Taking Purple Emperors.

[roundwood123]

I have been searching through sightings on the Herts/Middx BC website and came across a rather disturbing report of a couple of foreign looking gentlemen armed with nets, baco foil and rotten fruit, any thoughts on what could be going on?, are people trying to make money from our butterflies?, are PE`S protected by law?.
I suppose there could be an innocent explanation, but most people i meet on when searching for butterflies are armed with Bins and a camera. Steve

[Pete Eeles]

Hi Steve - the following may help:

http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/reports_law.php

A few things:

1. Unfortunately, most species that have protection are protected "for sale only". This means that they can be taken from the wild as long as they, or their offspring, are not sold on. Of course, this is very difficult to prove.

2. The selling of specimens only applies after the Wildlife and Countryside Act came into effect (1981) and anything taken before then can be sold. Of course, it's easy enough for an individual to fake a data label on a specimen.

3. I personally think the law is totally inadequate when it comes to protecting our species since it's almost impossible to put any protection into practice.

4. Be careful if you see someone acting suspiciously - just talk to them in a civilised manner. I've known one or two collectors turn nasty when confronted by an angry butterfly-lover.

Cheers,

- Pete

[roundwood123]

Thanks for that Pete, i had no idea this sort of thing went on.

[JKT]

4. Be careful if you see someone acting suspiciously - just talk to them in a civilised manner. I've known one or two collectors turn nasty when confronted by an angry butterfly-lover

Yes, civilized behavior is always a good idea. People often respond in the same tone - for good or bad.

[Gruditch]

Hmm , question for Pete, Lynn or Kipper then. Do Butterfly Conservation allow butterfly collectors, to net and collect on their reserves.

Gruditch

[Pete Eeles]

That's a good question and I don't have the answer. Based on "hearsay" over the last several years, here's my understanding. I seem to like lists today ...

1. Some species are fully protected - and this applies on any site.

2. Of course, none of these bodies endorse any form of collecting except in exceptional circumstances (such as monitoring the populations of certain species of moth whose species cannot be determined without collecting).

3. Butterfly Conservation, the Wildlife Trusts, Natural England etc. cannot add any additional legal protection to the species on their reserves. Any legal action applied would be in the form of trespass on private land - certainly nothing to do with the species in question.

4. Having said that - there are exceptions. I believe that a reserve identified as a SSSI is afforded additional regulation that can be upholded under the letter of the law.

Any lawyers out there?

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gruditch]

I ask because I know a some Wardens/Rangers on several reserves, owned by several different organisations. And if they catch anyone netting on their patch, then God help them, if the prospective collector puts up any sort of argument, then nets get snapped over knees.
I'm not sure were the law stands on removing wildlife from a wildlife reserve, but Wardens I know, are having none of it.

Gruditch

[Cotswold Cockney]

I have been searching through sightings on the Herts/Middx BC website and came across a rather disturbing report of a couple of foreign looking gentlemen armed with nets, baco foil and rotten fruit, any thoughts on what could be going on?, are people trying to make money from our butterflies?, are PE`S protected by law?.
I suppose there could be an innocent explanation, but most people i meet on when searching for butterflies are armed with Bins and a camera. Steve

Please keep in mind, no one has ever made a fortune netting and selling butterflies. Far too much time consuming hard work for big outlay with modest returns uncertain at best.

On the other hand, plenty of folks have made fortunes bulldozing, digging up and destroying Butterfly Habitats. Changes in land useage, often with tax advantages and even with government grants ( that's our taxes in the unlikely event you are not aware ) have and will continue to destroy more butterflies and moths than all the collectors in all time have done ~ a process which continues to this day on massive worldwide scales not simply in the UK. My own researches over the past half century show 60+ former Large Blue sites in the Cotswolds ploughed to oblivion, land use changes, afforestation etc, all no doubt with large incentives in both grants and profits.

If all collectors were to be shot on first sight it would be very doubtful that the long term welfare of butterflies would be enhanced one jot.....

Over thirty years ago, I took JH ( yes the same one as here on UKB ) to one of my favourite more extensive butterfly localities in the Cotswolds. On arrival, much to my chagrin, we found the vast area had been ploughed and bulldozed so much so that it brought up much Cotswold stone, making the whole area look like pavement. I can still remember what Jack said that day,,,,,, I could land a Hercules on that stuff! Such was the harmful transformation. Jack was an RAF Hercules Pilot Trainer based in Wiltshire back then and lived in the Cotswolds.

