Bred in Captivity

[Chris]

I notice that a lot of people post photos of butterflies bred in captivity. This would never occur to me as it seems potentially illegal? What are the laws surrounding this and does it vary by species?

[Pete Eeles]

Phew - where to start! [for future reference, I set up a "Law" forum for this kind of question. But no worries.]

There are quite a few things to discuss here, so let me give you some facts, some opinions, and some sentiments I've heard from other people.

First - the facts. The "Law" link on the UK Butterflies website at http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/law.php is an attempt to state, in simple terms, the legality of certain actions. As you read this, bear in mind that most statements are with respect to *WILD* individuals. Captive-bred stock is exempt from the various laws stated on the Law page, except for releases (see below).

Now for some opinions which, I hope, are common sense. First off, I can't think of many good reasons for taking any individual from the wild. But there are exceptions. Educating children is one (with side benefits, such as them taking an interest etc.) so long as the species isn't rare (e.g. taking pests, such as Large White larvae, into a classroom). One that I've personally experienced, is to "rescue" the critters. A forest quite close to me had over 20 large oak trees felled. And so I went around them and managed to find about 40 Purple Hairstreak eggs on one tree. Who knows how many there must have been in total. I bred them through and released them later in the year. But in general - I think the advice must be "don't do it".

As far as rarer species are concerned, it's quite possibly to get hold of captive-bred stock through organisations such as the Entomological Livestock Group (whose members sometimes supply stock for reintroduction efforts) or Worldwide Butterflies. But then you have a different problem - what to do with the adults. That's another difficult area, and is also controlled by the law to some extent - for good reason. The objections to releasing rarities is that a) it could dilute the gene pool if released in an existing site for the species, b) it could introduce disease, c) it could distort recording numbers (and skew results that make it look like conservation efforts are succeeding, when they're not) and d) it may attract an increasing number of predators.

Since I'm one of the "guilty" parties that does occasionally breed rarities (simply so that I can study them), I always ensure that a) I'll be able to release the adults into a suitable site where they do not already exist, b) don't break the law by releasing species I shouldn't (such as the Geranium Bronze, which is a pest on the continent), c) I'll be able to give the adults back to the original supplier if necessary, d) know that the critters will have a chance of surviving, and e) won't upset any recording or conservation efforts (and I'll check if necessary).

I'm currently working with Butterfly Conservation on a website-related project (to be announced around Easter time) and have had the chance to sit down with Martin Warren (Butterfly Conservation chief exec) a couple of times (just to name-drop!). I asked Martin if BC had a policy on such things, and he said they did. However, it's not currently available in electronic form. As soon as it is, I'll post an appropriate link on the UK Butterflies website.

But I think I've had something on the window sill during the summer every year since I was about 8, which is a very long time ago! ... and have gained a huge amount of pleasure in doing so.

The upshot is - use common sense.

Look forward to hearing other opinions on this.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Pete Eeles]

I've dug up some old notes on this topic that were posted on various other forums in the past and though I'd add them so that you see what was said. As you'll see, it's a very emotive subject. I've tried to anonymise these responses.

Cheers,

- Pete

I am currently interested in breeding lepidoptera in order to study their lifecycles and to familiarise myself with some phenomena related to specific stages of the lifecycle. I have no plans to breed non-UK species unless a specific need arises. Most of those I breed will be released where they were obtained, so I will only be "helping nature along" - they will not be in-bred.

I can envisage a situation arising where I might breed out a series for some specific research purpose not related to the life cycle, but again it is likely that these will all be released locally. I can also understand the attraction of breeding species such as silkmoths, e.g. for educational purposes.

So far I have only felt the need to seek advice about issues that might compromise the local population in the case of one moth species, but having returned to entomology only recently after many years this might be the thin end of the wedge! I would be very interested to be pointed in the direction of any information on the effect of breeding and releasing lepidoptera.

Some people of course will breed to sell, so a related question might be, what do people who buy livestock do with them? Maybe an anonymised survey would be interesting?!

=================================================================

I buy livestock, UK and European. I have several reasons, I suspect they are all selfish. The early life-cycle stages are fascinating, and there is no practical way for me to see the diversity of the ova, larva, pupa stages in the wild. I love macro-photography, and the opportunity to take pictures indoors of challenging subject matter is very rewarding. My children (1 and 3) are fascinated by the process, so there's a bit of education in there.
I don't get out butterflying as much as I would like, so my butterflying time is extended. I don't release the adults back into the wild, I guess this is a dodgy area.

