Code of Practice

[Gruditch]

I live only 3 miles from Stockbridge, and still only popped in there because we had drawn a blank that day looking for the Wall Brown. Like Martin we were shocked by the damage, I asked some of the dozen or so people there how they got to know of the BVW, and a fair few of them said they were usually Birders and had had a text saying there was a rare butterfly here.


I always ask before mention anything that I think may be sensitive, and if asked not to state the location, I have no problem with that, and I fail to see why any one else has.

Gruditch

[Piers]

I always ask before mention anything that I think may be sensitive, and if asked not to state the location, I have no problem with that, and I fail to see why any one else has.

I can't speak for Jack, but (since I was the only other respondent), that pretty much completely misses the point of what I was saying.

Hey-ho.

Felix.

[Pete Eeles]

... that pretty much completely misses the point of what I was saying.

Just so that we're clear - what is that exactly? That nobody should be mandating what can and cannot be publicised?

I realise that this is a very sensitive subject so want to make sure we're all absolutely clear about what is being suggested or not. Based on the discussions I've had I *know* this is a very emotive subject

Cheers,

- Pete

[Piers]

All the information about which we are debating is already freely available, and (as Gruditch quite correctly points out) there are a myriad of other 'services' that are already all too willing to (possibly irresponsibly) alert all and sundry when a 'twitchable' rarity turns up.

When I first moved to Hampshire a couple of years ago my natural curiosity was aroused when I learnt that the few Marsh Fritillary colonies in the county were veiled in secrecy. I had heard that there was one close to home but the local branch of Butterfly Conservation were cagey with the whereabouts. However, about ten minutes research gave me the Hampshire localities including my little local one. The information is all in the public domain.

I did not, however, claim that "I had a problem" with being asked not to state a location. I was merely enquiring how this was going to be managed...

I would like to think that we all share the same aims and ideals pertaining to invertebrate conservation...

Felix.

[Gruditch]

I'm sorry but this post

Hmmm. So can we assume that if a member of UKB reports a sighting this will be displayed on the forum and not censored? or will this fly in the face of Hants BC sightings policy (for example)?

My point being, is this an independent site for enthusiasts to share and debate views, opinions, photographs and sightings, or is it subject to a higher authority who will edit what information it deems 'appropriate' for an individual to share?

I am confident in being able to make that decision myself rather than have someone else make it for me.

Fxile.

kind of sounded like you had a problem. and you spelt your name wrong

Gruditch

[Piers]

It's interesting that you see that quote as indicative of someone who "has a problem".
I didn't consider it an unreasonable question, but what can ya do eh?

The only problem I have is mild dyslexia

F-e-l-i-x (phew!)

[Jack Harrison]

[quote="Felix"]Hmmm. So can we assume that if a member of UKB reports a sighting this will be displayed on the forum and not censored? /quote]

I have experience of groups that enforce a strict moderation policy (censorship if you like) and others that don't.

I will admit that I have occasionally stepped out of line and doubtless deserved a slap on the wrist. The moderated group did so in a way that resulted in me having no respect whatsoever for the moderator. But when on another group I was told by my peers: "Jack, enough's enough" I slunk away with my tail between my legs feeling rather foolish. So I certainly know from experience which type of group I prefer but not everyone will agree.

Incidentally, criticism of spelling, grammar, use of apostrophes, is always a waste of time. Many are simply typos, but in some cases - eg dyslexia - adverse comments serve no purpose. Although I didn't have to learn that lesson about criticism myself, I have seen others learn it the hard way - and in great embarrassment.

I digress - and will probably be told off for doing so - but I can't help recalling the best misuse of apostrophes I ever saw. It seemed to be about a firm called FAMOU. Seen in a shop window in Otley, N.Yorks:

FAMOU'S LONDON STORES SURPLU'S STOCK

Jack

[Bryan H]

Pete,

I 'm much in support of the code.

