Butterflies - A Very British Obsession

[Gruditch]

Hi Gibster

It is illegal to allow any animal which is not ordinarily resident in Great Britain, or is listed on Schedule 9 to the Act 1981, to escape into the wild, or to release it into the wild without a licence. It is also illegal to plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild any plant listed on Schedule 9 of the Act. Offences carry penalties of up to £5,000 fine and/or 2 years imprisonment

Regards Gruditch

[Gibster]

[quote="Gruditch"]Offences carry penalties of up to £5,000 fine and/or 2 years imprisonment[/quote

Hi Gruditch, that just needs Guy to get involved and ALL the Moderators will be here!

Thanks for pointing out those facts, although I assume they wouldn't apply to releasing Essex Skippers in Caithness or Purple Hairstreaks into Speyside (hypothetical examples, as far as I know). It would be nice to think that the Laws are upheld and high penalties exacted, but I bet it's more a case of a fifty quid fine and court fees most of the time?

My local patch is Epsom Common LNR. One boundary has something like 140 houses backing onto the common along The Wells Estate. Many (indeed most) householders have added an illicit gate from their garden onto the common. No harm done really except Epsom Common is a SSSI and the owners, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, suddenly realised that the Laws state (roughly - I'm doing this from memory!) something along the lines that any such illegal accesses onto the SSSI will need to be removed else the householder will be fined 10% of the worth of the property per annum until the access is removed. So, all of a sudden EEBC would be millionaires! Good times. Except nothing was ever done about it.

My point being, the Laws are all well and good but they do need to be upheld and prioritised. Which rarely seems to be the case.

All the very best

Gibster.

EDIT: My girlfriend Sami finds my stance highly amusing - "Like you're Britain's most law abiding citizen, lol" the cheeky minx!

[Piers]

My point being, the Laws are all well and good but they do need to be upheld and prioritised. Which rarely seems to be the case.

I would probably disagree Seth; it is difficult to justify to the public at large that it is appropriate to direct time and resources to someone releasing caterpillars into a bit of old woodland, or putting an illicit gate through their back fence when crime levels are the level that they are generally in the country. You can imagine the response from the red-tops when someone is arrested an charged for releasing butterfly pupae into a meadow when down the road three cars were broken into, an elderly man was conned by a bogus gas official, and some one on the last bus home from town was stabbed by some delinquent little tinker in a white track suit and training shoes (why do so many young athletes turn to street crime? )

Having said that, all regions do have Wildlife Crime Officers, but even these valiant chaps have to prioritise their work, and (rightly or wrongly) hare coursing, raptor persecution, and illegal trade in reptiles, birds etc. will always be given a higher priority. These officers always have a massive case-load.

The sad fact is that the law is invariably an ass and shall fail to protect that which it is supposed to. And from my point of view, until the day that the release of a few marbled fritillary or camberwell beauty into the countryside is the biggest threat that our butterfly fauna faces, resources should always be directed to those activities which do immediately threaten our native species and their habitats. It's a straight forward case of priorities. Sadly I often wonder whether we have achieved even this simple principle.

Even your example of back gates and SSSI's has to be put into perspective: The majority of SSSI's in this country are sadly (according to recent NE surveys) in 'poor condition' and deteriorating. If and when this can be addressed and remedied then perhaps it would be justifiable to pursue those individuals who are in breach of the law but (as you imply) have not (yet) done anything that has significantly impacted upon the condition of the SSSI itself. If the current downward trend of SSSI quality continues these peoples back gates shall open onto land of little ecological value anyway.

I know that in an ideal world the resources would be available to police every crime and enforce every law (even those for which it would invariably be impossible to obtain a presecution), but the reality is that this shall not be the case and as such things have to be prioritised and some 'crimes' will always be at the bottom of the pile.

Felix.

[celery]

Regarding both the ethics and the efficacy of Mr. White's north Notts. introductions...

Followers of modern scientific theory will, no doubt, have realised that this discussion is entirely moot. Chaos Theory contends that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can start a tornado in Texas.

