Wisley, etc

[Susie]

Mankind might than have a second chance and, hopefully, would not make such a balls-up next time.

Tony M.

Balls up? We're the most successful species on the planet and we're doing amazingly. Even if there is an ecological disaster which we've induced the chances are that a proportion of the population will survive, adapt and once again thrive!

Well done us, I say!

(Sorry, I know I am wildly off topic!)

[Susie]

And no need to apologise for an anthropomorphic view insofar as I am concerned, I believe there is far more in common between ourselves and other creature than is scientifically fashionable.

Forgive me a complete tangent, but it is late and cold here and I have to go to bed. Susie's comment prompts me to share a link to one of my favourite poems - Heaven, by Rupert Brooke:

http://www.poetry-archive.com/b/heaven.html

It's not completely irrelevant.

Guy

Lovely poem, Guy.

[Susie]

where do you draw the line? aren't all nature reserves out door zoo's, artifically kept ecosystems for our "chosen " species. how many creatures are killed during "conservation" work parties.

Chris

Good point. We were on a work party once, many years ago, for water vole habitat creation. Some handsome chap pointed out some holes which had been made by a relatively rare moth ... in the trunks of trees which were being cut down!

[ChrisC]

wouldn't be the first time susie, and i doubt the last.

Chris

[David M]

I suppose depending on your perspective it's cruel for we humans to keep dogs. After all, the poor things are largely constrained or tethered and are allowed scant opportunity to indulge in their natural behaviour. We also have a tendency to pair them artificially and indeed introduce inherited and disadvantageous congenital conditions via our striving to create the perfect specimen.

When they become terminally sick we have them euthanised rather than allowing them to be predated and thus benefit the wider food chain.

Terrible creatures, we human beings.

[Gibster]

Zoos do not work towards conservation.

OK, so this thread has grabbed my attention.

Sylvie_h, with the greatest respect, are you on very strong drugs or something??? If this is your firm belief, so be it. But I suspect that with a little digging you will soon regret your words. Please do not take this (overly) personally. I do not know you, but that is a very strong and massively biased statement you put forward. It is, nowadays, fully deserving of derision.

john V, I quote,

nobody has risen to my original questions that you now comment on - has anyone on this forum, or anyone you know, got into butterflies through one of these exhibitions? I suspect not.

Well, I'm sorry John V, but I have to pull you up here. As a small child I was taken through a heated glasshouse full of butterfllies (sorry but I simply can't recall the details, it was somewhere in Ayrshire where I grew up. 1975 to 1979'ish I guess? ) and the memory of "exotic swallowtails, morphos and owl butterflies" stuck with me right through till today. If it hadn't of been for my Scottish grandparents things may have turned out differently. Or maybe not. Some of us are, quite simply, attracted to nature - be it worms, deer, fleas or butterflies. For me it is all of these and much more.

I too have been watching the various threads develop regards Wisley's butterfies. I visited the Wisley butterfly house last year, just once. I found the experience somewhat bewildering. I'm in awe of folks like Philzoid and Mark Colvin who go there for a full day's worth of observation. 2 hours was enough for me, sweating and sticky with a dire need for fresh air! But what we're seeing here are captive burterflies in an artificial envirionment, hence the allure is massively reduced (well, for sycophants like me it is!!)

My end comment is as follows - should you derive as much pleasure from captive species as you would from "wild" species, then so be it. Nobody here has the authority to judge. Your list is your own list., stay true to your list and you shall be a happy person. ( so says Yoda , lol)

At this stage I ought to mention that I am enjoying my 3rd bottle of red, so apologie
s to all who may have been offended.

All the best to you ALL, obviously,

Seth

[millerd]

I write with only the benefit of a sole bottle of excellent porter, so cannot really compete. I went to Wisley on the first day this year with my seven-year-old son. He is used to my butterfly outings to various bits of the UK and is even resigned to the ticks he picks up a great deal more often than I do. He takes areal interest in what we see, can name many UK species on sight, and has a real eye for spotting things in the field that have eluded mine aged eyes. He found the butterfly house fascinating, reading all the information plaques, guessing at butterfly types and asking lots of questions about where one might find these exotic species in the wild. He was keen to see the cages where pupae were hatching - he has seen this at home with Peacocks and Small Tortoiseshells, and wanted to see if it was basically the same.

Elliot already has an interest, but in the chilly winter months it was great to see the interest kept alive and broadened. For children these days there are so many more opportunities to go out and see the world and maybe improve it. The Wisley butterflies can, I think, further that end in some small way.

Dave

[Gibster]

Good point. We were on a work party once, many years ago, for water vole habitat creation. Some handsome chap pointed out some holes which had been made by a relatively rare moth ... in the trunks of trees which were being cut down!

I'm guessing these were of the Lunar Hornet Clearwing? Pencil-wide holes in the base of sallows? I took 3 hole-bearing stumps home once (after a work party on Epsom Common), stuck them in a bucket of moist sand and had a stunning LHC emerge from each!!! I took them across to show Jim Porter - who promptly told me they were wasps!!!

