no way unexpected contents.
Fat dogs, especially Labradors; most of the dogs I know are working, or retired from working, and usually demonstrate a certain devil-may-care independence of spirit which only their owner/ boss could love. They have bad habits, like rolling in smelly things, but can generally be relied upon to do what is needed, most of the time. Some of them are a good deal cleverer than their owners, but they are never fat.
They generally have a ‘little man’ who comes in to do all the more irksome jobs in the garden, so that they can bask in the reflected glory when their friends come around for lunch. This especially helps when they simply have to answer the call of Gstadd, Monaco or Martinique and leave the tedium of a rural winter far behind.
They do tend to favour impossibly luxuriant garden furniture, and favour gardens which are ‘rooms’, like at the Chelsea Flower Show, preferably without the attentions of rabbits, foxes, badgers, deer, squirrels, or indeed, anything else that does not pay its way.
A real oddity, a concession to the rural idyll, is a slight tendency to keep hens for the freshest of eggs. No problem with that, but these hens tend to live in something resembling a plastic version of the International Space Station and general maintenance devolves on the ‘little man’, until they realise that hens in the countryside generally come with rats so they have to go!! (I have acquired a number of hens this way in the past).
Finally, an absolute clincher, the Alpaca Factor. I still have little idea what use these animals can be in an English country context; not enough wool to make a scarf, far too expensive to ever eat, and decidedly odd to look at with a rather sneering and supercilious demeanour which reinforces my inherent sense of inferiority. I have to admit that I do not have much experience of these minor camelids, but I did know of a farmer who had a couple of guard- llamas which did a good job of seeing off foxes and the occasional sheep-worrying dog or trespasser, perhaps alpacas are similar?
I could go on………..
[registration_form]
Not a countryside dweller at present, but definitely fit the ‘not even close to stylish, single vehicle rather the worse for wear, but useful for carrying things (old Volvo wagon)’ and, being a gardener for work, my own garden is often ever-so-slightly on the edge of total ruin… The only ‘little person’ doing the work around here is the one facing me in the mirror. Should fit in quite well when finally make that move to a rural situation… now, where did that Labrador go????
Great stuff, Jo! I prefer to describe my garden as ‘ramshackle’ or ‘eco-friendly’, although on the edge of ruin is not a bad summation! Good luck finding your place in the country!!
‘Hens in the garden’! Do you mean RATS? Because that is what they cause just like bird feeding. So out with the poison and to hell with ‘secondary poisoning’ finishing off all the Barn Owls, Red Kites, Polecats and many more. Amazing that any one has any cats left as these poisons cause the big C in cats and dogs and blood tests show rat poison in humans now!
Hi John, The rats are there whether there are chickens or bird feeders or not, also no end of them in town if you keep your eyes open! Having worked in the agrochemical industry in the past, and been at the sharp end of a ‘rat eradication programme’ on a seabird island I am no fan of rodenticides in any form. Three of my cats have been consummate ratters in the garden over the years, I run a rat-trap trap line around the hen run and garden year round ( caught 4 in the last week) and also shoot them in the hen run with my air rifle. I manage to keep on top of them ,but any I don’t get are available ( poison free) to local owls and foxes, it is all about keeping on top of them. Sadly, too many people living in the rural environment reach for the rat poison first!
Norman – there is rat proofing fencing which you could use to prevent the rats gaining access to the hen food. It is quite thick and narrow but is tried and tested. It’s stopped my ratty friends from gaining access to my rescued baby hedgehogs’ food.
The only thing worse for wildlife than rodenticides are cats. Cats are indoor pets, they are not good for the outdoors and the outdoors are not good for them.
I feed the birds, especially at this time of year. Unfortunately, foxes, as well as stoats, weasels, just about everything that moves on four legs and might predate rats, is persecuted mercilessly where I live. No doubt landowners, game keepers, go through a fair amount of poison to keep down the rat pop.
John,rat poison in humans,surprise surprise lots of us take it for thinning the blood for several ailments.No wonder tests show it in humans.
Written in your usual trenchant style, I see Norman. It hardly fits with the image of forelock tugging countryfolk that I suspect some wealthier huntin’ types would have them aspire to. I doubt too whether many genuine rustics have an artist’s studio in their garden either even if it’s heavily disguised as a large, ramshackle garden shed.
Thanks JC!! As you well know the ‘studio’ is equally ramshackle on the inside!
… and don’t forget the beards Dr. McCanch, real beards, like yours (and mine)! Not these silly bits of stubble that look like the third day of getting up late without time for a shave. A birding friend just grows his for winter, one day he’s clean shaven (properly) and the next time you meet it’s fully fledged and winter’s here. Usually comes off in early March, hope he hasn’t made a premature decision this year!
