Butterflies - A Very British Obsession

[Pete Eeles]

Let's get to the nub of the matter. Who is Martin White? Jack

He is a consultant entomologist specialising in British Butterflies. What he doesn't know about the ecology of butterflies such as the Large Heath probably isn't worth knowing, and he has made significant advances in our understanding of such species and their conservation requirements. Felix.

I believe Martin is an amateur entomologist who, as Felix says, has an incredible understanding of all stages of our British butterflies. He's also a thoroughly nice chap and has been extremely helpful when I've asked him for advice in my own rearing exploits. And I'm personally very pleased to see him included in the programme since it raises provocative questions such as those being debated in this thread - although, as many have pointed out, it was unbalanced and painted Martin as some kind of "butterfly saviour" without any debate on why conservations don't share this view.

... he has made significant advances in our understanding of such species and their conservation requirements. Felix.

Felix - do you know if his advances are actually documented anywhere? I don't think I've ever seen any reference to his work. I guess I could ask him

Cheers,

- Pete

[Jack Harrison]

Pete says with ref to Martin White:

I guess I could ask him

Please do and maybe also invite him to join the bear pit of this thread on ukb

Jack

[Jack Harrison]

Martin White

I might have got my so-called facts entirely wrong here so please put me straight if necessary.

Several times over the past year, I have asked about the introductions at Lindrick but got no response. The fact that I made a special visit there to see the Scotch Argus shows that I am not entirely against what is going on. I remain open-minded, but do need more information – origins of stock, whether the populations are self-sustaining, legal situation and so on.

Now at great risk of upsetting Pete, it transpires that he knows Martin White. The cynic in me suggests that Pete might have more insight about what is going on than he has revealed.

Pete. I understand that you might not feel at liberty to speak on Martin’s behalf but secrecy is not an option here.

And I have to stress that I am not necessarily against introductions. However, the legality or otherwise does have to be investigated.

Jack

[Piers]

Hi Jack,

I can't speak for Pete but for my part I am not going to enter into a discussion pertaining to this on a (very) public forum. All the information that I have is based upon personal communications with the chappy concerned, and knowing the guy well it just wouldn't be appropriate for me to regurgitate information, that may or may not have been given to me in confidence, here on the UKB forum.

If we meet up next year (Lulworth Skippers) however, I would be happy to natter away until you want to gag me with a tongue depressor.

I hope you'll understand and appreciate this position.

In answer to Pete's question; as far as I am aware MW has not published anything publicly (at least not for some years), however he is more than happy to enter into personal comms regarding his research, and I believe that some of his work pertaining to large heath genetics is with the BMHN along with appropriate voucher specimens.

Felix.

[Rogerdodge]

Felix wrote

He is a consultant entomologist

Pete wrote

I believe Martin is an amateur entomologist

Now I am confused. Is he a profesional or an amateur?
Did he introduce Scotch Argus into a site that had nevr held it before? and of a Eurpoean mainland sub-species?
I agree with Jack that it woulkd be good to have him on here to educate us about his activities.
I am seriously fascinated by this.

[NickB]

I have some sympathy for Martin. It is better to ask forgiveness than permission, sometimes. Especially if you believe what you are doing is the right thing, and want to get things done! Martin may be dead before he got "permission" to do what he does!
And I'm sure we have all seen habitat suited to butterflies that are no longer on those sites as we explore our local patches. So, in a sense, Martin provides a bridge where no actual bridges, or habitats, exist.
And on the other hand, given so many transects have been done for so long, it does make one wonder at the real effects on reported distributions and expanses of range that appear to have taken place recently. If those who produce the data knew of each introduction - official or unofficial - then they could adjust for such confounding factors.
What it does prove, though, is that are already suitable areas that have become isolated that could support these small-scale re-introductions. I'm not just talking about rare species, I'm talking about everyday butterflies that stand a chance of surviving once their larvae or pupae or adults are released. So we must continue to support moves to make more habitat available in the knowledge that butterflies can re-colonise.

Butterflies don't need permission to exist.....
...but they do need our help.
To paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt, who seems to have an aphorism for everything:
"Conservation starts in small places, close to home"...