In other words... the use of mud-fish paste to attract a purple emperor to a path in a Northamptonshire wood, or the training of binoculars onto a white-letter hairstreak in the canopy of a Hertfordshire wych elm, or even stepping on an ant whilst trying to capture the perfect picture of a newly-emerged silver-studded blue on East Buddleigh Common can have just as much of an effect as all of Mr White's two thousand surreptitious releases combined.

We can never actually evaluate the true consequences of any action we take - no matter how much data is recorded.

So, metaphorically, those who choose 'unauthorised' releases dive into what could be the unforgiving icy-cold waters of the North Atlantic ocean whilst Butterfly Conservation spends six years re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

Whose approach is best? If we cannot know then we should not judge.

If every action can alter the whole course of a butterfly species, the entire history of human civilisation, or indeed the very nature and fabric of the universe, then the two minutes I spent typing this missive might have contributed to the destruction of society as we know it.

My finger is hovering over the button...

...and by pressing 'submit' I might have just saved it again.

[Jack Harrison]

There are two different points here.

1. The ethics of introduction. I have no strong views on this; I am following the debate. It would seem that many people on this group are equally uncertain and they too are weighing the evidence.

2. The clandestine nature of introductions. I do have very strong views about this. If the person responsible for an introduction is known or suspected, I do appreciate that it might be unwise to make unsubstantiated allegations for fear of litigation for libel if that is wrong. However I do sense that some people know a lot more than they are prepared to admit. There is whiff of a cover-up that will not readily go away. Who for example is behind the Chambers Farm Wood introductions? Is BC itself implicated? To the best of my knowledge, BC has not made public any details so probably isn't involved. But I want to be kept informed about what IS known concerting an introduction even if BC is not implicated. Secrecy is not an option nowadays as many public bodies are finding out to their cost: "The truth will out". (Shakespeare)

Jack

[Paul Wetton]

Putting something back that was once there to me seems favourable, whether it be the actual beastie or something very close i.e. Large Blue. These actions should be considered and authorised by whoever needs to authorise (another debate or not).

Placing something in a place where it never was to me seems wrong.

Personal opinion only.

[Piers]

I do sense that some people know a lot more than they are prepared to admit.

What precisely has given you this impression Jack?

There is whiff of a cover-up that will not readily go away.

Who do you think is covering something up, and what has drawn you to this conclusion?

Who for example is behind the Chambers Farm Wood introductions? Is BC itself implicated?

Where on earth has this come from? certainly nothing anyone has posted on this thread..

Secrecy is not an option nowadays as many public bodies are finding out to their cost

Who do you consider to be keeping secrets, and what public body do you think may be behind it?

I ask because your post is bordering on the X-Files..

Felix.

[NickB]

..... Secrecy is not an option nowadays as many public bodies are finding out to their cost: "The truth will out". (Shakespeare) Jack

..time to contact Wikileaks and Julian Assange?

[Neil Jones]

I do sense that some people know a lot more than they are prepared to admit.

What precisely has given you this impression Jack?

There is whiff of a cover-up that will not readily go away.

Who do you think is covering something up, and what has drawn you to this conclusion?

Who for example is behind the Chambers Farm Wood introductions? Is BC itself implicated?

Where on earth has this come from? certainly nothing anyone has posted on this thread..

Secrecy is not an option nowadays as many public bodies are finding out to their cost

Who do you consider to be keeping secrets, and what public body do you think may be behind it?

I ask because your post is bordering on the X-Files..

Felix.

He may just have used Google. The people on the Lincolnshire Bird Club forum say Martin White is doing this. Is this true?

[Gibster]

all regions do have Wildlife Crime Officers, but even these valiant chaps have to prioritise their work, and (rightly or wrongly) hare coursing, raptor persecution, and illegal trade in reptiles, birds etc. will always be given a higher priority. These officers always have a massive case-load.

