This is Conservation and Science podcast where we take a deep dive into topics of ecology, conservation and human wildlife interactions. And I'm Tommy Serafinsky and I always strive to bring you diverse perspectives on stories that I cover. And oh boy, there's going to be a lot of diverse perspectives today because our guest is the one and only Patrick Galbraith. Patrick, welcome back to the show.

Thanks so much for having me back.

Tommy, excellent listen. Absolutely. You have a new book out and just for the listeners, you previously were in the episode 129 when we were talking about your previous book, In Search of the One Last Song. So if anyone is interested, then you should go to episode one two nine and listen to this one. But today we're talking about your new book titled Uncommon Ground: Rethinking Our Relationship with the Countryside. And the thing is about land access and access to the countryside. So obviously diverse perspectives. And you did a great job of interviewing people and traveling and just getting those diverse perspectives and obviously diverse perspectives. Like I always say at the top of the show, what goes with the territory is that people will listen to the opinions, views and opinions they may not necessarily agree with. And I'm sure there's going to be a lot of this today. Patrick, tell us about your, you know, like, how did you decided to pick up this specific topic? I always said that it's probably no topic, that I'm more on the fence than land access, because I just, I just, I could equally easily make an argument for both sides. Was that the main reason why you picked that topic or was it something else?

Yeah, I mean, 100%. You've got people who believe that land shouldn't even be privately owned. You know, you've got people who believe that we should have unfettered access to the whole of the countryside. Right to the countryside in its entirety. On the flip side, you've got people who believe that there's far too much access. And it's one of those brilliant topics where I think I understand both perspectives in different ways. And you know, what we lack so much in the world now is nuance and the understanding that two things can be right at once. I mean, I am coming to you, Tommy, after a busy morning of dealing with lawyers, letters and so on from Access campaigners who believe that I've got it wholly wrong. At the same time, I have had emails over the past past two weeks and, and reviews and papers over the past two weeks that believe I'm absolutely spot on. And, and you know, neither of those takes are obviously kind of right, you know, so it's, it's that thing. You're really jumping into the frying pan with this topic. And, and that's what attracted me to it. Yeah.

You're not shying away to like.

No. As long as you wish you had. You know, sometimes I wish I just written a. You know, but last time I just tried to write a nice book about birds, but still some people got angry. So, hey, it, it is what it is.

It's apparently, you know, that is the sign that you're doing the right thing and that, that, you know, like if you have a people angry at you and agreeing with you at the same time from both sides, there's like, there's a good, There's a good thing. There's. You're doing a good thing in there. Listen, so you, you travel like how, by the way, how long it took you to, to do all the research and gather material for the book?

About, about three years, maybe or two and a half years on the road. But then, you know, there's stuff in that book that happened to me when I was 10 years old, 12 years old, 15 years old, 22 years old. It's. I think, I think it's, it's. It's a book that I've been writing in some ways for much of my life without realizing it. You know, I was once a little boy who was poaching on rivers that I shouldn't have been on. I was a boy with my terrier going to hunt rabbits in places that I shouldn't have been and so on. And I'm still having conversations about access now that the book is well out. So. Yeah, so three years in one sense, 31 years in another sense.

Excellent. Listen, so out of all those stories and the book is written from your perspective, first person, what was the story that stood out the most for you? One that now when you be talking about what is the one that brings jumps to your mind?

I think spending time with Irish travelers and Romani gypsies is really interesting because they give you a very clear sense very quickly that their understanding of the land is very different to, I would say ours, certainly very different to mine. So, you know, when I went to go and see a guy called Terry, an old Romany gypsy guy, he said that if you were caught poaching as a small boy, you didn't worry about the farmer really, and you didn't worry about the police officer, the police, and probably at that point who caught you, what you worried about was the hiding that your dad was going to give you when you got home because you let him down in some way because they saw the land, he told me, as something to be kind of crossed, but crossed in a surreptitious way. You know, you should be able, as a good little Roman gypsy boy, to move across the land without being detected and to take something from the land and go back. And so that was really interesting. And then I went to Appleby Halls Fair and was talking to some Irish travelers and they said to me that that whole relationship has changed. They said it's all laws now, everything's being kind of form. So I think that relationship is something that really stands out to me as being a very clear, not. Not an outlier, but just an example of how different things can be for people in the same country when it comes to land access.

Yeah, this is interesting to see those different perspectives, like you said. And this is like in all walks of life, I think this is where, you know, this, this word that we say, diversity, it is, it is really important because even if you have a team, you know what I noticed, like, even if you have a team of who speak different languages, like their mother tongue is a different language, the little nuances in the language, even they. That makes them, to look at the problem, slightly different and that it is just, just, you know, fantastic. Listen, so in your book, you're dealing obviously with these two approaches, right? Like, on the one hand, the. The public has access to only 8% of England and Wales.

So we're told. So we're told.

So we're told. On the other hand, there is like quarter of a million kilometers of access paths and all, all these things. How to even begin, wrap our head around these two, you know, the opposing points of view. On one hand, we don't have access to anything. Like, oh, look, how much access do you have? Like, how to even start.

I mean, you just have to start chipping away at it and you just have to start going out there and you have to try and understand why people are saying that we don't have much access. Like, what's really the subtext there? And at the same time you have to try and understand why other people are saying that there's loads of access. And I think what, you know, I'm jumping ahead here, but, you know, what I found quite quickly is that I don't actually think that engaging with nature is purely about access. Because, you know, when I was getting out there on the ground to some of Britain's smartest estates, you Know, to beaches and so on, and was asking people, you know, how bad you find the access is. Well, people on the ground would say to me that the access is pretty good, really. But the degree to which they are able to engage with nature and what that really means, that very quickly became for me sort of more of the focus or the focus in a way after I kind of like recalibrated after kind of my early findings.