[NickB]

.... I already have heard a councillor at a meeting where the fate of a Marsh Fritillary colony was at stake accusing people of "putting them in jam jars"...

...and the same I'm sure is said for newts, other insects, rare birds, bats and flowers....
..there are always the same accusations and excuses as to why wildlife is less important than almost everything else when it stands in the way of "development". And I take your point about SSSIs and the idea that they can somehow be trans-located and mitigated for by "creating" one nearby as the developers' move in....I have seen a mitigation site for Grizzled Skipper; it is a good job that their survival does not depend on just that site, else they would and still could disappear

[Pete Eeles]

Now at great risk of upsetting Pete, it transpires that he knows Martin White.

I've already said that I know Martin But only on the basis of half a dozen phone conversations.

The cynic in me suggests that Pete might have more insight about what is going on than he has revealed.

Insight into what, exactly? This isn't MI5 at work! Martin rears butterflies and releases them in new locations.

I understand that you might not feel at liberty to speak on Martin’s behalf but secrecy is not an option here.

I think you better send the boys round - I'm not talking

Cheers,

- Pete

[Pete Eeles]

.... I already have heard a councillor at a meeting where the fate of a Marsh Fritillary colony was at stake accusing people of "putting them in jam jars"...

...and the same I'm sure is said for newts, other insects, rare birds, bats and flowers....
..there are always the same accusations and excuses as to why wildlife is less important than almost everything else when it stands in the way of "development". And I take your point about SSSIs and the idea that they can somehow be trans-located and mitigated for by "creating" one nearby as the developers' move in....I have seen a mitigation site for Grizzled Skipper; it is a good job that their survival does not depend on just that site, else they would and still could disappear

And a related argument that plays into the hands of developers - is that any rare species that might be present on a site were artificially introduced and are therefore discounted. This is a very real issue where uncoordinated introductions undermine genuine conservation-related action.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Piers]

I have some sympathy for Martin. It is better to ask forgiveness than permission, sometimes.

The only inland colony of wood white in Dorset is the result of a clandestine release, from stock that originated from another Dorset wood white colony before that one succumbed to vegetative succession. If it were not for this release there would be no wood white in Dorset save from overspill from the East Devon colony.

This release has been going for a couple of decades now so...

we know that in most cases IT DOES NOT WORK!

...emphasis on the most...

Felix.

[NickB]

There are very many issues confronting wildlife in threatened environments....
...and both sides it seems will justify whatever actions they take.
I heard reports of Heath Fritillary being released onto the route of a certain guided busway, which as Pete says, can be unhelpful, however well-motivated (and stupid) it is....

[Pete Eeles]

I have some sympathy for Martin. It is better to ask forgiveness than permission, sometimes. Especially if you believe what you are doing is the right thing, and want to get things done! Martin may be dead before he got "permission" to do what he does!...

Good points. What's more, I've found that the few experienced breeders I've come across are actually quite responsible. It's a real shame that such experienced individuals are frowned upon by most conservationists and vice-versa because, while there are undoubtedly conflicting opinions, both parties are after the same end result. Working together for a common cause would be much more effective than the war of words that seems to percolate these communities. Discuss

Cheers,

- Pete

[NickB]

I have some sympathy for Martin. It is better to ask forgiveness than permission, sometimes.

The only inland colony of wood white in Dorset is the result of a clandestine release, from stock that originated from another Dorset wood white colony before that one succumbed to vegetative succession. If it were not for this release there would be no wood white in Dorset save from overspill from the East Devon colony.
This release has been going for a couple of decades now so...

we know that in most cases IT DOES NOT WORK!

...emphasis on the most...
Felix.

...this is NOT an example of a stupid introduction...

...I think, on balance, whether it makes it difficult or not to monitor and count, it is better to at least HAVE some butterflies because someone with the skill and knowledge to rear and release Wood Whites into suitable habitats has taken direct action to do that. Maybe those who DO monitor and count, and to which it deserves the rigour of academic study, should consider that without these actions there may not be anything for them to count and monitor....