=================================================================

I went through 'a stage' a few years ago when I bought in ova or larvae of all the different European Hawkmoths. Mostly to study them in detail during their life stages [and photograph them]. But [I'm ashamed to say now] also to form a collection. I have since reformed and the only pinned specimens retained now are of the more difficult ones [not the hawks] for reference purposes. Fortunately with more and varied format guides becoming available it is becoming less necessary to have your own reference collection. Also with the advent of digital photography one can upload an image of an insect caught that day and quite often have an answer back from a member of the relevant interest group that same day.

=================================================================
I also breed various species, mostly moths, both British and foreign. The simple answer is that I enjoy it.

Some British species I have released but I know that this will make no difference to the wild population, I manage my garden to maximise its appeal to insects of all varieties because that does actually work. Some adults I keep as specimens, some are given away or sold or exchanged its all part of the interest.

I suppose some may choose to condemn me as a 'bad' or 'non' conservationist but that's just tough luck. I enjoy my hobby and still maintain a keen interest in all forms of wildlife, helping out where I can.

=================================================================

Breeding insects is both enormously educational and fun. Hats off to anybody with the interest and wherewithal to have a go, if children get involved then all the better Can't imagine why anybody would want to breed foreigners; seems pointless but each to there own eh? Breeding for financial gain is in my opinion moronic and anybody so disposed should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. The genetic debate could rage on forever but my opinion is this: in forty years of collecting and recording bugs in the field I've more or less seen the lot; you name it and I've very probably seen it and it strikes me that most species-and I know there are many notable exceptions-display very narrow phenotypic variation and this very probably reflects a similarly very narrow genetic variation, unusual forms are quickly selected against in the wild and little critters get along just fine. The mania for collecting and breeding unusual form s over the last 150 years or so should be put to rest. Darwin said enough on this. Collections of unusual forms look pretty but are ultimately pointless: it could go on forever. So I shouldn't worry about 'weakening' live populations in a genetic sense, leave such things to the experts-of which I am not one. Keep breeding and if so disposed keep releasing, it will do no harm at all.

=================================================================

I too followed this thread a few weeks back and watched the various arguments for and again and why people breed butterflies.

A few weeks back on another forum that discusses breeding, there was discussion regarding how to "breed on" a mail order purple emperor larvae. The fact that a larvae of this species and any other rare species can be purchased in this manner makes my blood boil. Not just because you can do but what happens when that person successfully breeds an adult butterfly. Several would end up on a pin, but several will be released into the environment and will turn up in sorts of places.

So what will you say, most people finding it will assume its a release but I know for a fact that near the end of their flight period the Purple Emperor will wander, and it will wander some distance in search of a female and when that butterfly turns up out of habitat everyone will say its a release and absolutely nothing will be done for its conservation management.

In Hertfordshire, the Purple Emperor has been around for over a hundred years but at such low density it was almost impossible to detect and when people did see it was out of habitat and invariably one of these late wanders and nearly all records were dismissed. So much so that when it was confirmed as being in the county for real, it had not even been included on the county audit of butterflies on the Herts BAP and we had to argue for it to be given special consideration in the period before the BAP was reviewed. Its not included the BC Anglia RAP despite historic records from all the
counties in the RAP and when it does occasionally appear everyone says RELEASE. Even now some people think the reason why they can be found in Herts is because they were released - in three different 10km squares – what do you think?

This is why people should not breed rare native species because it does absolutely nothing for conservation if they are released into the wild - they actually prevent conservation.

Thats my opinion and I shan't be persuaded to change it but when someone reads this knowing that they have done this, please think again. Pick up a county butterfly atlas and see whether they have any Purple Emperor records and I know of at least two that say "they were probably releases" - but if they weren't?

=================================================================

In Hertfordshire, all modern records would be logged by the county recorder, whether presumed to be a release or not a release. In the past they were thrown in the bin but luckily several of these people are still alive and were able to tell us about their sightings even though they were never accepted.