The sad fact is that the law is invariably an ass and shall fail to protect that which it is supposed to. And from my point of view, until the day that the release of a few marbled fritillary or camberwell beauty into the countryside is the biggest threat that our butterfly fauna faces, resources should always be directed to those activities which do immediately threaten our native species and their habitats. It's a straight forward case of priorities. Sadly I often wonder whether we have achieved even this simple principle.

Even your example of back gates and SSSI's has to be put into perspective: The majority of SSSI's in this country are sadly (according to recent NE surveys) in 'poor condition' and deteriorating. If and when this can be addressed and remedied then perhaps it would be justifiable to pursue those individuals who are in breach of the law but (as you imply) have not (yet) done anything that has significantly impacted upon the condition of the SSSI itself. If the current downward trend of SSSI quality continues these peoples back gates shall open onto land of little ecological value anyway.

This concurs entirely with my previous points! Felix, we are not in disagreement.

Firstly, were there more Wildlife Crime Officers their 'massive case loads' would not be so 'massive' and it wouldn't be just high priority crimes such as raptor persecution that were brought into court rooms. This goes back to government departments and budgeting. Education, the elderly, NHS etc etc are seen to be of much more relevence and importance than our wildlife. The vast majority of folk would agree - obviously! Wildlife may be very in vogue but it isn't top of the pile by a long shot. I'm not suggesting we let the elderly die in a cold flat or let our youngsters descend into an ignorant mass of thugs incapable of spelling their own names (although I do wonder if the latter really have that far to go...) but I do wish more was done for our natural environment. And yes Jack, I do realise and recognise your point regards Homo sapiens doing things homo sapien-ishy is also 'natural', but you know what I mean.

Regards the SSSI, best not to get me started on Epsom Common's troubles. That's one soapbox I'll NEVER step down from!
Your point about the individuals bordering the site not having impacted yet...naaah mate! There are so many invasive exotic plant species taking over the undergrowth it is now a major problem. Indeed the SSSI is, in line with many, deteriorating. Why? Lack of resources and money. 400 acres of land with established woodland and wonderful meadowlands is now mostly covered in poor grade secondary growth. In the last fifteen years there has been an awful lot of very productive conservation work undertaken and many problems have been redressed. I personally began a programme of volunteer work parties which is still thriving and doing valuable habitat management work some ten years after our first 'bash'. My point was that had the residents with the illicit back gates been given proper warning beforehand, then those that refused to comply could have been fined and the money put into more management work thus improving the degraded areas of the site. This, to my mind, seems a very convenient solution to an ongoing problem (not so convenient to the residents concerned of course! )

Anyway, I digress. This is meant to be a butterfly forum Celery, your last post was simply sublime.

All the very best,

Gibster.

[Piers]

I do sense that some people know a lot more than they are prepared to admit.

What precisely has given you this impression Jack?

There is whiff of a cover-up that will not readily go away.

Who do you think is covering something up, and what has drawn you to this conclusion?

Who for example is behind the Chambers Farm Wood introductions? Is BC itself implicated?

Where on earth has this come from? certainly nothing anyone has posted on this thread..

Secrecy is not an option nowadays as many public bodies are finding out to their cost

Who do you consider to be keeping secrets, and what public body do you think may be behind it?

I ask because your post is bordering on the X-Files..

Felix.

He may just have used Google. The people on the Lincolnshire Bird Club forum say Martin White is doing this. Is this true?

Which bit of all this? Poor Martin, the latest I heard was that he was responsible for the economic down turn...

[NickB]

...and the melting of the polar ice-caps too, wasn't it?

[Jack Harrison]

I repeat what I said before.

I asked some time ago if anyone knew who was behind the Lindrick Common introductions. I also mentioned the Chambers Farm Marsh Frit foreign DNA. Somebody MUST have known something yet no information was forthcoming until the TV programme featuring Martin White let the cat out of the bag. So why wasn’t MW’s name mentioned earlier if Pete and Felix knew about him all along? The couple I met at Lindrick just referred to a “Worksop butterfly breeder” but fairly obviously knew who he was. MW might or might not be acting illegally; that is not the issue. I am sure from what has been said that he is an extremely competent butterfly breeder. But it just seems so strange that some people want (wanted) to protect his identity. That apparent protection makes me suspicious.