Perhaps "better to ask forgiveness than permission" should be our mantra...

[Jack Harrison]

...more effective than the war of words that seems to percolate these communities...

I am basically confused as to why, despite several requests for information about Lindrick and the releases there, nothing had been forthcoming until the BBC in effect let the cat out of the bag. And now it seems that some people probably did know all the while. I do have to wonder whether there might have been some measure of deliberate secrecy.

I have seen secrecy on some bird groups; an inner circle in the know, an outer circle kept in the dark. On one internet group, there was a culture of “talking down” to someone (well, certainly that is how I perceived things). The final straw came when I reported that Buzzards were almost certainly breeding in this part of South Cambridgeshire and had suggested that someone more expert than me might like to try to tie down the nest location. I received what amounted to a “reprimand” for airing such sensitive (!?) information. I simply would not tolerate being treated like a naughty little boy and ceased contributing to the group.

As I have said several times before, I am not necessarily against releases. I have been “guilty” (if that’s the right word) in the past myself. I was acting on my own but breeding/release wasn’t anything like so controversial 40 years ago. I never deliberately kept quiet about what I did but in the days before the modern communication of internet, it was much more difficult to disseminate the information. For the record, one of my releases was Wood White ex Buckinghamshire in to Somerford Common, Wiltshire. They survived for several generations but then died out.

If this post is perceived as a “word of words”, so be it. I just want transparency.

Jack

[Piers]

Jack:
As I said, happy to talk to you about this (and anything else), I have nothing to hide per se but a public forum is not the place to do it; particularly if what we would be discussing is clearly a sensitive subject. This is not about elitism, just what is appropriate.

Felix.

[Neil Jones]

Perhaps "better to ask forgiveness than permission" should be our mantra...

It's been mine for years, in many aspects of my life... as my exasperated partner would doubtless testify.

...this is NOT an example of a stupid introduction...

Interesting. So where lies the distinction?

Are MW's introductions not stupid because his stock is carefully sourced, the prospective release site and donor site carefully assessed, the results to a greater extent successful?

Felix.

How do we know this?

[Pete Eeles]

...more effective than the war of words that seems to percolate these communities...

I am basically confused as to why, despite several requests for information about Lindrick and the releases there, nothing had been forthcoming until the BBC in effect let the cat out of the bag. If this post is perceived as a “word of words”, so be it. I just want transparency. Jack

I'm not sure why you're confused Jack. Where would an individual releasing Scotch Argus at Lindrick (something I know nothing about, BTW) report their release? And what would happen if they did; reporting such things is hardly encouraged (hence my comment about the two factions).

I think that what you're asking for is perfectly reasonable and sensible. But the current division would seem to discourage such things.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Piers]

How do we know this?

What? I was asking a question about the validity of releases generally; comparing MW's to the 'official' ones. We all know that you disapprove of anything that isn't BC sanctioned from your earlier posts (in both this thread and others), so there's no need to repeat it.

[Jack Harrison]

Where would an individual releasing Scotch Argus at Lindrick (something I know nothing about, BTW) report their release?

The BC magazine "Butterfly" is one obvious place. Or Natural England. Or even this forum perhaps.

Jack

[Neil Jones]

How do we know this?

What? I was asking a question about the validity of releases generally; comparing MW's to the 'official' ones. We all know that you disapprove of anything that isn't BC sanctioned from your earlier posts (in both this thread and others), so there's no need to repeat it.

It isn't a question of BC approving things it is a matter of simple logic and critical thinking.
You implied that all the introductions were carefully carried out. We only have the word of one individual. He may be
honest in the belief that this is the case but just deluding himself. We do not know. Without openness as to what is being done and proper evaluation we cannot evaluate any of these claims.

Let us just look at the Marbled White climate change suggests it is moving north. How to we know that its presence on a given site is due to him. How do we know, for example, it wasn't there in small numbers before? It takes years to properly record the species on a given site. He claims on TV to have done TWO THOUSAND introductions. Over a 20 year period this would be A HUNDRED every year. Is there time to properly evaluate and examine every site at this rate?