Shameful article by Ian Liddell-Grainger

[Roger Gibbons]

I read page 1 of this thread with interest but by page 3 it seemed to have wandered off topic. As often happens, several issues get muddled and emotion turns to frustration and anger. I agree with Guy that we should concentrate on the specific issue and win the argument; no doubt this is just site-by-site fire-fighting and we (butterfly conservationists) will soon have to move onto the next threat, but this needs to happen in parallel with the wider BC-led strategy of why butterflies are important.

Attacking morons such as ILG is just a waste of time; it is symptomatic of the attitudes of the political classes that he is not severely censured by his political masters for such attitudes and the way he expresses them. Sadly, in Britain we are preoccupied with small-minded political point-scoring (a good example is the cringingly embarrassing PM Questions in parliament – what does the rest of the world think of us?).

BC generally does a good job on highlighting the threat to butterflies and their habitat, but they are limited by the fact that they are part of the “system” and cannot afford to alienate those who influence the sources of funding. What I feel is missing is a more direct appeal to the population at large, perhaps on the basis of the legacy we are leaving for our children and grandchildren. Do we want our grandchildren to ask why our generation stood by and did nothing while our butterflies disappeared into oblivion? To change attitudes, we need to tap into this type of emotional response from the general public. I am amazed at the number of people that tell me (when they know I have an interest in butterflies) that you don’t see anywhere near the numbers that did when they were a child. These are powerful arguments with the capacity to change attitudes.

I know that some years ago BC were contemplating strategies for winning the hearts and minds of the public, but I have not seen anything emerge in any major way. Maybe the energies of UKB could be focussed in this direction to develop such a strategy if BC would be willing to embrace and promote it.

[Pete Eeles]

I read page 1 of this thread with interest but by page 3 it seemed to have wandered off topic. As often happens, several issues get muddled and emotion turns to frustration and anger. I agree with Guy that we should concentrate on the specific issue and win the argument.

Hi Roger - I agree that the responses on the forum are only attacking the despicable behaviour, rather than the real issue - probably because the issue is deeply buried in such distasteful rhetoric and actions. I think this MP would have had more of an impact if he'd simply stated his point of view. Anyway, I think the key paragraph to be responded to is this (if anyone has any evidence in support of the conservation approach):

"Interestingly enough, what does Butterfly Conservation have to say about the cause of the insects’ decline? Apparently it’s all down to a lack of grazing, increased scrub cover and the invasion by moorland of woodland – precisely what you get if you allow scientists to dictate to farmers (as has long been the case on Exmoor) and they are ordered to lower the numbers of livestock per hectare for some conservation-based reason or other. Fewer cattle mean fewer mouths to eat the invading scrub and prevent it turning into woodland. Fewer cattle means lower incomes and less money to spend on the traditional methods of ridding the moor of scrub – regular swaling or burning, which the national park and Natural England have foolishly restricted anyway. The conclusion is clear: get rid of the interfering conservationists, let farmers run the moor like they used to and cattle numbers will rise, scrub will go and the butterflies will return."

I know that some years ago BC were contemplating strategies for winning the hearts and minds of the public, but I have not seen anything emerge in any major way. Maybe the energies of UKB could be focussed in this direction to develop such a strategy if BC would be willing to embrace and promote it.

What did you have in mind Roger?

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

...if anyone has any evidence in support of the conservation approach...

The evidence appears to exist. This is from page 12 of The State of the UK's Butterflies 2011 (http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/u ... 202011.pdf):



This is only a summary document (and the graphs don't seem to reflect the 10-fold increase described, assuming the log scale is log base 10) but it presumably bears witness to studies showing that the BC approach is working in areas where it has been implemented.

For me, the real issue is not L-G's lampooning style, which many might find amusing if it were well researched and targeted at something worthy of lampooning, but his misrepresentation of the facts. High brown fritillary populations are in free fall except where actively managed by conservationists. On the continent, this is a common and widespread butterfly, as it used to be in the UK. Something is clearly wrong and needs addressing. On the limited evidence available to me, it seems conservationists are at least in part identifying what is wrong and addressing it. If L-G knows differently and has better evidence then that is also of interest to me.

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

Thanks Guy.

I must admit - I find ILG's claims hard to refute, since he's essentially saying that:

1. BC recommends grazing ("Butterfly Conservation [say] ... it’s all down to a lack of grazing, increased scrub cover and the invasion by moorland of woodland), but ...
2. BC has recommended reduced grazing ("[BC] ... ordered to lower the numbers of livestock per hectare ... fewer cattle mean fewer mouths to eat the invading scrub and prevent it turning into woodland").

Unless BC themselves chip in, it's difficult to argue with such statements. Other than showing (as you've highlighted) that, in general terms, BC knows how to conserve such habitat and has the results to prove it.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

Agreed. Look at it from the farmers' point of view: they are hemmed in by regulations of one sort and another, some of which, I don't doubt, are more red tape than anything else, and many of them may well see L-G as representing their interests very well as he points to alleged inconsistencies and contradictions. The question is, is he right?

I have reason to believe the answer to that is no, because he doesn't appear able or willing to differentiate between the different conservation needs of different species on the area concerned or to back up his claims with more than hearsay. From my exile in Switzerland, my default position is that BC is well informed, well intentioned and doing a good job. But I would also like to see some evidence from them, or at least explicit rebuttal of his claims, now this subject is in the open.

Guy

[NickB]

alleged inconsistencies and contradictions. The question is, is he right?
Guy

I agree with Pete about the use of grazing as part of habitat management; as a means to clear a site of invading scrub, cattle grazing does the job - but continue with that grazing regime in those numbers and the butterfly habitat is degraded. So there has to be an understanding that grazing is only part of an array of strategies that need to be employed, at the appropriate times, to recover and maintain habitats.