You have said make a note that some might be a release but how would anyone know or be absolutely certain? Only clue might be the date - again it is a known fact that bred larvae will probably emerge earlier than ones breeding in the wild. Many of those breed from larvae in the London Natural History Museum collections are dated June whereas the Purple Emperor tends to emerge in July but on good summers such as last year it was flying from 21st June in Surrey and 28th June in Herts!

=================================================================

Looking at the relevant wording of the protected species legislation, as far as I can tell there is no requirement for any licence to release a native British species anywhere in the UK. Where licencing does come into effect is if dealing with with any of the species that are fully protected under the Wildlife &Countryside Act etc (Schedule 5 species). If the donor population is an existing wild population then the removal of the individals from the donor site would involve the 'taking' of individuals or the 'deliberate disturbance' of the insects and/or their habitats. This sort of thing requires a licence in much the same way the handling/surveying of other species such as Great Crested Newts does. Licences would be issued by the Country Acencies, ie English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage or CCW.

Species such as the Silver-studded Blue are only partialy protected and only the sale of the species is prohibited without a DEFRA licence. There is no licence required to release these species in the UK unless, I would think, the receptor site is a SSSI. If so, permission from English Nature (or the others) would be needed, but this would not be a 'licence'.

I agree that poorly managed releases can cause problems for
monitoring etc of any existing natural populations. The literature notes that a great many 'releases' or 'reintroductions' have taken place, but most are either poorly or never documented, so no lessons can be learned from the success or otherwise of the release. However, I do feel that the automatic assumption of many butterfly recorders (and this applies to some recorders other orders as well) that any unusual or unexpected or 'out of range' sighting of a species must be a 'release' or an 'adventive' individual to be a little short sighted. Nearly all of the Queen of Spain sightings discussed here last year 'concluded' that the butterfly was a release or an escape. Are there really that many people rearing these
things out there??.

JNCC have a set of guidelines on species reintroductions available, I think a trawl around their website will pull up the appropriate document.

=================================================================

[Pete Eeles]

Re releases: the worst potential damage has not been mentioned.
Protection of good biodiverse habitats is based on the records of rare
species. Unfortunately a few groups (eg Birds, reptiles, plants,
butterflies, dragonflies, moths) dominate the system because they are
comparatively accessible for recording and large enuf (and have twee
English names!) to have credibility with the public/planners/government
etc.

There's actually a bit of dumbing down going on here: the wildlife
people see the recorded rarities as an index of the richness of the
site, the planners see them as individual species that need saving.
(This called a "Flagship").

Unfortunately misguided planting of wildflowers is already masking the
natural distribution of our more appealing wildflowers and reducing
their credibility as indexes of biodiversity (or as candidates for
action). Widespread release of captive bred insects would have the same
effect. Rich wildlife sites are being lost fast enuf without
compromising habitat assessment.

If you've bred commercial stock, either sell it on, pass around friends
or kill it (or let it die of old age if you prefer). Once it's dead
there's no logical reason why you shouldn't pin it or make it into
jewelry/pictures.

Re photographing protected species: have done that myself without a
permit and with English Nature watching. Didn't realise it was a
protected species until I got home. In my view, it's more important that
you don't damage a rare species than that you have a licence.

Malcolm

[Pete Eeles]

I agree with Malcolm.. I could not have worded it better myself.

Captive bred butterflies sometimes (a few photographs seen) seem
sometimes not to have the normal number of spots, are aberrant, just
an observation.

Who is planting the wild flowers, or do they arrive by accident? If
foreign seeds are used this can muck up the ecology. This is
especially true of Horseshoe Vetch, Hippocrepis comosa, which I would
divide into different species. Foreign seed (from observation) will
not support Chalkhill Blue Butterflies in somme instances, but will
support Adonis Blues.

It is very tempting to muck about with the local ecology when
planting road banks as suscess stories can be seen. However, with the
bits of wasteland that have never been used for agriculture, these
may be prime sites. The temptation may be to increase the
biodiversity with a helping hand e.g. Devil's Bit Scabious is a
useful late flowerer, but I am not so keen about this, and if it is
done, I think records should be kept, the public be consulted on
public land and the information put in the public domain.