PS - having now woken up (and feeling somewhat more sober ) and re-read my above post, I can only apologise for my brashness. Just a tad strong...although I did receive a couple of PMs saying "bravo Gibster" hence I'll not ask Pete to remove it.

Cheers,

The Drunken Buffoon.

[Susie]

Gibster- yes, those were the moths.

I am surprised by your post but only because I didn't know butterfly houses existed back then. Personally I do think that in time they will add to the experiences that cause those children who contain the spark that we all do to become interested in natural history.

Your post wasn't too harsh but there is a difference between the way zoos were and how they are now. If you swore off going to zoos in the past because you found them horrific places then you won't have seen the improvements.

I find this whole argument about what is natural for animals and our explotation of them quite difficult. Should people eat meat? Should people keep pets? Should dogs be trained as guide dogs, hearing dogs or other helpers? Should dogs search for drugs? Should canaries be used in mines? Should animals be used in experiments that may eventually develop drugs that will save human lives? Should donkeys be laden down in foreign countries and force to work from dawn to dusk? The bottom line for me is that I have to respect every life but then do what I feel comfortable with. It works for me.

[Padfield]

Sylvie witnessed suffering and was distressed. Perhaps she was hasty in generalising from this - I don't know, never having been to a zoo. To be honest, I did find your reaction harsh, Gibster (that's with my nice Guy hat on, not my administrator's hat), because I'm sure she would be the first to be delighted if she's wrong about zoos in general.

Guy

[Susie]

Going off at another tangent, I wonder how many of us have put out meal worms for the birds during this cold snap?

[David M]

Perhaps I should liberate our chickens since they exist in artificial conditions. Okay, they'll die within days (maybe even hours), but at least they'll be in their natural, wild state and no doubt the local foxes will receive a timely boost to their diet.

[Susie]

It isn't simple is it?

As long as you're alive your existance will negatively impact on someone or something, so you may as well suck it up and enjoy youself until it's your turn to be recycled..

[johnv]

As the instigator of all this, sorry I have been a bit lax in getting back on some of the challenges you have presented to my position. I have, however, been very busy for the last three days, but will try to respond to your comments either here or by PM.

So, although I only brought up conventional zoos rather obliquely, I see we have drifted a little off subject in some posts by discussing zoos rather than butterfly exhibitions.

I'll deal with this now, set out my position and cease from further comment on zoos.

Sylvie I think that you made a bit of a sweeping statement there - perhaps a visit to Marwell or Bristol Zoo might provide you with substantial evidence to the contary. Both are excellent in terms of their educationally facilities and their captive breeding programs - they are essentially becoming biodiversity Arcs, maintaining some semblance of genetic information in the hope that we can reverse the damage that we have inflicted. Are we to do nothing and let them fall extinct?

I take your point that there are some (alas few) zoos that do have more sympathetic facilities, and a few more that have good education programmes.

However, as for conservation of endangered species their record is quite dismal. Oh yes, they have effective programmes for ensuring inbreeding is minimised. But, as is almost universally recognised, species become endangered because we destroy their habitat (or hunt them to extinction). Zoos can’t mitigate for this however many captive breeding programmes they instigate.

A lot of them couldn't be released as they may be 3rd or more generation captive bred.

You see, you even touch on their ineffectiveness in bringing up the fact that many (most?) are now incapable of being reintroduced (even if their habitat has not been wrecked) because after so many generation in captivity they would no longer be able to survive in the wild. So, what is the point of continuing to breed these animals if all they have to look forward to is being a freak display in an enclosure?

Sad to say, despite the very best efforts of the best zoos, they actually achieve surprisingly little by way of conservation or helping endangered species. What’s more, zoos know this full well.

So, the question arises, are they conning us all, with carefully thought-out publicity on conservation and reintroduction, so as to hide the fact they just want to make money from keeping exotic animals in unnatural conditions?

[johnv]

Hi Mike,

A few things in response to your post: -

the butterflies appeared to be behaving normally - flying around, mating, laying eggs, as well as feeding.

Ah, “appeared” – the crucial word. But they weren’t in their normal environment in respect of: -
1) flora (in particular) and fauna assemblages.
2) climate (unlikely the totality of species displayed were ALL within their normal temperature, humidity, precipitation and daylight ranges).
3) their dispersal profile (spatially very restricted).
4) stocking levels (far in excess of “natural” to ensure enough are visible to visitors).

Instinct, rather than intelligence, is the key to insect success. But this instinct directly interacts with the environment they are born into – the ability to find right food plants and nectar sauces, density levels, the interaction with ants, etc. - this extended phenotype can’t all be recreated in a small greenhouse for every species.

Yes, they can still fly, mate and feed – but they are nevertheless thwarted from living what would be their instinctively natural life.