And that engagement is in, in what way is that, Is that, that, you know, you go in and you have. Because this is what, what I, what I think, you know, I, I internalize that. You go in and you have access, but you have access to the beach and you have access to the, you know, car park. And it's like, it's not really access to the nature. So you have this, this land. But now when you're, when you try to do something else, like go fishing. Right. And I, I, for example, the beach that is just, just behind us, it's probably 800 meters behind us, there's a beach where I used to go fishing for Ray and you know, dogfish. And you know, and that beach is now like full of dog walkers, kids playing like, so on one hand it is good, but then the other, like, my, my fishing mark is gone. It's gone like, oh, look at all those people now, you know, ruining it. So is that, is that what you're, what you were discovering or were there like a different angles to this engagement as well?

Well, I suppose it's, you know, and this is going back a while is, is. I remember, you know, a while going back a very long time. When I was 6 or 7 years old, maybe even younger, maybe even 4 or 5 years old. I remember walking on the beach in Normandy and seeing old French men putting salt into the razor clam holes, you know, to get them out. Yeah. And I looked at that and I was like, that, that is great. I don't know why, you know, why are we interested in the things we're interested in? Right. But I looked at that. I really want to do that. I'm going to do that. And I remember saying to my dad, oh, we should do that. And he's not into that kind of thing, you know, he's not. I don't think he's ever been foraging once in his life. Like, he, he shoots a little bit. He's maybe fished a few times, but it's not really his thing. And I don't know, I just couldn't like, work out how I was going to do this thing. And that's. So, you know, you've probably got lots of little boys, Tommy, who. And little girls as well, who are being sort of dragged along by their parents on a dog walk on the beach, who probably look at you fishing and go, I'd love to do that. Like, how could I do that? How could I catch Ray? How could I learn about the Ray? And it would up their world, right? And that to me is the difference between access for access's sake and engagement opportunities, I guess.

What's the story with this 8% access.

Where it came from, the 8% thing? So that's to do with the land access legislation that came in the Countryside and Rights of Way act, right? So we were given access to certain places, like Moreland, for example, right? So, so, so that constitutes 8%. So the figure that gets thrown around is we, we're only able to access 8% of the countryside. But, you know, if you go to lots of parts of the country, you don't have much of that 8% designation. But the access is quite good because access can take different forms. So they, they, at the moment, some of the guys in the Access campaign are really angry about this, that, that I've kind of shone a light on this 8% figure because it's a very motivating figure, right? Saying, you know, we're locked out of, you know, let's do the maths, right? We're locked out of 92% of the countryside. That's just not true. It doesn't add up. And, and my question with it is, like, how helpful is it to slightly fuzzily present the reality of access in the hope of getting people on board if they then, you know, six months down the line, go, hang on a second, fellas. Like, you know, we went here to do this trespass. We were told that there was no access, but there were paths everywhere, you know, and you could go to all kinds of places. So that's, that's the story with the 8%. And I think so much of, I say in the book that, that so much of, of the sort of debate around access stems, I think, from a detachment from the countryside, from not really knowing the reality of the situation. I mean, I think one of the most hilarious things is that some people think that landowners wake up in the morning and think, oh, my God, like, you know, who's going to be trespassing on my fields? Who's going to be trespassing on my boundaries? So many landowners don't even know what they own. Like they really don't know. They probably know that they own like 2000 acres or 1500 acres or whatever. But the number of landowners I met who said, I have never been to parts of my estate, and that to me is an outrageous thing. That, to me is an appalling and shocking thing. Not this idea that they wake up in the morning and go, oh, my God, someone's been looking at my oak trees. They don't even know what an oak tree is compared to an ash tree or whatever. You know, that's like an issue. Right. So it's, I guess what my book is. It's about trying to work out what the issues really are and what actually aren't issues.

Why do you think the campaigners, Right, because we use this umbrella term, and obviously that's also probably not like one homogenous group. And you can elaborate on that a little bit later. But, like, why you would. You would imagine that unless it's a campaigning for campaigning sake, which I'm not saying it is, but unless that's it, then you would imagine in your ideal imaginary world that they will go like, oh, really? It's more than 8% great. Isn't that fantastic? We've been. We've been doing all these campaigning for nothing. It's already there. Great job. Like, right? That is not how. Like, so what's your. Like, why do you think it's this? You know, it's like a resistance.

It's really hard. And, you know, I'm telling you, I'm probably telling things I shouldn't even be telling you, but the outrage on behalf of some of these guys has been pretty fierce. You know, that's still trying. You know, who knows? By the time people hear this podcast, things would have changed. But they're still trying every trick in the book to summon them to get this book, like, can. And the truth is that. That there's a huge political subtext to the Access campaign. And I'm not saying that that's wrong. Right. I'm not saying that it's right that some people have, you know, hundreds of millions of pounds tied up in land that they don't even appreciate, they don't even treat that well, that they don't even seek opportunities to welcome other people onto, you know, that is a problem. Right? But at the same time, a lot of campaigns deal with sort of quite binary worldviews where sort of, you know, we're locked out of the countryside. We're, like, standing at the gate. Rat the. The gate. We want to be let In. Right. It's a really powerful image. I. I get it. And I had one extraordinary situation where I went to an estate to. To just check out the access. It took me ages to get there because of transport, which isn't particularly good, which is a problem in and of itself. It's connected to all of this. But I. I assumed, based on what had been written about this estate in Land access campaign literature, that I wouldn't be able to go and see anything. I kind of went in cold. I went in cold deliberately. Right. I just got the bus there. Let's see. I was talking to people who couldn't believe how good the access was. And now the access isn't that brilliant, right? It is not that brilliant, but it's somewhere between kind of, you know, a utopia and what it's presented as. And so my point would be, well, let's deal with what there actually is. Let's do as the owners of that estate are doing at the moment, and let's. Let's say to people, what more do you want? What more do you want to be able to do here? You know, how can we serve you better? Which some people might say is quite paternalistic, but that seems to me to be the right conversation to be having in terms of getting to where lots of people want to get to. But the last thing I would say about that, that I just find so extraordinary, is that campaigners love falling out with other campaigners. I mean, I have friends who are on the sort of radical left, like dear friends of mine, they come around to my house and they'll talk about just the arguments going on on the kind of Pro Jeremy Corbyn, WhatsApp group or something of whom they were like, you know, I don't know. And you're like, like, guys you all like, agree, right? So, like, why are you sort of, you know, and sometimes I feel a little bit like that, like, I want to get more people out fishing, I want to get more people out deer stalking, I want to get more people out camping. So why have I got guys who also want to do that disagreeing with me? And you're like, have I not been clear enough? Or is there something else going on here?