Cheers

Andy Horton
glaucus@hotmail.com
Adur Valley (West Sussex) Nature Notes
http://www.glaucus.org.uk/Adur2006.html
Adur Valley Nature Notes: January 2006
http://www.glaucus.org.uk/Jan2006.html

[Rob]

I have read the various responses to releasing butterflies and the dangers that introducing captive specimens may bring. However, I think a number of positive points have been largely overlooked:

1) I do not believe that releasing specimens should be affected by potential problems to the recording system. Boosting numbers of a local population is surely positive and reveals the limitations of the recording system itself.

2) Previous responses have stated that introducing captive individuals from a different area can cause problems in local gene pools. This belief is contrary to basic genetics - the greater the variation of the genetics of a population, the increased chance it can be sustained. In fact, releases help to encourage a strong and varied local gene pool, so if a disease does arrive it is less likely to devastate the population, certainly less of an effect than within an isolated, local population. Populations are far more likely to die out due to interbreeding.

3) It is often forgotten that the Black Hairstreak's strongholds in Oxon, Bucks, Berks are due to human intervention. I have been reliably informed that in the 19th Century, when butterfly collecting was popular that enthusiasts, especially the Rothschilds, captured Black Hairstreaks and re-located them and at the same time mixed smaller local populations. Although these wild individuals were not essentially releases, their populations were still mixed and we still see their strength today.

These points are just my personal opinion and I do not claim they are flawless. I looked forward to reading everyone's responses.

[Adrian Hoskins]

I've been a lepidopterist for over 40 years, so have had plenty of time to consider the various arguments, and form my own opinions. As a young lad I formed a very small collection, mainly from purchased insects, but when I tried killing and setting specimens myself, I found it distasteful, and turned my attention to breeding, either from captured or purchased livestock. I then faced the problem of what to do with surplus stock, and went through the naive stage of releasing livestock into the wild, in an attempt to justify the original captures, and hoping to "boost" wild populations or start "new" ones in habitats that seemed suitable. I later became very active in conservation for several years, and soon realised the folly of my earlier behaviour :

There is absolutely no way that the capture-breed-release pursuit can be justified from a conservation point of view. Very many of the British butterflies are limited to a small number of fragmented sites, where their populations are at such a low level, that even the removal of a single specimen is harmful. Breeding butterflies can be a very enjoyable and educational activity, but don't let anyone kid themselves that releasing their bred stock is in any way helping butterflies. Far from it - bred stock will almost certainly be genetically weaker, prone to disease, and is almost guaranteed to be out of sync with the emergence time of wild insects. Releasing such material back on the site of origin will therefore be at best useless, and at worst positively dangerous. Not only will it expose the wild population to potential disease and genetic deficiency, it will also attract predators, and is likely to cause a temporary boost to the populations of parasitoid Hymenoptera and Diptera.

Capturing moths in light traps is vital as it is the most reliable method of recording and analysing moth populations. However it also has potential dangers : running a trap once a fortnight in a given locality will probably do minimal harm - the moths will be "absent" and therefore unable to feed or breed for one night. They should not, as is common practice, be tipped out into long grass the following morning - most will be unable to find suitable safe resting positions, and will quickly be taken by predators. The safest method is to release them shortly after nightfall, when they willfly off and be alert enough to escape the attention of nocturnal predators. Running traps on a greater frequency than once a fortnight is potentially harmful, as there is a distinct likelihood that many of the inects will be re-captures, and thus be "absent" from their natural activities on each night they turn up at the trap.

Most of us now do our "collecting" with a camera, which is far less harmful, although at certain sites there can be a risk of trampling, which probably does little harm to the ova / larvae / pupae directly, but can cause problems with the foodplants and nectar sources. Some people capture or breed stock so that they can study and photograph the early stages. The number of people who do this is so low that populations of most species will be unaffected, but imagine what happens when half a dozen people decide to each remove a larval web of Glanville, Marsh or Heath Fritillaries ! Think very carefully about such activities, and if you still want to go ahead, for heaven's sake take your material from a site where the population is strong enough to withstand the loss. And, please don't try to pass off your photos as wild - even if you indulge in the dubious activity of plonking your insect down in the wild on a "suitable" substrate, YOU will know that the photo is faked, and so will most other experienced lepidopterists. How many times have you looked at a published moth photo and said to yourself "oh, the photographer chose a nice background to put it on" ?

Adrian Hoskins