Trampling is an issue that troubles me. Last summer I visited a reserve which has a footpath only around its perimeter. I noticed a few existing incursions into the long grass towards bunches of thistles where marbled whites were busy nectaring. I took advantage of these, but was I aiding and abetting a crime?

When I saw a brimstone land a few metres from the path, I gingerly 'high-stepped' through the long grass to get my picture. After I retreated, I was aghast that I had left a pretty noticeable swathe in the grass despite my best efforts. I felt guilty, but having said that, I'm pretty sure that many of the marvellous pictures we see on this site have not been taken from the vantage point of a footpath!

Am I worrying unduly? Does your statement re not damaging habitat need to be more specific? What do others think?

Anxious of Middlesex

[Alan Thornbury]

As one of the contributors to the code of practice, I am pleased to see this debate gathering momentum, demonstrating the strength of feeling on the subject. As an earlier posting has indicated, it is a question of finding a balance, capitalising on the positive aspects of publicity (to encourage interest in butterflies and their conservation) whilst trying to minimise the risks to some sensitive species and fragile sites by encouraging responsible visiting and a responsible approach to the information made available in the public domain.

It should be emphasised that the large majority of information in the public domain on butterfly sites and butterfly sightings (e.g. on websites) has done much to encourage interest in butterflies and their conservation. However, there are a few instances where very specific information published on websites, for example, near real time sightings of sensitive species inhabiting some fragile butterfly sites, is contributing to excessive numbers of visitors at those sites and consequential deterioration in habitat quality.

So the dilemma - do nothing, effectively sanctioning the current situation and its potential longer term consequences - which could include local extinctions of sensitive species or irreversible damage to some important butterfly sites, or be proactive in developing the code of practice? In taking the code of practice approach, we recognise the disadvantages of consciously limiting the availability of certain specific information – and as an enthusiast myself, I don’t mind admitting this goes against the grain. We also know that not everyone will agree with the approach, either in principle or in some of the detail.

However, if the code of practice results in a little less visitor pressure on a few sensitive species and fragile sites, perhaps even enabling some species to continue to survive in localities where their future is presently threatened, then the greater good will have been achieved. It should also be borne in mind that in a number of cases, a species which is considered sensitive in one area, may be much less sensitive in a nearby one. Hence shifting the balance of visitors from a few small sensitive sites to larger less fragile ones in a neighbouring county, would be a worthwhile achievement, with no-one really “missing out” as a result.

Alan

[Padfield]

I think it is quite possible (and desirable) to publish a code of good practice without either policing it or worrying unduly about the fact that not all sites adhere to it. Our community can only be directly responsible for its own actions, and it should be responsible for its own actions, even if others are irresponsible. When I chastise my compatriots (the Brits are the worst) for building chalets on prime Alpine meadowland they generally reply, 'but if I didn't, someone else would'. My response is, 'but you did, and so you are responsible'. They still love me because unfortunately no one takes me terribly seriously.

I entirely agree with Jack that in a community like UK Butterflies, where people seem to respect each other's views and criticise each other good-humouredly, the heavy hand of censorship should not be necessary. However, I do trust Pete to intervene if some serious and potentially damaging indiscretion were about to be committed, like revealing the location of some sensitive re-introduction while it was still all under wraps.

Digressing, like Jack: When I first started teaching I came across a keen young student who seemed to think 9 squared was 18. I tried in vain to explain the difference between squaring and multiplying by two and thought he was stupider and stupider until suddenly it dawned upon me that he was heavily dyslexic and literally couldn't see the difference between 18 and 81. But he did know the difference! I am now a much older and wiser teacher.

Guy

[Rogerdodge]

I have enjoyed reading the responses here, and it is fair to say that most people agree with most of the detail in the C of P.

I have an issue with suppression of information about sites or species.