And why is that? You think, is there something else going on?

We're getting deep here now. We're getting deep here now. It's, it's. It's part of. It's tricky, right? It's. It's part of a kind of cultural struggle in some ways. I mean, there's a moment that Stands out very clearly to me in my mind where I was at the protest on Dartmoor about wild camping. And the guy who owns that estate, he had a couple of security guards on his gate and a few kind of. They were just looked like kind of fairly normal dads, but, you know, supporters of the campaign, right. We're standing at the gate shouting at these guys, like, I hope he treats you well. You know, hope he pays you well. Because they see these guys as being kind of like lackeys of an oppressive landowning system. And it's pretty seductive, right? I get it. Like, it's a. It's a kind of, you know, it's a seductive idea. But. But is it the reality? And the reality is often, always, I'd say always more complicated. Yeah.

And then also there is this group mentality that kicks in, right?

Yeah, yeah, 100%.

It's. It's. It's. It's very powerful. And then, like, I like to say that the, you know, IQs are. Tends to be dividing by each other rather than multiplying, and you have this mob mentality. And at some point, it just doesn't matter why. We here for, like, just them, and we want them to burn. Right. This is. This is. Patrick, you said that people said that they would like more access when you were on this state. And. But, you know, on one hit, more access, better access for what it is, your feeling was that the better access is it, you know, the expectation of better access is like, oh, we have a, you know, tarmac road and car park, and so we can go in there at our leisure and convenience. Or was it more of a, you know, the opposite. We want this to be like, you know, wild, unspoiled nature.

Yeah. I mean, people's horizons, if you are somebody who loves wild places and doing sort of things there, like fishing, are often quite disappointing. So I was speaking the other day in Brighton about my book, and the guy who was interviewing me asked for a show of hands. Who. Who would like more access. And no hands went up. And I'm thinking, like, I'm critical of the access movement. And yet, like, guys, come on, like, come on, like, surely some of you. Surely one of you. There were even three people who said that access is too good. So it's. It's that. It's that thing of, like, of. I think that a lot of people just want to be able to go to a car park, get an ice cream, walk their dog, let the dog off the lead. Everyone loves to let their dog off the Lead, everyone. Oh, I love to see my dog run. I love to see my dog run. Dog's really fast. Love to see it run. Yeah. Hey, I get it, right? Particularly if you've got a fast dog, maybe it's nice to see it run. But it's that thing of like, this is another thing that I really hit against, I think, is that. So I like to imagine, in my own solipsistic way, and we all, I think, think solipsistically to a degree that there are lots of, as I just said to you, maybe I was wrong, that there are lots of people out there who just want the opportunity to do deer stalking, to go fishing, to go camping, to fo. To do some nature restoration work, nature conservation work. The truth is, is that most people just want to park their car and walk their dog. And it's like. So that's the, that's the thing. If we said tomorrow, right? You know what? You know what, guys? Right to Rome is the best idea in the world. Let's throw open the countryside. Let's really go for it. I, I don't think that you would change people's relationship with nature. I think you would just end up with people going, yeah, but I'm gonna walk my dog here, you know. Okay, well, you've gotta keep your dog on the lead. But how long's your dog's lead? Is it one of those extendable leads? Is it you? You know, dealing with a country where There are almost 70 million people, you know, wild spaces are a complete premium. So, you know, it's, that's, that's why it's, it's complex. It's about psychology as much as anything.

And we'll get into, you know, conservation angle in a second. But I, I just want to. Your views on the following. When I hear about lack of access. Right. And by the way, I as, as listeners know, and you know, I live in Ireland and you know, we don't have, you know, like a right of way or anything.

Yeah, yeah.

And people are complaining about. And you know what? I'm just like, always wondering, like, why it is, like, coming from the perspective of, you know, I had to get the permission to hunt deer, so I had to, you know, go door banging to the.

In Ireland.

In Ireland.

Yeah. Yeah.

Right. So I am just thinking, like, if you live near a farm, right, which is that has like a big bad farmer that has like a no trespass sign, did you ever try to actually call to his door or ring him up or write him in any letter and Say like, hey, I live here. I would like to be able to get to your land and just walk, right? Or. And I bet you that in majority of cases, they would say yes. You know, like, I got access to the farmland sometimes by sending a letter. I just literally send a letter. And at the time, you would need to have like a. To. To go deer hunting, you need to have a. Like a form signed by the landowner. So I attached like a letter and a return envelope and said, like, hey, I'm this guy. I would like to. You know, And I was like, to my surprise, I started getting letters back with the signed form. So I think that.

How many. How many people have said yes? Like, what was the yes, no split? Out of interest?

I would say I only got, like, what, probably 80% yes.

Really?

Yeah, to 20% no.

And.

And the most. So the ones that say no were, like, very elderly farmers who probably couldn't be bothered to do anything, or people who I spoke with, and they were, you know, you go in and you see, you know, like a. Ribbons hang around their house and whatever. They sort of like a. Namaste yoga.

Oh, they don't like hunting. Yeah, yeah.

And they don't like hunt. They like deer.

Oh, yeah, okay.

But also, you know, the interactions with them were.

Were.

Were pleasant. It wasn't. It wasn't like a hostile thing. It. It was just like, you know what? They were like, almost half apologetic. Like, you know what? We like this. This deer. Right? So I'm just. So my point is, like, before you say that you can't have access to a farm or do these things, you know, like, go, go.