The following year I revisted and found the bare stoney ground supported many large Thistles. All in flower and most flowers had fine, freshly emerged Dark Green Fritillaries on them. With little grass and no other wild flowers, no sign of any Blues, Marsh Fritillaries, Satyrids ~ not even a single Marbled White, surely that most 'Cotswold' of butterflies.....

Above all, THAT kind of thing is the real threat to our wildlife and all the anti-collector/dealer laws will never change that threat situation.

...

[Gruditch]

Well said Cockney, but collecting is socially and morally unacceptable nowadays, and the environmental issue should not be confused with the moral issue.

Gruditch

[Piers]

I always find it interesting that the mere sight of a net invokes such a strong emotional response where as the sight of a moth trap does not.

A moth trap is an infinitely more efficient form of gathering specimens than a net and all too often the catch is merely emptied into the nearest bush or long grass the following morning after being examined only to be devoured by birds etc. irrespective of the habitat requirements of the moth species in the trap.

Similarly the continual operation of moth traps at the same sight will have a detrimental effect on species populations as the species are unable to go about their business of finding a mate/feeding/laying etc.

As someone who is primarily a fly man (rather than a butterfly man) I am frequently asked if I am collecting butterflies (or worse - sometimes the natural assumption is that I am collecting butterflies and I am forced to 'prove' my 'innocence' before continuing about my business) when people see a net. When I tell them that I am netting flies/wasps/micro moths the usual response is 'oh that's alright then'. I guess that in most peoples eyes flies (and other insect orders) don't merit the conservation concern than butterflies do!!

I guess my point is that a net on it's own does not mean that someone is collecting butterflies, and there are far greater threats to our Lepidoptera which do not seem to elicit any where near as strong a response as the mere sight of a net.

Felix.

[Neil Hulme]

Hi all,
As Pete has pointed out, the 'protective' legislation 'for sale only' isn't worth the paper it's written on. However, on private land with no public access, land owned by bodies such as the National Trust, SSSIs and other wildlife reserves (including BC reserves) it is illegal (for reasons of either local byelaw, trespass or theft) to remove fauna or flora without a licence or the express permission of the landowner.
If the law in any of the above respects is being broken, I am personally happy to take the risk of 'enforcing' this legislation myself, but always approach the matter in a courteous but firm, non-confrontational manner. I would not encourage others to do so, as the situation always holds the risk of escalation, and only this May my car was vandalised to the tune of £300, after I insisted that collectors leave a site I manage on private land. The recommended alternative is to take number plates, descriptions, accurate notes and then report to the relevant authorities (including the reserve manager/landowner and your local Police Wildlife Officer). Remember, you must be sure of your facts before 'confronting' anyone, although polite enquiries are fine and those going about their legitimate business wielding nets (e.g. with permission, conducting scientific surveys etc) will be quite happy to explain their actions and should respect your concerns.
Unfortunately it is legal to collect species such as the Purple Emperor for personal use (i.e. not for sale), where public access and such actions are unrestricted. This brings us to the moral issue. Of course we all have the right to argue the moral case for not collecting, but those doing so will inevitably have a counter point of view. In the past I have prevented a Purple Emperor from being netted, by exercising my equal right to hold position on public land, this ‘conveniently’ being between the butterfly and the netsman. In the end he gave up very frustrated but somewhat amused by my actions. But remember, this is a non-contact sport and I can’t recommend it to anyone else for the above reasons of ‘possible escalation’. I would no longer indulge in this myself, as I cannot take the associated risks of getting into physical conflict as a representative of Butterfly Conservation. However, if a big bloke like Gruditch were to stand (growling) between a Duke of Burgundy and someone with a net, I would be laughing out loud as I pulled out my wallet to buy him a drink.
It would be true to say that collecting in the past has very seldom been responsible for severely damaging butterfly populations, and the other pressures outlined by CC are a far, far greater threat. However, with increasing fragmentation of habitat and the increasing rarity of some species, this is no longer the case. If a small, geographically and genetically isolated colony of Duke of Burgundy, which in a poor year might rely on only a handful of females, were to be visited by an over-enthusiastic collector at just the wrong time, this could easily (if exacerbated by poor seasonal weather) be a major contributory factor in local extinction.
With the ever-increasing pressure on our butterflies the continuance of collecting certainly won’t help their cause. Even today the majority of those within the collecting community will be doing little damage to the majority of species, whether we find it morally acceptable or not. The problem is that a minority are NOT collecting ‘responsibly’ – I know, because I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Quite simply, what we need is sensible, enforceable legislation to protect our butterflies. When I look at the levels of protection given to Badgers and Great Crested Newts, relative to some of our rarer and declining species of butterfly, then I just end up scratching my head – it’s a nonsense.
Neil