The Lincs Bird Club Forum previously mentioned is illuminating:

http://www.lincsbirdclub.co.uk/forum/vi ... =8&p=30683

Jack

[Pete Eeles]

I asked some time ago if anyone knew who was behind the Lindrick Common introductions. I also mentioned the Chambers Farm Marsh Frit foreign DNA. Somebody MUST have known something yet no information was forthcoming until the TV programme featuring Martin White let the cat out of the bag. So why wasn’t MW’s name mentioned earlier if Pete and Felix knew about him all along? ... But it just seems so strange that some people want (wanted) to protect his identity. That apparent protection makes me suspicious.

You're jumping to conclusions and making insinuations again, Jack - but I guess you know that and seem to get some perverse delight in continuing to do so. Just because I'm aware of Martin White doesn't mean I know what he's releasing or where and wouldn't dare cast aspersions on any individual without any facts whatsoever. In fact, I don't even know where Lindrick Common is.

Last time I looked, the Entomological Livestock Group had over 400 members (including Martin White and myself and at least 398 others). And before you ask, I don't know Martin's shoe size either should you go looking for footprints.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Piers]

As I said before; I can't speak for Pete, but for me there are some things that I will not impart on what is a very public forum. It's just a question of what I think is appropriate and this is a judgement that I must make with every post that I write.

I would question the integrity of anyone who would choose to broadcast to the world something which they may have been told in confidence.

Jack: I ask you, if you were entrusted details of a sensitive site where (for example) a nationally scarce species of moth bred would you tell the world or would you keep the persons confidence? and if you chose not to disclose, would that be simply to protect the moth and it's habitat or would it perhaps be a matter of personal integrity as well?

Of course in our 'enlightened' times this whole idea of trust and personal integrity seems to go by the board if the matter is considered to be 'in the public interest', even if it undermines national security..

Perhaps I'm just old fashioned and out of touch.

Felix.

[Jack Harrison]

My wife made a good comment. She said that MW wasn’t found out but he had “exposed himself”.

Eh, yes. Pity Mr. White’s first name isn’t Henry – “Flash Harry”!!!

Jack

[Piers]

My wife made a good comment. She said that MW wasn’t found out but he had “exposed himself”

I missed that bit, is your good lady wife certain it wasn't a caterpillar...?

Felix.

[Jack Harrison]

To retell an old joke:

Flasher: “What do you think of that then?”

Her reply: “Looks like a c*ck to me only a lot smaller”

Jack

[David M]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a first class debate with some highly interesting points raised. If the recent TV programme has done nothing else, then its contribution to what is an illuminating discussion on these boards has made it worthwhile on its own.

Aside from all the theoretical postulations, one must consider that the breeding and releasing of lepidoptera has gone on for centuries and will probably always do so. Although relatively small in number, there ARE enthusiasts/experts who do this and there is precious little that can be done to stop them (I've done it myself as a teenager with Small Tortoiseshells). Probably, the majority release their 'stock' clandestinely, given the strong feelings elicited by others who share an interest in lepidoptera.

As others have said, although there are laws designed to control this, they are insufficient in penalty to dissuade individuals from pursuing their course of action. One would hope that the more expert the practitioner, the more responsible he/she would be with regard to the potential consequences of introducing species to new areas or 'topping up' existing populations.

What I would worry about most is if an expert were releasing species without informing anybody, as an expert should know better than anybody the implications. I would be forced to conclude that such behaviour would amount to a giant 'vanity project'.

[Matsukaze]

I find it hard to believe that anyone is ever going to end up doing time for releasing exotic butterflies; if memory serves that particular provision of the Wildlife & Countryside Act was brought in to criminalise irresponsible pet owners unwilling to comply with the Dangerous Animals Act (?) in the mid-seventies, who were releasing pumas, crocodiles etc into the wild - a rather more serious matter I hope you agree. I daresay the intentional release of crop pests would also be viewed as a more serious matter.