Yeah, and ask, like, no, I totally agree with you. And I mean, just. Just touching on that is I have. I have the reverse problem with deer that people call me all the time and say, can you shoot my deer? And like, I can't shoot enough. So, like, basically with one person, I was like, yeah, yeah, I'll shoot your deer. Then I was taking the venison to the butcher and I gave them some venison back. And then suddenly the word started going around. Oh, there's this guy. He'll shoot all your deer, then he'll bring you some venison. Suddenly I'm like, you know, my phone is just like. But no, I agree. But some people would say that we shouldn't have to ask because that creates, like a power dynamic. And I. And I question that in the book. I'm not saying it's entirely wrong. I'm just saying that is a point. Of view. That is a perspective. I don't know. What would you say to that?

Yeah, well, that's, that's for sure. Like, what, I have to ask for something, right? But then I think that in the west, like we build west on the, on values of individual, right? Like what, what, what's. And obviously probably you, you can tell me that I'm right. This comes, this aspect, like, oh, because you're, you know, like a classic. Like, oh, you've been just born to this. You don't deserve. Right? But then it has nothing to do with the actual access. Like, do you want access or not? Or do you want to just, you know, fix the world or fix the system that's there?

So much of this stuff. Like, you know, when I was young, I used to go and knock on farmers doors to ask if I could shoot rabbits, right? And sometimes it would be like, okay, well, if you do this, if you help us with this, you know, and they were probably, I was like, pretty young at this point. They were probably just kind of. They were probably trying to do. Do something good, you know what I mean? They were trying to like, teach me some kind of thing. Like, oh, if you help us. I was pretty rubbish at what I was helping them with anyway. But, you know, if you help us, if you sweep out the barn, then you can go and shoot the rabbits with your little air rifle, little BSA air rifle. And that was like, that was a kind of, you know, I could turn around and say, I should have been able to shoot the rabbits because they're my rabbits as much as they're their rabbits. And you know, that's a philosophical lie point. But I think I probably benefited quite a lot from that relationship, you know, and even now, like when I shoot people's deer, I shoot some people's deer and then they have a shop and I, and I go and take the. This is the relationship. I take the deer to the butcher, pay 20 pounds per animal to have a butchered, and then I'll take it back and I sell it. People from the village buy it. People tell me they like it. I like that. You know, it's not like a something for nothing culture. And maybe that's, I don't know, maybe that's just because I'm so ingrained with this kind of subservience because of, you know, British hierarchical whatever. Or maybe it's. I don't know. But I like it. That's the point.

Yeah, well, I, you know, like, to some extent, like, it never bothered me, like Someone owns the land. If I can have access and do it, you know, and have a relation with the guy and being, you know.

It'S weird, isn't it? Like, I don't. I don't have a. I have a. I have a really bad car. It's like, really broken. Some people have nice cars. You know, that's. Some people have loads of money. I don't because I'm a writer. So, you know, that's. That's just how it is. It's like. And it's different. It is different because we are all stakeholders in the land. Right. And I write that. I do truly believe that. And so. So, you know, we all eat, we all drink. Right. We all breathe. The trees are part of that. So I think the onus is on those who own land to try and create opportunities for people to engage with it. But, like, you know, it's. It's. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah, you have to be pretty radical politically to think. I think that, you know, land should not be privately owned. And I don't think the alternatives really would work. And, and the world has tried alternatives at points.

Yeah. And I think like you said, at some point it. It stops to be about access to land. It starts to be about something else, about the political system. And should you this and should you that and how many. Okay, listen, I want to switch gears a little bit and talk about conservation angle and that. That is often repeated. Think that. Okay, that will re it to some extent. This is the story that I said as well about my access and to my fishing. Right, right. Like there's more people. It was always open access, but it just happened. There's like more people and then certain use of that area is.

And is that causing a problem for you fishing?

Yeah, yeah, definitely.

In what way? Like people.

Oh, because, because do you know, the dogs can just eat your bait, that you have your fish and whatever, and then kids are jumping into the water and there's like, hey, I have like a, you know, big sharp hooks in there. Right. Careful. Right. And so that's. That's like very specific things. Public safety, you may, you may say. But also, you know, when you go fishing, you want quiet and solitude and, you know, be connection with nature, not having radio playing and all those things. So there's multiple aspects of it. And I guess this is where the segue is to conservation thing, because whether you just engage in extractive kind of endeavor like fishing or hunting, or maybe your endeavor is conservation and you want to Protect the habitat. And that by very definition involves exclusion here I say it of people. So I feel like with this. I don't want to use the word narrative, but with this argument of like, oh, it's going to connect people more to the land, there is a contradiction in itself because you probably don't want that many people if you want to do this. Connecting things.

Yeah, yeah. No, I mean, I'm very conscious at this time of year. Like, bag, when I'm stalking deer, there's places I don't really like to go to because there are ducks that are starting to nest and I certainly wouldn't take my dog there, you know, and. And for example, you know, if I'm driving down a field margin at this time of year, like, I really. It kind of. That kind of keeps me up at night. Right. Most of the field marches now post the SFI thing have been pretty destroyed anyway. But, you know, but, but. But if I'm driving down a field margin, right? Well, we. We farm in the middle of the field. Field. The middle of that field is given over to the production of food for humans, by and large, also livestock, but you know, to us, one way or another, and the last little bit that we've got at the side is, you know, kind of space for wildlife. And then people are saying, well, why can't I walk down it? Well, like, what? So you want the field, you want all of it. You want the whole field, you want everything. And like, this is the thing with humans is that if we don't. If we don't say, actually, you know what, maybe we need to rein it in a bit, right? Maybe we don't need to go to Mars. Mars is a different example. But, you know, maybe we don't need to access every single bit of habitat, every single creature's bit of habitat across the world. You know, we're going to be in a pretty sorry place. It's just sort of weird. It's very weird. It's almost. Again, people probably hate me for saying this, but it's almost slightly kind of colonial. Like, it's ours. You know, it's ours. It's all ours. It was given to us. It's even. What is it? Like Genesis? I don't know how good your Old Testament is it. Genesis, like he gives us dominion over the bird, the birds of the air, the fish of the sea or something, you know.

Yes, the Dominionistic approach to. I talk a lot about on the podcast about Dominionistic approach to hunting, but this is kind of like the same Same thing, right? It's just ours. And we need to make this thing, you know, even more ours.