[KeynvorLogosenn]

I haven't really understood why people would want to net butterflies. We can take pictures now, but I guess some people would prefer the real thing, as in the actual thing. If they put them on display where ever, surely isn't that the same as a picture of a butterfly? I guess then they could hold it, but I wouldn't want to hold it because
a) One in these displays are dead
b) I could easily hurt a live one even unintensionally.
c) I would have to kill it to put it in a display, I don't want to kill it

So I find it hard to understand why people would want to net them and take them away, for scienific reasons, I am sure they are justified, but generally... I just understand why.
Law or no law, personally for me it just doesn't justify netting them, and if there is a law inforced - why would they want them that bad to break the law when there is photography? Or even more than one of each? Why do people net and take away butterflies?

Also, I am sure this question was around somewhere else too but, is it okay to net a butterfly to look at in then let it go?
Surely the net would hurt it?
mouse

[Padfield]

Surely the net would hurt it?

Netting with a professional net is probably less harmful overall than chasing a butterfly over fragile habitat. It does the butterfly no harm and allows close examination. Here is a large blue quite happy to sit around on my thumb after being netted and examined:



I let it go immediately. With some groups (Mellicta, Pyrgus, Erebia) netting may be the only way of getting an accurate picture of which species fly in an area. I have identified exactly two Piedmont ringlets in my local region, both of which were cruising past and only identified by netting.

Guy

[Neil Jones]

There was an extensive debate on the international Butterfly Listserve Leps-l a few years ago. (1995)
it was prompted by the appearance of an aggressive and nasty convicted felon collector who disappeared
and was often henceforth on the list referred to as "He Who Must Not Be Named" ( It is a Harry Potter reference)
,for fear he would return.

During the debate this posting was made by Patrick Roper.
It contains some interesting points.

The Collecting Debate

In the collecting debate so far, too little attention seems to have been
given to the matter of motivation. As I pointed out in my first posting on
this topic, the recreational collector of butterflies and moths is often
interested in completeness and this inevitably means they go after the
rarest as well as the commonest. Often, sadly, they collect simply to fill
cabinet gaps and they have little or no interest in adding to scientific
knowledge. This is a quite different kind of activity to field workers who
take voucher specimens to confirm identity, or properly founded and thought
out studies or surveys on butterflies and moths carried out with the full
knowledge and agreement of conservation agencies.

The example of Ford collecting long series of Marsh Fritillaries, Eurodryas
aurinia, in Britain has been cited. Ford was a leading butterfly scientist
and would, I am sure, have been able to argue very cogently for the
scientific value of what he was doing. His motivation would have been to
conserve the Marsh Fritillary and understand it better, rather than simply
to embellish his private collection. The problem with examples like this
is that people might think that if it was okay for Ford to do it, it is okay
for anybody to do it. Recreational collectors may not represent a large
proportion of the UK population, but if they all descended on the remaining
Marsh Fritillary colonies I believe they could do considerable damage.

The Mazarine Blue, Cyaniris semiargus, became extinct in the late
nineneteenth/early twentieth century in Britain (for reasons unknown). If I
were to announce, via the press, that a colony of this species had been
discovered in a publicly accessible area in southern England, I have little
doubt that collectors would appear. Their aim would be to get examples for
their own collections, not for scientific study, not to add to the records
database, not for museum reference collections. Some of these collectors
would also be interested in the value of these butterflies as objects of
trade. It does seem that these people, and there are still plenty of them
in Britain, are not in the business of collecting to advance human knowledge
or to conserve butterflies.

The tragedy of this is that the location of the colony would have to be kept
secret though there would probably be no reason why butterfly watchers and
the general public could not go there. This means that the less ethical
recreational collectors would be inhibiting the enjoyment and understanding
that others might get from rarer butterflies and moths and slowing down the
support for habitat conservation that this would engender. The Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds has made immense gains for the
conservation and much of their success is that they have arranged for public
access at many rare bird sites (though they still have to take extreme
precautions against egg collectors).