Good analysis, Norman.
As the 78 yearold son of a mixed livestock and arable tenant farmer with Church of England landlords, I recognise your apt and telling descriptions of (non) Country Types.
And most of these people will not have an ounce of your experience and expertise in the many varied fields of your long professional life.
Enjoy your retirement!
As a rural person born and bred yet an urban dweller for the last 30 odd years, I completely agree with all that is written. I would add one note, as a birdwatcher self-taught on the coast, wetlands and woods of East Kent, about those seeking peace and quiet. I am always quietly amused when people move down to the country from SE London. I see them in a pub in Greenwich a few months later. I ask how is the peace and quiet of the country idyll. In the majority of cases the reply is: ‘Peace and quiet! It’s bloody noisy. The birds keep us awake all bloody night with there singing.’ Ah the tranquil rural idyll of Chelsea ‘tractors’, barbers and wellies spoilt but by…nature. Might be why they take up Field sports!
The concept of the ‘real countryman’ was invented by apologists for the shooting industry as a rather feeble argument to discredit its critics and particularly anyone objecting to the shooting of any predators considered as ‘pests’ by gamekeepers. The argument goes that the RSPB, its supporters and other conservationists are all ‘townies’ with no understanding of the countryside and how it works or of the (claimed) need to maintain ‘balance’ in nature (i.e. by eliminating birds of prey). It is, of course, utter tosh and we should not give it the time of day. There are strong arguments based on ecological principles, conservation principles, ethics and the law, against many of the practices underpinning shooting and the validity of these arguments is not in any way related to where a person expressing them happens to have been born, resides or earns his or her crust. After all, one doesn’t need to be an inhabitant of a Japanese coastal community to hold a valid opinion on whether or not it is acceptable to hunt whales!
It seems to me therefore to be a pointless distraction to get into a debate as to what is or isn’t a true countryman and whether their dogs are thin or fat and their cars scruffy or shiny. As Norman points out there is a great diversity of people living in the countryside and this is true with respect to their wealth and means, the way they earn their livings and to their attitudes to ‘countryside issues’ such as hunting and shooting. Some are supporters of the latter, some are opponents and probably (I’m guessing) many don’t have strong views one way or another. Rather than arguing about the correct dress-code for country people we should be seeking to persuade as many people as possible – wherever they happen to live – of the substantive arguments against the ills of the shooting industry.
The danger of getting into the ‘true countryman’ debate is that it plays into the hands of the people we are fighting against. For example, Norman allows himself a little dig about birdwatchers with no binoculars and no field skills and I am sure the Moorland Association would be delighted to agree. Well, not everyone can be be expert at distinguishing immature stages of large gulls, for example, but advanced id skills are not necessary to understand that killing hen harriers is harmful and wrong or to register an objection to it. Indeed, there must be many people whose contact with wildlife is entirely via their tv screens and while such people are never going to lead conservation campaigns, still less contribute the evidence on which they might be based, their signatures on Mark’s, Gavin’s and Ed’s petitions count no less than anyone else’s. Let’s not play into the other side’s hands by suggesting, even inadvertently, that only people conforming to some particular narrow definition of country folk can have a valid say on issues such as shooting and hunting.
PS. I do think that it is a valid argument against the other side’s ‘true countryman’ argument to point out that support for the pro grouse-shooting petition is heavily concentrated in a few wealthy districts of London whilst support for the various anti-grouse shooting petitions is widespread across the country and very strong in rural areas. However, that is sufficient to dismiss their argument and we don’t need to set up any counter definition of what is a or isn’t a true country person. Any thinking person can form a valid view on this issue.
Thanks Jonathan,
You are quite correct, there is a certain element of tongue in cheek here, perhaps not sufficiently obvious for all. Of course people in the country vary enormously in interests, skills and experience. I also know that many people find themselves living in urban or suburban environments through necessity ( thank the Industrial Revolution for that one), who look for any opportunity to get out. We all have a right to a share in this fantastic country, not just those who own most of it or adopt particular attitudes based largely on privilege and prejudice.
“We all have a right to a share in this fantastic country, not just those who own most of it or adopt particular attitudes based largely on privilege and prejudice”.
Amen to that. 🙂
Exactly! And put way better than I could.
The reason the signers are so heavily weighted towards Chelsea and Kensington etc is that they make all their footmen and housemaids sign the petition too!
Jonathon,just perfect.
Brilliant stuff Norman.