Yeah, yeah, exactly. And it's not like the birds don't really want to see us. You know, they would rather we weren't there. And maybe they're, you know, when a snipe gets up and it starts calling an alarm, you know, maybe we should take heed of that, right. Rather than being like, oh wow, like I got to engage with it. It. You know.

What was the most, most striking approach and, or, or opinions from the conservation minded people, people who. Doing conservation. Was there, was there anything that stood out to you?

Well, that guy, Andy Blue. I just said that guy. I, I said, I didn't mention him, but he, we're talking about Mars. He, Andy Bloomfield, great, great conservationist, real practical conservationist, works on the Holcombe estate. He's been, his family been in Norfolk for time eternal. And he said to me, you know, this is our space where we were on the beach. And he said, and that's their space. He said, we don't. Why do we need to go everywhere? He said, we can go to the moon and back. Can we not leave just one little bit of space for, you know. And to be totally fair, there are people within, specifically the Right to Roam campaign. One person particularly I can think of is kind of leading the charge on the old legal stuff. But he talks about wildlife exclusion zones. Right. And rather not wildlife, excuse me, zones. Zones for human exclusion. Right, for wildlife. Okay. And that is wonderful. That is great. At the same time, you have people within that campaign who believe that really farmers have actually destroyed the countryside and it's not our fault, so we should just be able to kind of go where we want. And like when they say that, like what I'm hearing is, okay, so like what you're saying is they've kind of messed up and we should just like finish the job. Right? Just like throw the baby out with the bath water. That, that is not a cogent argument. That is not an intelligent Argum. So that was interesting. Really. And just some pretty wild. I mean it's this thing with activism is people think that they are on the, the right side, right? They are on the righteous path. And therefore what they say is kinda. You know, there was an incident with a guy who leads the Right to Roam campaign, a guy called Guy Shrubsole, who's a, he's a kind of activist agitator. When he let a corvid out of a trap, out of a Larson trap, you know, he Posted a lot on social media about it and he said he will always take the opportunity to do this. Now, that's deeply problematic. That's hugely problematic. And I went to go and see the gamekeeper who works on that bit of ground. And these gamekeepers are conservationists first and foremost. I don't say that in a kind of British association of Shooting and Conservation way. I mean, they are employed for Lapwings, Curlew, Grape, Outridge. And he said that I can only assume that Guy Shrubshall, who did this, wishes that we had an ecologically balanced landscape, but we don't. And it's our job to try and maintain some kind of balance. And it's just about talking to people and understanding each other, rather than using access and conservation actually as a stick or two sticks, rather to beat each other with.

Have you come across arguments that you would, and I'm sure you did, that you would say, well, yeah, but actually there are benefits for more access, more engagement. I'm saying more engagement. And this is, I suppose, the main difference, like access doesn't equal engagement. These are two different things.

Well, it all depends who you ask. I mean, I would say. I would say that is a redundant argument, right? I mean, Mark Avery, the conservationist, former head of conservation at the rspb, he wrote a review of my book a couple of. A couple of weeks ago and he was saying he liked it, I really liked it. He said he doesn't believe that argument. And I thought that was really interesting. And the thing that I always think is I meet farmers and landowners who see these creatures every day of their lives. They don't even know what they are. So, like, if those guys, like, aren't kind of like, woo, woo. Nature lovers, despite their engagement, what, like, are they a different species? Like, I don't get that, but. So you're absolutely right. Engagement and access are two different things, right? And whenever I see. The other day I saw a reservoir, an agricultural reservoir that was being used, I think, to irrigate fields for, well, obviously rotations on rotation, but potato growing particularly. And I thought, why aren't the local primary school here looking at all the birds? There was ever everything there. There were all kinds of different ducks there, there were lapwings nesting there, you know, oyster catches, everything. And I said, I said to the person who has it, why aren't the local primary school here, you know, doing little surveys and so on? That's engagement, right? That's how you make people understand. I mean, I saw a post the other day on the right to roam Instagram page just notifying people that birds can nest on the ground as well as in trees. And you're like, great that they're doing that because that's a, that's a slight change of tone. Wonderful. But if that is the level of knowledge of people following you on Instagram, I really don't think that we should be throwing open the countryside. Right. Maybe one day, but not while you still have people who don't realize that birds nest on the ground. Well, they're most in danger from us and our dogs and our cars, our bicycles and so on.

Do you think there is a level of recognition? Oh, well, you would just say that some level, but I'm just trying to gauge like what is the level of recognition of, of the problems that comes with the, with the axis. Because like I said, most of, most of those people will tell you that they love nature, they want to engage with nature. And also farmers are bad because they destroyed it like all, all those things. But then do you see recognition on their part of like, oh, you have this part of woodland open and all you see is then, you know, dog poo bags hanging off the branches, right? That is the real thing that is happening. Like how, how, how that group, and I'm asking you, because you've been in, in that group embedded while you were writing the book, like what is the level of recognition or maybe how they would suggest to deal with the problem? Because it's, it's. The problem is obvious.