If any serious entomologist, amateur or professional, has a good case to
collect for legitimate purposes, the authorities will normally issue a
permit. I have always been able to obtain permits to study other orders of
insects on nature reserves both in Britain and abroad. If a permit is
denied, it is not in my experience because collecting is regarded as
inhumane or careless of the sanctity of life, but simply that it is
unnecessary and might damage the species and its habitat.

As with so many human activities, I think there a danger of hypocrisy in
this collecting issue in the sense that cabinet gap fillers who are prepared
surreptitiously to invade any reserve, or take long series etc., will argue
that they are doing so for scientific reasons and not that they absolutely
must have a rare "Papilio mirabilis" or two for their collection.

I must stress that I am not condemning people who collect for sound,
scientific reasons and who have conservation at heart. In a private posting
I gave the following illustrations of what I believe are the unacceptable
activities of recreational collectors that have taken place recently, and
this is the kind of thing I believe is wrong:-

Brown Hairstreak (Thecla betulae)

The London Branch of Butterfly Conservation worked hard in the late 1980s
early 1990s to restore the habitat of this species at a site in Surrey.
Eggs were being laid in good numbers on Blackthorn when persons unknown came
along and removed a large amount of Blackthorn wood, complete with
hairstreak eggs, with secateurs, thus severely damaging the colony.

The Sussex Branch of the same organisation tried to safeguard a Brown
Hairstreak colony along an old railway line. In the early 1990s they
advertised a field trip to the site for members in their bulletin and this
provoked very unwelcome visits by collectors. As a result they no longer
advertise field trips there.

Both these sites now have to be kept on the "secret" list. The Brown
Hairtreak is shy and retiring as an adult and collectors know the easiest
way to fill the gap in their cabinets, or get that special variety, is to
breed them from wild-collected eggs.

Black Hairstreak (Satyrium pruni)

Generally speaking collectors seem to keep away from the Forestry
Commission's reserve at Bernwood, Oxfordshire but they are known to work the
road alongside for any butterflies that are foolish enough to fly over the
hedge.

Purple Emperor (Apatura iris)

Ken Willmott in his excellent little book about the Purple Emperor published
by Butterfly Conservation in 1990 says: "Sadly collecting is still a problem
in some localities and every year on can see the bases of sallows strewn
with twigs and branches that have been torn from the trees... Sometimes this
wanton vandalism reaches such proportions that the damaged sallows are
removed by foresters the following spring because of their sorry condition.
The Purple Emperor is far too precious a creature to end up in a display
cabinet and it is to be hoped that the threat to the butterfly from
collectors and dealers will quickly become a thing of the past."

Large Copper (Lycaena dispar)

In the recent past Large Coppers have been known to "migrate" along some of
the dykes leading away from Wood Walton Fen where a reestablished population
is maintained. I have been told that collectors quickly learn of this and
go to try and obtain them from along the dykes (they certainly would not be
allowed to collect in the fen).

Chequered Skipper (Carterocephalus palaemon)

Last year English Nature, our governement conservation agency, brought their
first successful prosecution against a butterfly dealer who had been selling
Scottish examples of this protected species at a trade fair in Leicester. I
believe he had a whole box full and was asking =A32 (c. $3) a piece. =
Although
this would scarcely cover the costs of his endeavours, it does demonstrate
that there is still a demand. I think it quite probable that someone who
was prepared to buy a Chequered Skipper from a dealer for their private
collection would not hesitate to catch one for the same purpose if it
happened to fly by. The Chequered Skipper became extinct in England in the
1970s.

Apart from anything else, I think it is a shame that senior staff from
English Nature have to put effort into this sort of policing when there is
so much to be done on the conservation front. Members of Butterfly
Conservation are also increasingly being contacted by police to look at
suspect collections.

Duke of Burgundy (Hamearis lucina)

I know two places where egg-bearing cowslip leaves have been picked by
collectors and where this is regarded by members of Butterfly Conservation
as having been a major contribution to the extirpation of the colony. In
one case the habitat was on the Surrey Downs and was the nearest to London.
The other in West Sussex is close to my own heart because my wife and I saw
the adult butterflies there before she became too disabled to walk that far.
It was a wonderful afternoon in a wonderful place and it is sad that others
will no longer be able to enjoy it in quite the same way now the Dukes have
gone.

Silver-washed Fritillary (Argynnis paphia)

There is a site in Hampshire, a local nature reserve, where there is a high
proportion of the valezina morph. I am told that vigilance has to be
maintained against recreational collectors during the flight period.

