Be there collectors here?

[robpartridge]

As far as the notorious incident concerning the Southern Migrant Hawker is concerned, it was, of course, condemned by all of the entomological societies of which I am a member. It was also a very unusual occurrence, and I can think of no other in modern times. To condemn all collectors and collecting because of it is simplistic, to say the least, just as it is unfair to condemn all birders because of the appalling behaviour of some of them once a rarity is found. I do not collect butterflies and have no wish to do so; however, I have met a number of collectors over the years, and by and large they have been highly knowledgeable people (ie, much more so than me) about the ecology and genetics of the species that they collect. They end up with specimens and we end up with photographs but the knowledge required to achieve both is not dissimilar, and to say that their reasons for what they do are somehow "cosmetic" and ours are not isn't convincing to me.

It has been said that we might accept a few specimens being taken as part of "an authorised scientific study" but who would authorise such a thing? Apart from those species for which all stages are protected, this remains a moral question for the individuals concerned - there is no higher authority. We can express our opinions about the choices of others, and we can put forward reasoned arguments to change their minds, but to say things like "they have no place in society" is going too far. Colvin's article puts forward a convincing case based on evidence and example - I don't see those coming from those opposed to all collecting, at least, not yet. So far it has simply been condemnation.

To say that there is no "need" for collecting now, misses the point. There is no "need" for most of things we do - for example, fishing, water-skiing or mountain-biking. The list is endless. All involve some disturbance of or damage to wildlife The fact that I do not want to do these things, however, does not allow me to condemn those that do unless I can put forward convincing reasons for condemning them. We could argue that butterflies are somehow 'special' but that's a form of entomological apartheid, and anyway, the fans of the other groups feel exactly the same - some of the BWARS people make us look like dilettantes (and they have no problems with collecting). Every time we walk down the garden to see what's on the buddleia, we tread on other insects. We know it but we do it anyway - does that mean there is no place for us in society? Many butterfly enthusiasts drive thousands of miles every year to see their favourites - at what environmental cost?

I've never been sure what was meant by "recreational purposes" Does it mean that it's OK to do it professionally? How many important discoveries have been made by amateurs for whom entomology was a recreation? The answer, I fancy, is most of them.

[Gruditch]

In the past when sensitive sites, and species sightings have been kept secret. Some people on these forums have asked are there any butterfly collectors still out there, here's your proof.

In this day and age, to collect butterflies from the British countryside, with the objective of assembling a personal collection, is so morally reprehensible, that it doesn't deserve reasoned argument. As John says, collect stamps.

[jasonbirder]

Wasn't there a documented incident of Long-tailed Blues being collected back in 2013?

[jasonbirder]

I have met a number of collectors over the years, and by and large they have been highly knowledgeable people (ie, much more so than me)

Egg Collectors are frequently incredibly knowledgeable about the breeding habits of the category one species they target...I'm not sure it excuses their behaviour though!

[David M]

Why do people still do this? To me it's an anachronism.

[monet]

I am a collector. Do I not have a place in society ?

If you are collecting Lepidoptera from the wild for recreational purposes, then the answer to your question, is no.

Gruditch, I started collecting butterflies when I was around 7 years old. over 50 years ago. I bred my first butterflies when I was 8. They were Pieris brassicae. I thought it was amazing when they eclosed. I still breed butterflies and I am still in awe of the process. I have discovered new larval food plants. Specimens that I have collected have been used to describe a new species of butterfly. I have donated specimens to national museums, including the BMNH, I have written scientific papers on butterflies, including new distribution records, and am working on several papers at the moment. I have contributed knowledge to books about butterflies and been acknowledged in them. I have a letter of recommendation from a national museum. When I die my collection will be donated to a national museum where it will be available to researchers for generations to come. So, by your reckoning do I not have a place in society ?

[Gruditch]

I missed the UK in my original statement, it should read. If you are taking UK Lepidoptera from the wild for recreational purposes, then the answer to your question, is no.

By the very nature of collecting anything, the rarer an item, the more valuable it is in a collection. I gather the same applies for butterflies. So any seasoned UK collector wishing to add to his trophy cabinet, is not going to waste his summer chasing Large Whites around. Rare migrants, aberrations, especially aberrations of the rarer UK species, must all be on the hit list. Most of these will no doubt be obtained illegally from SSSI reserves. Despite all you achievements, IF you are collecting UK butterflies from the wild for a personal collection, then the answer still remains no.

[robpartridge]

I missed the UK in my original statement, it should read. If you are taking UK Lepidoptera from the wild for recreational purposes, then the answer to your question, is no.


Despite all you achievements, IF you are collecting UK butterflies from the wild for a personal collection, then the answer still remains no.

I stopped contributing to this because people seemed to be getting rather annoyed - as I began the thread, I apologise to anyone whom was upset by it. However, I do have a couple of questions as it is continuing: 1) why is collecting butterflies so 'morally reprehensible' in the British countryside but not, say, in the French countryside - or any other countryside, come to that? And 2) why was Mark Colvin's article published on this website if the subject of it is anathema to all members?

I've just been watching my first Green-veined whites of the season and felt no urge whatsoever to collect them - my place in society is presumably assured...

[Gruditch]

If all the butterfly species in this country were doing alright thank you very much. Then perhaps we could start preaching abroad. But with the seriously fragmented habitat that we have in the UK, a colony of Dukes for instance, could be lost with a few sweeps of a net.

During the flight period of the PB, In the Eastern Clearing at Bentley Wood, people out number butterflies. If we were to turn back the clock fifty years and say collecting is acceptable again, what chance would the PB have. My objective is the conservation of the butterflies of these isles. That's something I can effect. That's something I raise thousands of pounds for.

