Rogerdodge wrote:This is a very difficult discussion.
The last thing I want to do is fall out with Pete and Felix – two guys who I have enormous respect for.
I can, to an extent, understand their defence of this chap.
I can see that these introductions and re-introductions have been made with the best of intentions.
I don't think any of us wouldn't like to see greater numbers of species and/or greater numbers of individuals on our favourite sites.
However, it cannot be denied that secret introductions, no matter how well intentioned or well researched, can seriously damage the subsequent collection of data - the data upon which we base our arguments for greater expenditure on the conservation of butterflies.
If I were one of those laudable people that carry out transect work I would now be questioning the validity of my data - particularly if I did this in the midlands.
Precisely. I am not against introductions but I look at the data which clearly say that they don't work unless you do them properly.
So, in order to correct the skew that his actions will have placed on data collection by serious amateur and professional entomologists over the years, I suggest that he should be given an amnesty from prosecution in return for handing over his records to BC/Nat Hist Mus/Natural England or whoever would be the relevant party(ies).
The interesting question is immunity from doing what? Collecting endangered species? Or something else?
I understand that his guerrilla tactics have come about due a frustration with the amount of time it takes for the official wheels to turn.
No I don't think this is the case at all. The practice of introducing things used to happen before the decline in butterflies. L. Hugh Newman was at it with Winston Churchill of all people and one of the Rothschilds moved Black Hairstreaks around years before. Look at the Large Coppers. Yes, with modern knowledge it seems stupid ,but that happened in the 1920s first.
It is simple. They like breeding butterflies . So do I . The releasing is then a justification.
Perhaps this is somewhere else that attention should be focussed.
It has been mentioned in a previous post that the top echelons at BC are all pretty ancient.
I know all the current trustees and those previously going back more than a decade and a half. I also know the senior staff. I wouldn't say they were ancient at all.
Perhaps a younger leadership would get these things moving quicker.
I know that there are a number of "younger" people on this forum (indeed - involved in this very discussion) who have the knowledge, drive and talents to run BC.
So, next year, let's have some younger names standing for election.
They’d get my vote!
This is a common mistake saying youth will press for change. It may have an element of truth but you are more likely to get change if you chose people with the element of personality called "Openness to Experience". This is determined by the time you reach adulthood if not before and stays with you.
I too have a great deal of respect for Martin Warren.