Other examples:-

In addition to these specific examples, one only has to look through the
journals of the British Entomological and Natural History Society to see the
amount of Lepidoptera collecting that still goes on. Rare butterflies and
moths from British locations are constantly put on display at their annual
exhibition and often these are varieties selected from a much larger number
that had been bred. In many cases in seems inescapable that the original
material is taken from nature reserves or protected areas without=
permission.

I think the story of the unique British subspeies of the Large Blue,
Maculinea arion eutyphron, is instructive in this context. Jeremy Thomas in
his book "The Butterflies of Britain and Ireland" documents the decline and
disappearance of this species in Britain, but believes that the thousands of
adults caught by collectors in the West Country and elsewhere were not a
contributary cause to its extinction. The exception is possibly Barnwell
Wold, Northamptonshire of which he says "this sustained heavy collecting for
about 20 years, but in 1860 about 200 adults were taken at rest by one
dealer in the course of a wet summer and the colony never recovered". I
think everyone will agree that is not quite the same as keeping one or two
examples as vouchers or collecting in order to help conservation.

Another example of what I might call the recreational collecting mentality
is contained in the manuscript record book that I have of a Lincolnshire
vicar who was active from about 1914 to the mid-1930s. He seemed aware of
many conservation issues, but still visited Wicken Fen almost every year for
yet more specimens of our unique British Swallowtail, Papilio machaon
britannicus. Why if he already had a series? It would seem in his case it
was simply for the pleasure of the chase, or maybe catching rare butterflies
gave him an excuse to have a good day out. The Swallowtail beacame extinct
at Wicken in the 1950s through habitat deterioration (though attempts at
reestablishment are being made).

Perhaps the sadness is that if these obviously highly motivated collectors
had thought a little more about conservation, we might still have the Large
Blue in the West Country and the Swallowtail at Wicken as original
populations rather than precarious re-establishments. In the case of the
Large Blue no one even bothered to work out its life history until Frohawk
came along in the early part of this century. If recreational collectors
and dealers found it to be declining in one area they simply moved on to
another.

[Susie]

The only time I have confronted someone with some questioning as to what he was doing with a butterfly net in a colony of rare butterflies it turned out he was putting them in, not taking them out.

You make a good point about habitat loss, CC. Reading the above post about a brown hairstreak site being raided by people stealing the eggs was interesting because the council have just flayed the blackthorn edges around here to within an inch of their lives and doing more damage than a whole coach load of egg collectors could ever do! I would call the council names, but they have probably never heard of a brown hairstreak.

[Pete Eeles]

... the council have just flayed the blackthorn edges around here to within an inch of their lives and doing more damage than a whole coach load of egg collectors could ever do! I would call the council names, but they have probably never heard of a brown hairstreak.

Hi Susie - it would probably be worth letting your council know about this since they may be sympathetic and only perform the flailing of the hedgerows at a better time of year. For example, telling them to get this done in early July will hopefully mean that most of the individuals have pupated and not emerged and laid the eggs that are the next generation.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Neil Jones]

The only time I have confronted someone with some questioning as to what he was doing with a butterfly net in a colony of rare butterflies it turned out he was putting them in, not taking them out.

You make a good point about habitat loss, CC. Reading the above post about a brown hairstreak site being raided by people stealing the eggs was interesting because the council have just flayed the blackthorn edges around here to within an inch of their lives and doing more damage than a whole coach load of egg collectors could ever do! I would call the council names, but they have probably never heard of a brown hairstreak.

Susie, whereabouts are you. You might try contacting your local BC branch. Ignorance is a big problem but your council should have an ecologist who might help. They vary but I have met some excellent ones.

[Susie]

Good advice, thank you.


Oi, Kipper, sort it out (please)!

[JKT]

Well said Cockney, but collecting is socially and morally unacceptable nowadays, and the environmental issue should not be confused with the moral issue.

That is your opinion. I have no problem taking a sample here this year and another there next year, while counting and reporting what I see and taking pictures whenever I can. The way I have heard it the German laws protecting almost all species of butterflies caused more damage than the collectors did: the information on rare species was diminished and consequently many habitats were destroyed.

[Neil Hulme]

Hi Susie,
Please make a note of when the blackthorn was flailed, get one or two photos in different areas, draw me a rough map of the extent of the blackthorn-rich parts of the hedge and try to find out exactly who is responsible for the 'maintenance' (County, Town Council, Contractor etc). I'll do the rest. It's almost certain that something can be done to reduce the damage to the BH population.
Neil