One really interesting thing is that in Scotland now, the people who fought hard for the so called Right to Rome campaign know, sorry, the, the Right to Roam act, which is, it's, it's to do with responsible access, they don't have that term, but they say that where they have failed in Scotland and there is some recognition that it has failed in places is because of a lack of infrastructure and a lack of education. So that's, that's the, that's the thing, right, I think is, is that the people who've gone over the hill realize that actually is not like a land of milk and honey. I mean you can, you can look at Ireland, of course, they had kind of agricultural, you know, discord in Ireland and the breakup of larger states. And as you said yourself, the access isn't very good. So as I say in the book, that like when the revolution comes, or rather after the revolution and after we strip all of these large landowners of their land in this country and line them up against the wall, I don't think that the the land axis is going to be particularly terrific. You know, we can see that if we look to our neighbors across the Irish Sea. So those, those people who've been involved in, in, in, well, the Scottish campaign particularly do recognize that it's not been a tremendous success. More informed conservationists here who are kind of access curious see that it's problematic. And I think where you get the really spurious narratives are among those who are kind of more politically motivated and have maybe found the Right to Roam campaign or the Access campaign. I mean, there was one email the other day which I just completely blew my mind. Someone particularly objecting to my book. And they mentioned somebody I'd spoken to and the person just wanted to highlight that one of the things that they were most. This is a right to Roam activist. One of the things that they were most disappointed about, about the Right to Rome campaign is that it hadn't taken a position on Palestine. And I'm thinking, I'm like, listen, okay, it's really important, right? You know, all my love to Palestine. But what, what on earth, like, what on earth does that have to do with like, you know, with, with farmers, with ground nesting birds, with really banal stuff to do with. Yeah, and that's, and that's the kind of thing, and that's what I mean about how the culture kind of radical left eats itself. And in the end you're like, you know, how is rat to Rome about Palestine? And then you're like, what is it really about? So, yeah, it's the deeper you go, the closer you get, the more you really spend time with these people, the less enthusiastic I became anyway. And I said, and I've got to say this again to somebody later in a response to an email. When I started writing this book, I was more of a supporter of the Land Access movement than I, than I was on finishing it. And that is very rare. Like, you rarely spend time with people as a writer and think, actually, you know what, Like, I'm less sympathetic. It almost doesn't matter who they are, you know, to kind of, to, to know is to understand to a degree. Not in this instance.

Wow, that's, that's really interesting. That's really interesting. Surprising. Was that surprising to you?

Yeah, really surprising. Really surprising. I mean, I had a conversation with a, I had a conversation with a, with a landowner when I started writing this book and he said, oh, you know, you're going to go and talk to a lot of landowners and you're going to portray them as being sort of holy, you know, irresponsible and not doing well by the local community. And actually there's there's a, there's a, there's a bit of that in this book for sure. I kind of, I kind of hold land ownership up to the light and say like, you know, anytime I hear a farmer or landowner saying that, you know, the public don't understand access, I have to ask them, well, what have you done to try to change that? But at the same time, I think I became more sympathetic to farmers and landowners and I was surprised about how pro access they are and how they understand that they need to tell their story. And I became less sympathetic to the kind of we're locked out of the countryside guys.

Do you think that there is like, should we strip the discussion from all the, you know, sidebars and that are maybe blurring the actual conversation? Or do you think that perhaps this is like you said, like, it's not about land access at all and that should be dealt with kind of like a different thing? Because what I'm, what I'm getting from you is like once you dive deep into something that seemed to be one problem, then it's like, oh, this is like so many different problems.

No, no, that's, that's totally right. And yeah, you're right. And actually to give them that, to give them their due. I think I had to laugh when that email landed about Palestine. But, but it's absolutely right. I believe that that, right. Jerome looked at that and went, that's not an issue for us. And I went along to these meetings. We were talking about trans issues, right? We're talking about our farmers. Anti trans. I don't know, maybe, maybe not. And there is something to do with diversity in the countryside that is important. But that didn't seem to me to be a fundamental issue. So yeah, I think it's, and that really interests me with activism is like you've got to have these kind of pretty like wide eyed fundamentalists to pull the whole thing along, but they also end up killing your campaign. And on the flip side, I would say that the people who do the most harm to say, say let's call it the pro shooting lobby, right? Just to be kind of toothy. The people who do the most harm to that campaign are the, are the nutters, right? Every campaign has their nutters. How does every campaign manage their nutters? That's the thing. And the really interesting thing that we've got now is that the specific right to roam campaign are saying like, oh, but you spoke to them, that was at the London campaign. They've got nothing to do with us, they don't represent us. And, and like. But fellas, they were there, they held a fundraiser, like, they were there, like week in, week out, so. And that I hadn't spent as much time before really, with an activist group. And I think that interested me as much as anything, actually. Or rather it was a bit of a side interest, but it really interested me, like, you know, how do campaigns succeed or fail? And so on.

That sounds like a material for another book, How Campaigns Succeed.

We might leave that at this point. Maybe a novel, I don't know, maybe I would write fiction about that because it's so interesting. And there was a post just before I'm going on, but there was a post that I thought was very interesting by the Land Access campaign, saying, we're not going to be around forever, we just want to get this thing done and then we'll move on. And to me, is that irresponsible because this would fundamentally change the nature of how the countryside is managed and how conservation works or doesn't work, work in Britain. So the idea that a bunch of guys would just come along, like, make a lot of noise, you know, get. Get a bit of political love, get the whole thing signed off and then, bang, they're on to the next campaign, that, to me feels irresponsible.

Do you really care, do you really care about what you're campaigning for or is it just you just campaigner for hire?

Well, there is a little bit of that, but they care. They care, but they. But a lot of these guys are jobbing campaigners, you know, so they get their thing done, they're on the righteous path. But then there's another, you know, there's another issue to be focused on and, and when things, you know, change Britain so fundamentally, we need to take them more seriously rather than just being like, great job, sounds good, let's get it done. And when you. When you hear the Labor Party, when they were in opposition talking about Right to Rome, talking about land access, it was very clear they didn't understand it. And that's dangerous.

How do you. How do you think this is going to. To play out? Maybe even before that? Because what I hear from you is that there is lack of understanding of nature and nature conservation probably don't care about this at all. It's probably also lack of sort of sympathy or understanding towards farmers, toward people who are there doing the things, not only farmers, but maybe even, even conservationists. Do you think that this is just a lot of noise, or do you think that this has a potential to be, you know, dangerous in one way or another, socially or environmentally?