That, to me, is not the way we should be treating the insects we all so love.

they certainly gave a lot of pleasure to many people.

Ah, yes, as did feeding Christians to the lions, dog fighting, animal circuses, etc. – we move on, progressively I hope.

I felt that it extended my vision beyond its usual range of British and European species. It was interesting, for example, to witness the different mode of flight of the larger species.

Yes, OK, we are all “butterfly train-spotters”, or at least I am. Nothing like chalking up a new species and getting some super photos to enhance that experience even more, is there? That’s fine in “the wild”. I just don’t feel the same about captive animals in a menagerie. Do the ends justify the means, in other words? That’s my moral dilemma, and it’s apparent how I have resolved it.

Thank you for stimulating me to think a bit more about this subject,

Happy to oblige, hope I have given you even more food for thought.

As Vince Massimo says, I have "opened a debate on a subject which was waiting to be aired". All I want is for butterfly lovers to give this issue some deep philosophical thought - and to think not about our own personal enjoyment but the unnatural conditions inflicted on the exhibits.

[David M]

You see, you even touch on their ineffectiveness in bringing up the fact that many (most?) are now incapable of being reintroduced (even if their habitat has not been wrecked) because after so many generation in captivity they would no longer be able to survive in the wild. So, what is the point of continuing to breed these animals if all they have to look forward to is being a freak display in an enclosure?

Perhaps I should henceforth give up my hobby of breeding budgerigars.

After all, given the fact than nearly all of my stock exhibits colouration that would immediately see them devoured in the wild (probably only 2-5% of them are meadow green) surely it is a pointless exercise and doing precious little if anything at all for the species in question.

They would not be able to survive in the wild, so what is the point of continuing to breed these animals if all they look forward to is being a freak display in an enclosure?

[Padfield]

Perhaps I should henceforth give up my hobby of breeding budgerigars.

Your rhetorical flourish illustrates the dangers of generalisation, David!

Many people, myself included, find the raising of ornamental birds in general objectionable. But there are richly furnished aviaries and there are barren cages - there are devoted bird lovers and there are commercial breeders. For those who don't know you or your set-up it is impossible to judge the merits of your 'hobby' and I certainly wouldn't presume to condemn or condone without knowing more.

I think many of the replies on this thread have been directed against sweeping generalisations about butterfly farms or zoos or whatever whereas the reality is that the spectrum of good and evil, happiness and suffering, rarely divides along neat lines. We look for lines and get involved in boundary disputes. The fact we can't define the boundaries, however, doesn't mean we don't recognise when some activities fall clearly one side or the other. There are many cases of manifest abuse when I suspect all who have contributed to this thread would be in agreement and would, I am sure, pull together.

Guy

[ChrisC]

surely these butterflies don't know it's unnatural for them. if they had been bought in from the wild i'd be more inclined to argree with you.

i'd be intrigued as to what plants you plant in your garden natives or ornamentals. is your garden 100% natural conditions for them all? does that make your garden your very own plant zoo? and the difference being?

Chris

[Wurzel]

Dear John
After your response I am sure that Gerald Durrel is turning in his grave...

Sorry if you felt that I was taking this off track but I was merely replying to someone else (Sylvie) that posted on this thread. I also apologise for my unclearness regarding what to do with the animals in Zoos. When I was referring to them not being able to be released as they would be 3rd generation captive breed I was referring to the individuals in question as they would have been raised in captivity and so would not know any better. If however offspring were taken and raised by surrogates then their instincts would enable them to survive and hopefully thrive - this has been achieved with Cranes and Great Bustards to name just two species in the UK.
I personally would rather that we didn't have Zoos but at the present time perhaps we need them - surely it is better to try and do something than nothing? You say that captive breeding is "ineffective" but at least the gene pool is protected to some degree should habitat be protected/created. And in terms of habitat protection that is where education is so important...hence my referring to two very good Zoological Gardens. Still this will probably come down to a case of individual opinion and deciding where to draw your own line in the sand...

Have a goodun

Wurzel

[David M]

Perhaps I should henceforth give up my hobby of breeding budgerigars.

Your rhetorical flourish illustrates the dangers of generalisation, David!

That is the premeditated intention, Guy.

Some of the things we do in modern society occur largely because of what passed off without question in generations gone by.

I breed budgerigars because budgerigars are there to be bred. Budgerigars are there to be bred because vast captive stock was bred from wild birds captured in the late 19th century. Capturing wild budgerigars would today be illegal. Capturing wild budgerigars was not illegal in the late 19th century. If no captive stock of budgerigars existed today I would have no hesitation in condemning the practice of capturing wild specimens in order to facilitate such captive stock.

However, things were different back in those days and the legacy lives on today.

That is the reality of the world that we live in - just like how some collectors captured, killed and preserved specimens of the British subspecies of the Large Copper.

What a shame there is no captive stock left of this creature. If there were perhaps we could re-establish it.