Ethical dilemma re: Glanville Fritillary

[Susie]

I was having a conversation on a Facebook group with a chap who has taken Glanville Fritillary from an introduced population and is breeding them on with the intention of re-release the progeny to bolster the introduced population (and possibly other populations).

Initially I thought "ooooh no, that's not right!" but if the population is a "fake" one in the first place is it actually doing any harm?

What do you think?

[jasonbirder]

I could never condone collecting Wild Butterflies...particularly a Schedule 5 species...
The Somerset Introduced population is mentioned in the Conservation Action Plan for Glanville Fritillary so presumably is legally included in that...not just morally...
Take only Photographs...Leave only footprints

[Pete Eeles]

Well, from a legal perspective, he's not breaking any law (unless the site is an SSSI or has some other status and, if that's the case, they shouldn't be there!).

My main issue is the thought that this will "bolster" the population. It could have the reverse effect for all sorts of reasons - including increased numbers of predators, and a stronger likelihood of in-breeding given the disproportionate number of adults with the same parents.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

I agree. As I got rather shot down for suggesting on another post ( ) it is not at all obvious that breeding and releasing 'bolsters' a population, because as a general rule butterflies don't have any difficulty breeding - and predator and parasite numbers typically follow prey/host numbers rather than determine them. During the establishment phase of a population the situation might be different. Also, if the person in question is an expert, who knows what he's doing, then I wouldn't presume to correct him, because I'm not an expert. But otherwise it all seems rather pointless - and like Jason I don't like it when people toy pointlessly with wild (or indeed domestic) creatures.

Guy

[David M]

Is it unethical?

Probably.

Does it help?

Probably not.

Given that I have made special visits to both Wrecclesham and Sand Point to enjoy witnessing Glanville Fritillaries going about their business artificially does that make me a hypocrite?

Probably.

If anything, last year's demise of GFs at Sand Point just goes to show how tenuous such 'experiments' are. Without a long term plan, these populations are extremely susceptible to the whims of nature.

On the other hand, the scientific methods used to re-establish Large Blues in the UK continue to pay dividends. That's almost certainly because this kind of re-introduction has been researched and carried out in a way that no 'maverick' can replicate.

If you were to ask me whether Large Copper, Mazarine Blue or Chequered Skipper in England should be reintroduced then I'd be all in favour were such schemes supported by a long-term strategy based on the directives of experts within the field.

Whilst unauthorised butterfly releases CAN be successful short term, they all seemingly tend to peter out, which just demonstrates how little we humans know about their requirements.

Nature is best left to nature in my opinion, and if this isn't adequate, then gather a team of butterfly experts together and commit to a 10 year project at the very least as was the case with arion.

[Matsukaze]

Since the success rate of these sorts of releases is scarcely better than nil, surely the energy and expertise of these breeders would be better spent doing something more useful, like developing ichneumons that alter the behaviour of our politicians?

[Matsukaze]

I was about to post something in a more serious and sensible vein, but I see that David has already covered what I was thinking of saying. Something along these lines with the Glanville Fritillary is worth considering, I think, as a species with a single metapopulation has to be vulnerable to going extinct unexpectedly.

[Susie]

Thank you for your views, which all make perfect sense

[MikeOxon]

I don't like it when people toy pointlessly with wild (or indeed domestic) creatures.

I tend to feel much the same. I think there is a problem, though, in that man has altered the environment so much over the last few thousand years that all other creatures have to do their best to survive in what we have created.

No-one knows what the British landscape would be like without our introduced sheep, rabbits, and goodness knows what plants, coupled with our extermination of wolves and other large predators. Of course,this wholesale modification was not 'pointless', because we are a species too and, so far, a very successful one. Our ancestors were intent on improving their own way of life and had little spare time, in their own fight for survival, to consider other creatures.

Nowadays, many people feel comfortable enough to give more thought to other creatures,, which most of us would applaud. Unfortunately, we still have very little understanding of how natural systems work or how distorted they have all become through our previous activities. So, we continue to make mistakes. All we can do, I suggest, is learn as much as we can about what works and what doesn't. If we do that, we have a chance of doing some good, at least to some species.

Mike

[Willrow]

...better spent doing something more useful, like developing ichneumons that alter the behaviour of our politicians?

another man after my own heart...love it

Bill

"When in doubt...venture out"