As a question to the same MP; What is the difference between Butterfly Conservation receiving government conservation funding and a local farmer for conservation management of grassland in a SSSI?
The farm in question receives over £17,000 per annum in subsidies for managing the SSSI it farms; it uses the area as a series of sheep paddocks....

The conservation value of sheep paddocks on a SSSI is debatable at least...
N

[Jack Harrison]

Sorry to be controversial and disagree with Pete, Roger, Guy et all, but I think we have digressed. We have indeed wandered off-topic by discussing conservation methods rather than the article

The thread — originated by Pete —is entitled: Shameful article by Ian Liddell-Grainger. That to me implies that it is the tone of the article that is shameful. But now we seem to be talking about grazing/ non-grazing etc. We should be discussing the shameful behaviour of I L-G in writing those articles attacking in a very personal way an innocent worker for BC. It is bullying and arguably libellous. Conservation issues belong on another thread. So please on this thread, let’s stick to the real issue: Shameful article by Ian Liddell-Grainger

Jack

[David M]

We should be discussing the shameful behaviour of I L-G in writing those articles attacking in a very personal way an innocent worker for BC. It is bullying and arguably libellous.

We have and it has certainly been cathartic. We should all be on our guard in case he carries on with his invective and be ready to respond if necessary.

Meantime, BC has to be aware that there is an elected member of parliament advocating measures entirely contrary to butterfly conservation values in one of the most sensitive areas of the entire country. Those who are fully imbued with the facts and statistics should be made aware and be sufficiently ready to challenge his views if/when appropriate.

[NickB]

I also wrote to my MP, complaining of Ian Liddell-Grainger's disgraceful behaviour. I stated that such a man should not hold public office, and that it did not befit a Member of Parliament to attack members of the public and charities in such a way. I also asked him to make the Environment Secretary aware of the MP's attitude, and asked she explain to Ian Liddell-Grainger how government works when it awards conservation stewardship grants to farmers and conservationists alike.

It may not do any good - but it can't do any harm for us all, as members of Butterfly Conservation, to write to our MPs making them aware of the situation and requesting that the man be removed from public office as quickly as possible.
N

[johnv]

I received this reply from a well-known TV nature presenter: -
"Take my advice. Ignore this.
I get torrents of far more offensive mail and criticism than this and all one can ever do by trying to provide a robust retort is draw more attention to it . And it's not worthy of attention because he is an idiot. And anyone who actually matters will know he is an idiot anyway. Why rise to his fatuous bait? It's what he wants. Do what he doesn't want and ignore him.
A thick exoskeleton is required and a dose of confidence."
I think this is very good advice - deny him the oxygen of publicity

[Lee Hurrell]

Well done, Lee. I look forward to learning what response your letter elicits.

Guy

I've had a reply from my MP, who I had copied into the previously posted letter to the PM. It states:

Dear Mr Hurrell

Many thanks for sending me a copy of your letter of February 14 to the Prime Minister which you copied also to my colleague here Ian Liddell-Grainger, together with the other attachments you enclosed.

I have discussed your correspondence with Ian Liddell-Grainger and he has agreed that I should respond to the policy issues raised in your correspondence in view of the firm convention here in the House of Commons that MPs deal with their own constituents.

I am taking up the issues you have raised in relation to butterfly conservation with the Secretary of State at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I shall be writing to you again when I receive the reply.

I am copying this letter to Ian Liddell-Grainger.

Yours sincerely

John Stanley

I'm pleased that the wider issue of "butterfly conservation" will now be further raised with DEFRA as a result of my letter and I hope that this only re-inforces the concern we have in relation to threatened species, particularly in the south west.

I note that no apology was mentioned though...

Lee

[Jack Harrison]

Well done to all who have had success following their writing to MPs and other "ought-to-be-interested" parties.

The irony of all this is that butterfly conservation will probably benefit from I L-G's strange actions.

I suggest that we should send I L-Ga letter of thanks (just joking).

Jack

[NickB]

I suggest that we should send I L-Ga letter of thanks (just joking).
Jack

We'll leave that one to you, Jack.....
I'm sure you would find the appropriate words.....

[Jack Harrison]

Nick suggested:

We'll leave that one to you, Jack.....

I have drafted a suitable letter but this is a consensus forum so I wouldn't want to jump the gun without some measure of agreement form other members.

Dear Mr. Liddell-Grainger.

The internet forum ukbutterflies would like to thank you for so eloquently drawing attention to the plight of butterflies on Exmoor. The response to your thoughts has been impressive to say the least — surely far greater than you could have possibly anticipated? The lovely Jenny must be embarrassed by the publicity you have given her and her conservation work — and at no effort on her part. She could not have done better had she employed Max Clifford.

So very many thanks. I wish my own MP had such an enlightened approach to matters of public concern.

By the way, how’s the pussy?

Yours sincerely,......

Jack

[NickB]

...I was thinking more of words we wouldn't be able to print....

[David M]

More restrained than I had anticipated, Jack.

[Lee Hurrell]

More restrained than I had anticipated, Jack.

I agree....I do so love irony

By the way, response from Number 10 when I got home tonight....will post later or tomorrow.

Lee

[Michaeljf]

Lovely Jack, though perhaps bringing to mind many an episode of 'Are you being served?' by the end of the letter...

Michael

[Michaeljf]

And well done Lee for your MP letter-writing and subsequent responses...interesting and constructive.

Does this mean we'll be ordering the next issue of Hansard?

Michael

[Gruditch]

Not sure if you guys are joking or not, but I would wait to speak to Pete before you send anything that could be conceived as a UK Butterflies response.

Kind Regards Gruditch