I think this just about makes me a country person. I have spent about half of the last 2 weeks moving coppice products and timber (in the rain, mud and snow) or working on the allotment, or debating whether we dare move the ramshackle chicken run (it might fall apart!). Oh, and cutting logs for the fire, and piling logs for next winter, and not cleaning the twigs and mud out of the car. I might find time for some paid work later……
But according to those ‘real country folk’ with whom I share a village (increasingly commuter-y, 5 miles from Cambridge, yes, I cannot get out of my drive between 7.30 and 9am because THEY all need to commute) I am not a country person, because my jumpers have holes, my trousers covered in mud and patches, and I’m from the north and I have a degree and spend my paid working hours in front of a computer!……
but I reckon I know who would win in a ‘olympic games’ of physical outdoor work…..they would be back inside their nice heated houses like a shot. We need more real outdoor country folk – the country might ACTUALLY depend on some of our skills one day when it all falls apart.
Great Stuff, Louise! You most definitely make the grade and for all the right reasons!! Keep it up!!
It’s all a state of mind.
Or, as his lordship said, ”An estate of mine.”
Norman. Could you help with a query? There is a rumour that our local head game keeper was given a bonus of 50,000 pounds because he improved the amount of grouse numbers so much. In the 6 months from when he started, the number of game keepers increased 3 fold, the 13 badger setts (with approx 100 badgers) disappeared and the number of raptors plummeted. Snares, spring traps, bird traps and stink pits rose substantially etc etc with the associated wildlife persecution. I was told this by an ex employee. Do you think this is possible? It is a very prestigious shoot (in the top 50 and the owner is lauded for his shooting and fishing abilities. He is of course in the rich list so could easily afford a good incentive like that, if true.)
Hi, I think the pertinent comments are “ex employee” and “if true” which might indicate a certain ulterior motive. It is probably possible to achieve this sort of outcome given sufficient resources and incentives and it certainly mirrors information from elsewhere in the country. I do not live in a grouse shooting area ( though I did have a small patch of heather moor to manage in the past, but for conservation, not shooting), so I am not in a position to be much help. Good luck!
There isn’t a lot of work in the countryside any more… Most people who live in the country have to work in towns and cities, even if their forebears worked on the land. One side of my family come from generations of shepherds, farm labourers and gardeners, becoming mechanics in the world wars and being discharged into factory jobs, working on production lines and retiring back into gardening and odd jobs for the manor, living for several generations entirely within a couple of small Oxfordshire villages.
The other side came from industrial cities (Oxford and Swindon), through steel working, boiler-making, railways, air-craft mechanics during the second world war, and car factories until retirement in gardening.
Most people I meet in the country are quite opposed to blood sports… but know less, these days, about wildlife than I do (the industrial city dweller meets country girl, now with a foot in each camp).
Yeah but, to qualify as a “nice person” you have to own at least 100 acres.
Norman, thanks for that – interesting thoughts. But I remain confused. For a start the definition of ‘countryside’ is elusive:
The poets, Paul Farley and Michael Symmons Roberts grew up in the seventies on the edges of Liverpool and Manchester. In their book Edgelands (p2) they say this:
‘‘For a long while we [children] wondered where the countryside actually was, or even if it really existed, … it was easy enough to walk for a short while and find yourself lost in back lanes or waste ground … But none of this really felt like the countryside: the sunlit uplands of jigsaw puzzles and Ladybird books, the rolling hills of biscuit-tin lids…”
But what is certain from this account is that those two city kids were already real country people from an early age. It’s also certain that there must be millions of others like them. At the very least any real country person should be able to acknowledge the likes of these two biscuit-tin lid gazing dreamers.
Hi Murray,
My earliest solo explorations of nature took place in a landscape behind my parents prefab in South Wales, I guess at the age of five or six. The area was a tangle of overgrown woodland, boggy in places with ponds and newts, bounded by brooks to east and west. To the north was a vast area of rough grassland, full of butterflies and grasshoppers in summer. It was the focus of all my early adventures, my training ground in natural history and more especially a place where I could be alone and exercising my curiosity.
Many years later I paid a nostalgic visit, found the prefabs bulldozed but the ‘wilderness’ was still there. However, although I could find all the key elements of places I remembered, it became apparent that this vast wilderness was only bounded by my imagination, in truth it was probably only 20 acres, with a railway line on one side and an MoD facility, with big fences on the northern boundary!!
This tiny spot had sparked the germ in me, but I was lucky enough to have family living and working in the wider countryside of west Wales, so I did not have to rely on the biscuit tins and calendars to get out into working in the rural environment. Today, that little patch lies under the M4 motorway!
It is interesting that nobody ever talks about “real urbanites” which suggests to me that the whole idea of “real country people” owes more to some sort of bucolic mythology than any sort of reality.
Maybe so JC, but plenty of people I know refer to ‘townies’ as a mildly pejorative term, especially as they become more obvious in the countryside and in rural communities!