[Pete Eeles]

1) why is collecting butterflies so 'morally reprehensible' in the British countryside but not, say, in the French countryside - or any other countryside, come to that?

I don't think you can have a meaningful discussion unless the reason for collecting is given, which is why Mark put so much effort into his article - to raise awareness of both valid and invalid reasons for collecting. Although it can be argued that taking individual butterflies (from most populations) may have no effect overall, that's really not the point. The feeling of the overwhelming majority of UKBers is that there is simply no need to build a reference collection (or collect aberrations, or whatever) in this day and age with websites like this and a plethora of literature. And, of course, the tool of the trade these days is the relatively-benign camera. These collectors make not be breaking any law, but we just don't like it, or them.

2) why was Mark Colvin's article published on this website if the subject of it is anathema to all members?

Because collecting is a subject where there is an abundance of misinformation. Same with the use of nets. And captive rearing (and we now have an article for that too). One of the primary goals of this website is education and I don't think we should avoid these sensitive subjects.

Cheers,

- Pete

[robpartridge]

Gruditch - forgive me for being dense but I'm still not clear on some of what you are saying. Preaching abroad? Are you saying that it's only in the UK that there should be no collecting at all? Whilst butterfly populations in parts of Europe are healthier than ours, many species are showing widespread declines, aren't they? And if this is about the moral argument that killing insects is wrong, surely that applies equally everywhere?

Peter - I entirely agree that such sensitive subjects need to be discussed, which is why I raised it. This seems to come down to our idea of 'need'; most members can just about accept a tiny number being killed for a defined scientific reason, but collecting for any other reason they feel is unacceptable. People who collect still for personal as opposed to official reasons, whatever contributions they might be able to make in other ways, are actually not welcome here. If I am right, the argument has at least clarified that matter. There cannot be many of them left now, anyway; I think there are a couple of dozen eggers left, most well-known to the birding world. I do wonder how many serious butterfly collectors there are - perhaps this is really a fuss about nothing. If so, I apologise once again!

[Gruditch]

Obviously I personally don't like anyone collecting form the wild, for a private collection, anywhere in the world. But I find it a bit rich us preaching conservation to the rest of the world, when we haven't exactly looked after our own countryside.

I may not like it, but collecting from the wild in places like Australia for instance, may be considered perfectly acceptable.


Regards Gruditch

[David M]

This seems to come down to our idea of 'need'; most members can just about accept a tiny number being killed for a defined scientific reason, but collecting for any other reason they feel is unacceptable. People who collect still for personal as opposed to official reasons, whatever contributions they might be able to make in other ways, are actually not welcome here. If I am right, the argument has at least clarified that matter. There cannot be many of them left now, anyway; I think there are a couple of dozen eggers left, most well-known to the birding world. I do wonder how many serious butterfly collectors there are - perhaps this is really a fuss about nothing. If so, I apologise once again!

By definition the word 'collector' suggests someone who is undertaking this practice for recreational purposes. After all, who collects butterflies for the benefit of others?

This is something, I believe, that most people on here would find unacceptable.

As an aside, I would personally object to specimens being taken from overseas too. Many species' populations in continental Europe, for example, are extremely fragile; you only need to read the guides to understand that. In fact, France probably has more species under severe threat than the UK does.

I'm also concerned about the rationale for collecting being somewhat more excusable because of the depth of knowledge possessed by those who participate in this practice. Some of the best car thieves are excellent motor mechanics but it doesn't make their activities less objectionable.

[monet]

"Why we still collect butterflies"
By Andrew Warren
Senior Collections Manager at McGuire Center for Lepidoptera & Biodiversity at Florida Museum of Natural History at University of Florida.
http://theconversation.com/why-we-still ... lies-41485

[Gruditch]

Seriously, two months for a riposte, your so slow its a wonder you catch anything. Or has it taken that long trolling the internet, to find something that you believe justifies your outdated hobby.

Gruditch

[monet]

Gruditch, thank you for your helpful contribution to this thread. Did you actually bother to read the linked article ?

[Gruditch]

And thank you. For in the future when site information has to be kept under wraps. We have you to thank, for showing the few doubting thomases, that collectors are still out there.

Gruditch

[essexbuzzard]

All opinions and views are welcome,from all sides. However,the idea that common species of butterfly can have pins stuck in them, because it won't harm the overall population, seems perverse.

I have robins in my garden,but have no inclination to kill them,and pin them to the wall. Even though it won't make a dent in the British population of four and a half million pairs.

[monet]

Gruditch, I guess you didn't bother to actually read the article then ? Do you prefer to remain in ignorance of the need to collect butterflies ?
Essexbuzzard, there are many reasons why "common species of butterfly can have pins stuck in them". Distribution, taxonomy, phylogeny etc etc, as elucidated in the two articles so far presented in this thread. Here is an ongoing research project asking non-collectors to catch common butterflies (Pieris rapae - Small White) and send them on to the researchers. http://www.pierisproject.org/
The first article that I posted the link to refers amongst other things to 3 new species of butterflies named in recent years in the USA. Two of these are large showy black and yellow swallowtails, but in appearance they are extremely similar to other, already named species. It's worth a read.

[Jack Harrison]

There is no doubt that collecting is harmful.

I stuck a pin through a Silver washed Fritillary I caught in Great Yarmouth in 1947.
I wiped out the species there and then as the SW Frit did not return to East Anglia for some 60 years.

As an eight year old in 1947 I should have known better. It has been on my conscience ever since.

Jack