So I think the ship has sailed now on the argument that we should be able to go where we like, right? And some people would say, well, that was never what they wanted, but there were a lot of people who wanted that. There are still a lot of people who want that. And we're at this weird moment whereby people are getting more turned on to the countryside, right? So Clarkson's Farm, you know, I see it all the time. People even, you know, people just in shops asking for venison. I meet people, I'm out with my rifle. I meet people, I meet dog walkers. And they say, like, oh, what are you doing? I explain. And there's this kind of interest, there's this renewed interest. So I think that the ship has sailed on the Access campaign as existed two years ago, three years ago. And I, I, I see it going more towards nature engagement, because that's something that everyone can get around. And some quite prominent people, people like Mary Colwell, you know, she's, she's a brilliant lady. I, I worry a lot about the Labor Party's position on nature. You know, I worry sort of even more probably about the Conservative Party's position on nature. But, but they just don't seem to be on the right page at the moment, you know, so the whole newts thing, the whole building thing, and I kind of of, you know, I almost wish that it was the Conservative Party who were doling out this nonsense around building and newts and whatever, because I think then we could rely on more activists to be up in arms. But it's pretty difficult when, when, you know, it's the left who are doing it, right? Because, like, you're not going to get kind of like nice gentlemen in red trousers out on the streets, like, holding banners for newts or whatever, like, so, so that's a kind of problem, right? We need to call the Labor Party out a bit more. So the whole thing is up in the air. And I kind of wonder why. Sorry, why? I kind of wonder whether the reason that there has been so much hostility to my book, before it even comes out from some people, is because they know that that particular campaign is slightly on the slide now and things are going to change and there's a bit of a feeling of, like, could we have done things differently, blah, blah, blah, if that makes sense.

Do you have a feeling like you set out to get to the bottom of it and just highlight both sides and you ended up sort of being quote, unquote biased. But that's what to that, that's what happened. As a part of your, of your investigation. Do you or do you, do you. You know, I know it's hard to be not biased at all, right. And some would say, like, oh, Parry Galbra. I know, I know him. This is, you know, shooting times guy. Yeah, he's right. But I, I'm just, I'm just thinking, you know, knowing you and knowing, like your previous book, that I like the approach of like, you know, let's knock to all the doors and let's talk to all the people and let's have a balanced argument. And if at the end of that, if you go earnestly, and I believe you did, the argument is not balanced in a way, like there is a clear picture, then maybe there is lack of balance in this argument.

No, no. 100. I mean, I, I would always say that anything. I, I'm not, as I said last week to a landowner who was, who was annoyed about something in the book. I said, I'm not a client journalist. You know, I will, I will, I will sit down for, you know, Sunday lunch with my father and have a conversation with him and then, you know, write a piece out a bit, you know, that he does. I'm not, I'm not of banging the, the drum for anybody, you know, I will write the book as I find the situation to be. And, and, and it shifted, right? It shifted. So, so at points I would have even said I was a supporter. Yeah, I didn't, I didn't pretend to be a supporter of Right to Rome. I supported Right to Rome. I still support some of the things that they believe in or, or some of the things that some of the people involved in that campaign stand for and so on. But yes, you know, it, it ended up shifting. It ended up shifting. My position ended up shifting. And I just got a little kind of fed up with it as other people involved, involved in the, the campaign actually got a little fed up with it because it just seemed to be post truth. And that's, and I want to see historians. I want to go and see historians. And I was saying, listen, I'm not a historian. I'm being told by these people that the land was stolen from the people. Is that true? And they would, there was, they were saying to me, no, that is not true. That is an oversimplification. And that really interests me is how we kind of simplify historical narratives or Reduce historical narratives in order to try and shape kind of where we're headed. And I think a lot of that has gone on to so 100%. I mean, there will be people right now, there will be people today saying, oh, this book, like, it's just, you know, cheerleading for the, for the, for the farmers, cheerleading for the landed classes. I'll write another book in three years and, you know, if I see fit to slam those guys, I'll slam those guys. That's what you should do as a journalist. And you kind of, you know, live with the, Live with the consequences.

I have the, you know, like when I follow you on social media. Social media, I, I have a similar feeling that you sometimes, I like your views and I'm. You sometimes getting slammed by people. I wouldn't expect you gonna be slammed by. But then it says like, well, yeah, you know, like, Patrick, just, you have your, your view. Like, you have, you have your view. You know, you're not like, you say you're not cheerleading, but I'm not, I'm not.

I'm not also like stirring things up deliberately. I spend a lot of time talking to people and thinking about things and thinking about, you know, how sort of various things can be true at once and sure, like, I get a lot follow. I almost lost my job at shooting time, so something I wrote about the like hyper commercialization of pheasant shooting. I still still believe it. You know, I'm glad I didn't lose my job. You know, I could have done and you know, and, and that's, that's how it goes. That's how, yeah.

So to just, to balance that thing. What are the things that you agree with? Like what, what with the, you know, like that we need on the side of an argument like we need more access or we need better access. What would be the, you know, like a one or two the biggest arguments that you're actually saying? Well, yeah, you know, that's good.

Well, the thing is that I see the problem as being much the same as the guys who are calling for more access. Right. We both see, I think that there's like a chronic disengagement with nature. But where we differ is how we think we should put that. Right. And so that's the thing. Like, I totally agree that there's a chronic disengagement in nature. I mean, I see it all the time. It's terrible. It's terrible. It runs across society. Society. So, so yes, I agree with that. I, I. But I believe that's about engagement I don't believe it's about access. What else do I believe? I don't know. I mean, I don't even know these guys are saying this, but, you know, I believe that a lot of land ownership is quite irresponsible in the uk. I mean, that's a different thing. That's more of a kind of a guy. Shrubs or point really than an access point. But, but it's totally right to say that you have a lot of people in this country who own a lot of land, who don't really care about it, particularly before the tax changes. They just saw it as an asset class. They just saw it as a way to avoid iht. I mean, some of them have owned it for a long time and it was just convenient that they could avoid IHT through it. But, you know, my point is that if you are privileged enough to hold this tremendous resource, you should be thinking at every turn, how can you do right by the people who live there? How can you do right by the tenant farmers? How can you do right by the community? If you've got a deer problem, why aren't you thinking, who in the area might want to shoot deer? Who might want to harvest ventures? Venison? Could you get the venison to the butcher shop? You have too many lazy landowners. That is a problem, but far from all. And you could look at that for years and build up a very nuanced and complex picture. But I think I would agree with a lot of access campaigners on that, if they think about that.

Some of them do more responsibility, in other words, more responsibility for the land, for the reason, like you said, the resource you hold, it's not, not free, it's, it's not only asset, you only should.

