Secrecy or not?

[Jack Harrison]

I joined the Sussex Branch (effectively as a country member) last summer but apparently the details were not passed on from HQ. So it was only yesterday that I got my first Sussex Butterfly Report (2009)

I have to say that the Report is quite excellent. There is a balance between disclosure of sites and confidentiality of private localities. Many of the articles are by The Kipper Neil Hulme but the other contributors are equally good. The publication sets the standard that sadly not all other branches quite manage to match.

I plan to see you Sussex chaps in early May and look forward to an après-leps pint at the Sportsman’s Arms, Amberley. I will be investigating the possibility of B&B either there or elsewhere in the village so that with no driving to do, I can enjoy more than just one pint and savour that superb view over the Downs for a little longer.

Jack

[Neil Hulme]

Hi Jack/all,

As I'm in a position where these issues (secrecy or not?) do arise on a quite regular basis, I've found that a simple, pragmatic approach develops quite quickly. Of course this approach is based firmly on putting the best interests of butterflies first. By this I mean species conservation issues, rather than the protection of individual insects which might be at risk from the thankfully very rare collectors still operating today.

By far the most common need for secrecy is where we are running habitat management projects on strictly private land. Some areas, despite having no formal public access, are not considered particularly ‘sensitive’ by landowners. Other areas are – notably on shooting land where game birds are reared, and vermin control is undertaken using high-powered rifles, or where deer stalking is conducted. The latter is usually performed much earlier or later in the day than butterfly-watching, but sensitivity over poaching remains. Access can be so sensitive that even after working with some landowners for many years, I still need to ring the Head Keeper every time I set foot on his patch.

Where arrangements such as this are in place (and it may have taken years to win the trust and co-operation of a landowner), I feel strongly that secrecy/non-disclosure is essential. Responsible butterfly-lovers would never go trespassing, and I suspect the majority are just as happy knowing that species A is thriving at private site B (which they can never visit), than from knowing its precise location. The problem is that a very small number of those with an interest restricted to ‘listing’ or photography (and who would do anything just to achieve a county/year ‘tick’) just don’t care about the consequences of their actions. We have them in Sussex and I’m sure they exist in all counties. I hasten to add that none of the individuals we have had problems with are BC members.

Many of our rarer species are dependent upon ‘early successional’ habitats, and unless these are actively managed the species will either move on to adjacent suitable habitat (sometimes currently unavailable) – or die out. It only takes one prize idiot to get caught in one of these highly sensitive areas, and the entire conservation project becomes jeopardised. The mentality which resulted in that individual being there in the first place can, without doubt, lead to the excuse when challenged “I’m doing a butterfly survey for BC” or “I know so-and-so who said it was OK to come here”. Trespass where sensitive BC projects are being conducted on strictly private land is potentially far more damaging than even a couple of collectors working the site.

Nick made the comment (which may have been tongue-in-cheek, and I accept that he may have been referring to a slightly different set of circumstances) “I tend to be of the opinion that if butterflies are to be kept from the public to "protect" the butterflies from the public, there is little point in undertaking such projects. If they are unavailable to the general public, they might as well not be there......” Situations where butterflies might be out-of-reach of most are understandably frustrating, but were we to have adopted this philosophy five years or so ago, the Duke of Burgundy would now be facing extinction in Sussex, as the vast majority of remaining sites exist on strictly private land, where ‘they are unavailable to the general public’. In fact the total number of adult Dukes sighted in Sussex has risen from 6 in 2003 to over 600 in 2010. By successfully conserving the species on private (no-go) land, it is now moving out into parts of the landscape with public access.

For small sites with public access but with minute breeding areas, perhaps restricted to no more than a dozen or so plants, we take the view that the site is not ‘secret’, but we don’t actively ‘promote’ it (trampling of delicate habitat can be a significant problem). What we tend to do is actively promote those sites where the species occurs in good numbers and where the habitat can survive the impact of high visitor numbers. I firmly believe that our subscription-paying supporters should be able to see all of our Sussex species, and we go to great lengths to ensure this is the case. Over the last few years we have run about 30 field events per season and, through the summer months, I spend at least an hour most evenings answering ‘phone calls, texts or emails, to ensure that BC members (Sussex or not) can connect with every species we have here.

My natural instinct is to dislike secrecy, but I do feel that (sadly) it is sometimes necessary in the best interests of the butterfly, where the actions of a selfish minority are likely to derail conservation efforts, and hasten the decline of some of our most threatened species. So it’s a case of actively managing the issue, and keeping both butterflies and people happy.

In many ‘intermediate’ cases, I tend to agree with a point highlighted by Jack and David, namely that the level of protection (of individual insects) from the occasional netsman is probably increased by having a greater number of watchful eyes on site. Elsewhere on UKB Jack mentioned the collectors I ‘removed’ from a Duke colony back in 2008, and I have a photograph of a netsman at work on a SSSI (without permission) in 2009, probably after Silver-spotted Skipper. So these people are still at work, but compared to the wider issues of habitat degradation or loss, this problem pales into insignificance, and would only rarely justify secrecy.

See you in the spring Jack.

Neil

[Jack Harrison]

All logically argued Neil, so thanks.

You nicely echo a point I made earlier. We KNOW that Duke of B occurs in Rewell Wood - you told us. You actually took me to the spot last April. In truth, I very much doubt if I'd be able to find that exact location again. But that doesn't really matter. I know Duke of B is there SOMEWHERE and that is reassuring.

Of course it is possible that searchers, unsure the precise spot, might stumble across another colony. That would only be to the good. I'll test that out next spring. You never know......

Jack

[NickB]

Thanks Neil, a well-balanced response and I certainly agree that private land is private and the landowner's wishes must be respected. One landowner is the Public, for whom the government of the day manages those assets, which include many SSSIs and other reserves which remain the responsibility of the local authority and are often managed by the WLTs and other conservation bodies. Many sites are within Forestry Commission, i.e. publicly owned (but not for much longer) land or do have access via public footpaths, etc, so as a member of that great unwashed, I feel there are many places I do have some right to visit, however sensitive they may be, since I do have some understanding of the importance of habitat. And if they are secret, how do I know they are sensitive? What does annoy me, and I suspect, Jack, is the way in which an elitism (something not exhibited on UKB) is established, whereby knowledge is withheld for no good reason.
My comments are really aimed at introductions which may establish a small population outside their current range & re-introductions into existing ranges, and whether, in the long-run, effort would be best directed to these types of project or towards wider environmental landscape management schemes, without which such pockets rarely flourish. The latter requires a much more pro-active approach to environmental management, which challenges our conservation organisations to place conservation of our natural environment and heritage higher on the political agenda. But that I think is another debate. In the meantime, we do need to conserve what we have and extend where possible best-practice management with all landowners.
So, secrecy or not? Well, it is important to know where populations of butterflies exist, so that we may try to link or create within, as Neil says, only by intensive management, the dynamic, living habitat which would benefit many types of wildlife, not just butterflies.