Unathorised releases of butterflies into areas they haven't previously occupied!! There ought to be a law against it! Apart from my very first two or three naive introductions (1967-73), none of my releases have been unauthorised, nor in so much as can I deduce to places where such creatures have p...

From British Butterflies, 1905, by W.S.Coleman. LH.jpg Jack Ashdown Forest has a small selection of singularly originated records for long departed Large Heath. Such information only arises here because the butterfly was introduced to the site by a certain Mr. Plastead [=Plasted], from c.1802 onwar...

Dartmoor and Exmoor do not currently have the required habitat in any sort of density. The High Moorland blanket bogs on Dartmoor have a very high density of Hare's Tail Cottongrass, together with Cross-Leaved Heath. The habitat may well be suitable for Large Heath, if a little exposed. Dear Rogerd...

Rogerdodge wrote:Martin

p.s. I understood that Common Cottongrass E. angustifolium was also used - particularly in N. Yorks..

I remember the ecology work which supported this view and I can assure you it was flawed.

Martin

I therefore, agree that in certain circumstances we probably should be introducing or more specifically re-introducing species. I think that protocol of some sort should be followed and if so this should be a protocol designed by the so called experst, ecologists, butterfly experts etc and I would ...

I'm interested to know why Large Heath only occurs from mid-Wales northwards despite seemingly ideal conditions being present further south, eg in S. Wales and Exmoor/Dartmoor region. Large Heath is dependent on its larval foodplant, Harestail Cotton-grass, growing at sufficient density over a suff...

Jack Harrison wrote:WTF means "What The F*ck"

Jack

I've been told to tone it down, so I'm not going to anwser someone who swears.

Martin

David M wrote:Which butterfly species is your current top priority?

Large Heath

Martin

proof that the strategy has NOT worked is often only after the negative effects have made themselves apparent, to the dis-advantage of the butterflies concerned. But the proof then does exist that it does not work! That does not necessarily do the butterflies much good, but science has moved forwar...

... or is it, we can, so we are going to do it, because we can? I do have issues of a moral nature with this! Specially GM'd butterflies to fit the niches we have left them with? :evil: I think I understand your moral issues, but sometimes it's GM'd butterflies or a case of no butterflies at all ir...

Do we feel we have the right to interfere? We began interfering a very long time ago (c.5 thousand years). What we have now is far from a pristine enviornment with genetically altered butterflies evolved to fit that degraded enviornment. In my opinion we have an obligation to interfere. An obligati...

As we have seen, species can change their behaviour and food-plants locally when faced with challenges. Again, I would like examples, and examples which have changed more rapidly than the rate at which bottle-necked colonies of Mountain Ringlet have lost ground on the lower slopes of some of its mo...

NickB wrote:a UK-based genetic mixing would be preferable to extinction.....or would it?

A UK-based genetic mixing surely has to be preferable to extinction, but then using only the minimum of divergent material.

Martin

I often think if we were dealing with a forest fire, by the time the 'i's had been dotted and the 't's crossed, the whole area would have already burned down, but at least we'd be able to reassure ourselves that our original plan to deal with it had been properly thought through! I assume therefore...

David M wrote:Martin, do you act autonomously because you get frustrated by bureaucracy and officialdom when dealing with recognised conservation bodies?

No.

Martin

Jack Harrison wrote:

...opposite sides of the same human neurosis.

WTF does that mean?

Jack

What does WTF mean?

Martin

NickB wrote:Paul, I feel, is perfectly justified to expect an apology for, what I can see, is unwarranted abuse.

Obviously, Paul doesn't actually talk out of his AH, this would be very difficult indeed, so I apologise profusely.

Martin

no one has the right to play god beleiving purely in their own ability and that there thinking and science is correct and also the long term effects are never known and thus restraint should be practiced. Your high risk strategy may be disastrous for a population or even a species but not to yourse...

but I think we will all agree that introductions can also be extremely dangerous not only to the established natives of said species but also other critters in the ecosystem. As you said Martin yours is a high risk stategy. Again, I would like examples of supposed extremely dangerous introductions ...

Martin clearly knows his “stuff” and his results speak for themselves. I make no judgement on the ethics (and indeed legality) of his methods – I leave that to others. He uses some scientific terms that are frankly a little beyond me. But I do have to ask one question – doubtless others have been w...