Yeah, there's more than that. There's a cultural inheritance there. You know, one of the things is, is this is an interesting point. It's a slightly sort of side point. But sure, farming and agricultural improvement has ruined the lot of wildlife across Britain, but also in many instances, it's just people letting their eye off the ball. You know, why do we have, have, why do we have so many ponds that are just full of just debris and that haven't been cleaned out in this country? Yeah. How, how easy would it be to clear those out? Be tremendously easy, you know, so why haven't you got the local primary school would be hard in terms of health and safety, but to come and help you, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's that kind of thing. Right. It's. We, we need to see. We need to see more of that.

How to engage in those conversations going forward so they will move the dial rather than reiterate the same, you know, cliches and just keep spinning the same thing. Like, how do you think we could move that conversation forward to meet the needs and arguments of both sides and actually make the make difference, make positive change, rather than focusing of who is going to win? Because, Right. Sometimes it's like, who's. Who win, who wins.

Yeah, it's always about that.

We win.

Right.

Yeah. So. So, so how to, how to, you know, how to change. Maybe the way we talk about it. Just to say, like, okay, this is the core problem and this is how we need to engage with it. And I mean, on both sides.

Yeah. So I think it's two things. Right. Is a culture change is one thing, but then also it's a policy change. So, you know, I really believe, as I say at the end of the book, that if you're getting subsidies and there are still subsidies on the table, I mean, the system changes all the time, but there are still subsidies on the table. Those subsidies should be payable, I think, in part based on creating engagement opportunities. And then it's just landowners recognizing that they have responsibility. And I think people saying, as you've been doing, can I do this? Can I do that? We need more of that. We don't have that so much in this country. Country.

And do you think that there is a chance that that discussion will change anytime soon to be something more, well, positive but constructive? Are we just so locked in, into this adversarial conversation around the topic that it's just, you know, will be very hard?

I mean, the conversation has been running, hasn't it, on Access since, since time began. But, but I think that, that the current campaign is evolving. I think that to some degree it's possibly slightly losing traction. And something new could come. Something new could come. There's.

There's a.

There's a good guy called John Moses who's part of the Right to Roam campaign. And he is very interested in deer. He's very interested in nature, engagement. And I've always had my eye on him as somebody who's going to start a new campaign, I think about. About engagement, you know, because that's where he really, he really gets to. You know, he always, you go to meetings and he's saying sensible things like, you know, we need to, we need to avoid, you know, conflict on the ground and so on. I write about this in the book. And, you know, if, if he could kind of spearhead something and get more sensible people involved, you know, I'll get involved. I'll, I'll, you know, I'll, I'll help out, maybe you can get involved. But, yeah, I think we're, I think we're reaching a moment whereby something new is possible. And I also think the other thing on this is that because farmers and landowners really have their backs against the wall, they're thinking we've got to do something differently. There's a. Do you know that book, the Leopard, The Lampedusa book is a kind of very famous Italian novel, and there's a line in it that if things are going to remain the same, everything has to change. That's paraphrasing, but that's basically it. And I think that for a lot of farmers now, they kind of realize that, right.

What do you think the future is going to be? If you look at your crystal ball and you look like a. 10, 20 years forward, like, what changes do you see is a lot of.

Tension because I don't know the extent to which I believe that people. Are people a fundamentally harmful species. Are we fundamentally destructive? You know, are we just going to get more and more and more and more and more densely populated in this country. Country until, you know, the whole thing is a, is, is just, is a disaster, or, you know, are we going to see that we've got to change, like, as a, as a species? I don't, I don't know. I mean, we've, we've just spent so long just multiplying and multiplying and multiplying and ruining the planet and running the planet and run the planet. And at the same time, you know, capitalism has given us kind of tremendous gifts. You know, we all, in this country, anyway, we all have shoes now, right? Like a century ago, that wasn't the case. And at the same time, we have 40 million dogs. You know, I mean, I mean, a century ago, you wouldn't own a dog if it wasn't for a job, because feeding it, unless you were kind of a real, like, wealthy guy because feeding it was so expensive. Now you got. Everyone's got three dogs. So I don't know. I don't know. It's. It's really hard to. It's really hard to say. And in some ways, I don't have the answers. I'm just asking the questions.

But as you were investigating, writing for your book, was that gave you a little sense of optimism or was it giving you like, sense of the opposite. It's just like a pessimist, like, oh, God, this is not gonna be good.

No. You know, funnily enough, it's really tricky. I mean, my first book, I didn't feel optimistic at all about many things because everything. Lots of all of those species. I set out to find species that are disappearing. But this book, I was actually made need to feel more positive by a lot of farmers I spoke to. There's a guy down in the west country who's had a big problem with sheep and cattle being killed by dogs off the lead. And I said to him, are you hopeful? And he said, I'm hopeful because I'm doing farm tools now. And that seems like such a. Such a little trivial little thing. He's just doing these farm tools. And yet he was pretty clear that that was going to change things, that was going to change the relationship to the people around him have with farming and with agriculture. So what if we could do a farm tour for the whole country, right? I don't mean a literal farm tour, but, you know, I mean, Clarkson did a little bit of a farm tour, right, for the whole country. What if we could go even further? What if we could tell them about agricultural history and so on?

Folks, Uncommon Ground: rethinking our relationship with the countryside, apparently very controversial book. The link is in the description of the show. So you guys can go in there, buy a book, and if you do that, I will get a tiny commission from H Sale. So you're going to support my podcast that way as well. Patrick, leave us with some words of wisdom to people who are listening to that regardless on which side they're on. Some parting thoughts on how they should either conduct themselves or how they should talk or think about this issue.

I think it's just listening to people, you know, it's going out and finding people whose views differ from your own and listening to them and thinking, thinking, you know, can I. Can I understand something? Does this change my position? And I think also being, you know, one of the things that's been really interesting is the number of people who've read my book and have said, like, shit, that's brave. I don't think I'd have said that. But actually, you know what? I kind of agree. And if more of us said things that we believe in, you know, even if we think there might be some pushback, I think we would be in a better. In a better place.

Words of wisdom, Patrick. Thank you so much.