This has two areas of concern to it
The first is, quite simply, rather selfish I must admit, but I do want to KNOW about unusual sightings and to know of as many sites as possible.
Like most people, I feel unhappy about being "left out of the loop".
This secrecy creates rather unpleasant cliques - I have experienced similar attitudes as Jack has in the birding world.
I also feel this secrecy can be self damaging to the scientific community who expect us (the vast majority, amateur enthusiast) to send our sightings and transect records to them (the tiny minority professional entomologist) so that it can then be kept secret from us - a bit of an imbalance there.
We also fund, via subs to local wildlife trusts, BC and other organisations, research, habitat creation/repair and species (re)introduction that some people want to keep secret from us? - seems a bit unfair to me.

My second concern with advocating secrecy is that, the more sites that are publicised, the less will be the pressure on each individual sites.
I think it is logical to assume that, if the other 20 or so good PE sites in the country were as well known as B*****y W**d, you might be able to get a parking space there in the middle two weekends in July!

I have also had experience of C of Ps in other activities.
They are a good idea, but-
The well behaved already observe them (most of the members of this group, and BC I imagine).
Half the badly behaved will never be aware of them (Grud's birders).
The other half of the badly behaved will not change their behaviour (collectors, selfish photographers).

Roger Harding

I also digress-
I take a curious pleasure in summoning the manager of large spermarkets to point out that the "9 Items Or Less" sign ought to read "9 Items Or Fewer"

[Hamearis]

the manager of large spermarkets

I hope this is a mistype
Hamearis

[Pete Eeles]

From Dave Brown (who is unable to post due to restrictions on his workstation):

Whilst I can understand all points so far presented I personally am against restricting information except in very exceptional circumstances. I think the reason why this web site is so good and popular is that it encourages such an active interest in our hobby, which has got to be good not only for butterflies, but wildlife in general.

By restricting access or information we stand the risk of losing some of that support. What we should be doing is actively encouraging enjoyment of our interest by suggesting they become members of wildlife groups, take part in work parties and best of all, make donations to nature reserves for maintenance and purchase. Wildlife, particularly in southern England, can not survive in its current form based on the current low level of nature reserves or protected areas. We need a lot more expanded areas or wildlife corridors, if nature is to stand a chance in this fast developing island of ours. We need to build on the growing public interest and awareness of our fragile wildlife, especially butterflies, if we are to preserve what we already have. Let us move forward and not go back to the dark ages of limited and restricted access/ information. The general public are at last aware that our native wildlife is in serious trouble and needs all the help it can get. Yes, one of the outputs of this growing interest may be that some sites are heavily visited, but that only confirms that the interest is there. Let us channel that interest for the wider good.

I realise that a few will object to this view and quote that that some rare butterflies interest must come first, but we are all responsible enough to see the bigger picture.

Even the rare ones will only survive by encouraging an expansion of our protected areas. Of course private areas must be respected, but even they are at risk if no one maintains them. We lost the last site in Kent for Pearl Bordered Fritillary in 2003, not because it was heavily trampled, but because no one maintained it (private site with public footpaths).

I believe that the vast majority, if not all, of this membership is fully responsible and has the same interests at heart. We can police ourselves and eventually those who can’t conform will move on to other things.

[George]

I have to agree with everything that Dave Brown has said in his post concerning restriction of information. I strongly believe that we should all be responsible enough to regulate our own actions and also I would hope those of other people we may come into contact with - either on wildlife sites, this web-site or in life in general. There are those who will think this is being naive but people who destroy wildlife would do so anyway - the only way to stop them is to fence and police our ites which I am sure no-one would like to see happen.

It is only through making people aware of how fragile our ecosystem is and especially how easily it WILL be destroyed by developers if we are not proactive now - not next year or in 3 or 5 years but right now.

Wildlife has existed for centuries by using corridors (hedgerows when we used to have them, also lanes and tracks) and by having potential new areas of colonisation available without having to negotiate busy roads, huge housing developments or industrial conglomerations.

We (by which I mean humans) are doing their level best to destroy all this and I for one do not want to see this happen.

If we are to attempt to reverse the trend and make government (national and local) protect wildlife (not just lepidoptera but all wildlife) then we must make more people generally aware of what is happening and will happen soon.

By restricting information (which is generally available on the web in one form or another anyway) I believe that we will just frustrate our members - we need to encourage more people to take an interest and care for wildlife.

As they say - you don't know what you had until you lose it!

[Pete Eeles]

Like most people discussing this emotive subject - I also have opinions and disagree with a lot of the assumptions being made in this thread - but I'll keep them to myself for the mo Just a thought - but I think one thing that will help this thread come to a convergence are specific examples of:

1. Where information made public, of sensitive species or fragile sites, has had a detrimental effect on butterflies, moths and their habitats.

2. Where information made public, of sensitive species or fragile sites, has had a beneficial effect on butterflies, moths and their habitats.

I have objective examples of item 1 (such as Marsh Fritillary larval webs being removed from site XXX as a result of their existence being publicised).

I only have subjective examples of item 2 (sightings of rare species or little-known sites encouraging an interest). Did this result in "a beneficial effect on butterflies, moths and their habitats"?

Cheers,

- Pete

[Jack Harrison]

I have objective examples of item 1 (such as Marsh Fritillary larval webs being removed from site XXX as a result of their existence being publicised).

But how long ago was that? Thirty years ago that was not considered so dreadful but is it still happening today?

Jack

[Pete Eeles]

2 years ago at a site in Hampshire. Unfortunately

Cheers,

- Pete

[Piers]

Pete,

The incident you're quoting regarding the Marsh Frit larval webs; If it's the one that I think it is the occurrence of MF's was pretty broadly known, irrespective of whether or not BC publicised it. It would certainly be known to the sort of individuals who would specifically require larvae from this site. These guys are usually dedicated, have exceptional field craft and put in a lot of work to achieve their dubious aims.

One has to remember that web sites such as this and BC's are not the only sources of information. Far from it - if you dig on-line you'll find that certain other national conservation bodies are very good at publicising sensitive sites and sometimes very small populations of a threatened species complete with a six figure grid reference!

What I am saying is that in the majority of cases (unless we were talking about the chance discovery of a relict population of the English Chequered Skipper extant in Northants) the low key publication of a site, sighting or locality to see a species on this web site is highly unlikely to make a blind bit of difference either way.

Felix.

[Rogerdodge]

Felix
There is a lot of sense in your posting.
Let us imagine your rediscovery of the English Chequered Skipper.
If only half a dozen people knew about it, the unscrupulous collector could visit on, say, a Wednesday afternoon fairly certain that his activities would not be observed.
If the site was known to hundreds, the chances of being observed would be very high indeed - perhaps publicity helping to protect a butterfly, but, sadly not measurable Pete?
I have no evidence for this Pete, but I bet no PEs get netted at Bentley Wood whilst all those people are milling about, but at the lesser known sites (but still locatable thanks to the WWW) - who knows?
Detriment can be seen - damage, removed webs, cut blackthorn (for Brown Hairstreak eggs) etc.
Sadly the benefits, such as protection by dint of numbers, the arousal of enthusiasm in the young etc. are not measurable.
I think we all have to rely on our own versions of logic here.
Roger

[Pete Eeles]

... the low key publication of a site, sighting or locality to see a species on this web site is highly unlikely to make a blind bit of difference either way.

That was just one example. So what about a sighting that results in a site getting overrun with individuals who don't care for anything but their photos? This happens.

This seems to be a "pint half full" / "pint half empty" argument. There have been several suggestions that publicising sightings of sensitive species or fragile sites does no harm (and, in some responses, should be something that is encouraged!). I'm saying it does no good. I have no evidence for the former, and several examples for the latter.

So - what I'm suggesting is that we base this discussion of concrete evidence and not subjective gut-feel. My evidence, to date, tells me that very specific sightings being publicised has, on occasion, been a problem - and various BC branches would seem to agree, otherwise they wouldn't withhold their sightings.

At the end of the day, this comes down to trust. Do you trust everyone who visits this website and those of the various BC branches and others, to behave as responsibly as the crowd on this forum? I don't.

Cheers,

- Pete