Code of Practice

[Pete Eeles]

I think we all have to rely on our own versions of logic here.

And that's the whole point of the code of practice - to provide some concrete suggestions to achieve some consistency. Otherwise well-intentioned individuals "get it wrong" (including me, by the way). Surely some simple guidance wouldn't go amiss?

So what would you change about the code? Not sure I like the idea of encouraging the publication of private sites containing sensitive species given the logic that this will encourage more interest in saving the critters that live there That, to me, is an extreme extreme.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Paul]

Seems to me, the practice of some members here being reluctant to indicate very sensitive sites is probably a good thing... I also appreciate those who would be willing to accompany another enthusiast to such places if requested & able to do so. I have benefitted from this already and have enjoyed the privilige immensely! For my part, if I am ever able to help someone out with seeing something locally to me, I would be delighted to do so ( not that that's likely in sunny Swaledale!!!!)

I went to Canada and contacted Naturalists groups well in advance, meeting up & again seeing more than I would have done at random.

I am going to the Pyrenees this year and frustratingly may be very close to "local" species' habitats but be completely oblivious. I don't expect I will see much of what I could.

My main point being, why place most sensitive info on the web when it is possible to help people on an individual basis if it seems appropriate?

[Rogerdodge]

Peter

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"?

I have to repeat my earlier point that harm to a site is (by definition) tangiable, but the benefits of publicity are not - at worst there wil be a status quo, at best peoples perspective will be changed or enthusiasm fired - and neither are visible, measurable or tangiable, but nontheless beneficial and to be encouraged.

Not sure I like the idea of encouraging the publication of private sites ....

Nor I - private sites ought to remain just that - private. My concern is those on 'public' or publicly funded sites and then supressed.
Roger

[Jack Harrison]

As you will have realised, I am firmly against suppression. Control of access to private sites is a different matter but I don't think we are discussing that here.

I had hoped I wouldn't have to spell out so bluntly.

If suppression/secrecy does become the norm - and I am appalled that some branches of BC do this - then it is frankly an insult to the majority. If people realise that they are being kept in the dark, then an "underground network" is bound to occur. That would be very unhealthy. Nevertheless, I form the impression from several of the comments in this thread, some people might, should they feel that they are not considered trustworthy, be prepared to go along with that idea of an "underground". I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that, but it just could if we're not careful.

Recall the experiences that some of us have had in the birding world. Once we know that we are being kept out of the loop, then why the hell should we be prepared to offer anything to them?

Jack

[Rogerdodge]

I also appreciate those who would be willing to accompany another enthusiast

Paul
This seems to progress into a lovely idea.
How about a section on this site with contact e-mails of people willing to share thier local expertise with others?
I would happily show fellow members around some of the better North Devon sites (if I am not away of course ).
Roger

[Paul]

How about a section on this site with contact e-mails of people willing to share thier local expertise with others?

Sounds a good idea, wouldn't the PM system work for this, or the "sites"forum? I was interested with the response to my query last year about CHB sites in Gloucestershire... I almost felt the "sharp intake of breath" in some quarters ... I didn't think at the time they were a particularly sensitive species there!! Such arrangements would probably be better passed as emails, presuming established trust?... I hope some who have been "cold shouldered" will find it different here.

NB... Isn'y the internet "loop" more of a "bird's nest" tangle of fishing line????

[Pete Eeles]

If suppression/secrecy does become the norm - and I am appalled that some branches of BC do this.

Well - they do. And they do it for a reason

My "take" on this is that, if visitors are known to cause a problem (possibly accidentally), then they need to take appropriate action. To date, that action seems to be withholding sightings information in some cases (possibly because it's easy to implement). I've also seen areas on particular sites fenced off too. What alternative would you suggest to these bodies?

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

Surely it's not so much about suppression as 'careless talk costs lives'. Perhaps the code, which is, after all, only a voluntary guide to good practice, could be vaguer, reminding users that immediate web publication of rare and unusual sightings can result in excessive and potentially damaging attention to an area. Yes, this is obvious, but it is not insulting because codes of practice always state things which are obvious to those who think about it. A useful appendix to the code might be a list of local contacts in each area to whom such sightings could be communicated and who could advise on how sensitive they might be.

I never publish the precise location of my sightings but I tell my friends and take them to the butterflies readily. I took Paul Kipling to Maculinea rebeli and I hope in return he might one day take me to any Agriades pyrenaicus he finds this summer . Trampling by humans and cattle is a known threat to rebeli and sites are never made public. Matt Rowlings and I (Matt lives not far from me in Switzerland) share all our local data but we do so knowing that neither will publish it and every so often we get our heads together and decide what to tell enquirers to our websites. This is not suppression or elitism - just a natural desire to protect the butterflies that give us so much pleasure. We do get quite a lot of people who e-mail us and simply say, 'where can I go to get species X?' I know Tim Cowles, in France, receives the same kind of enquiries and responds equally cautiously.

The idea of enthusiasts meeting through UK Butterflies and freely sharing their knowledge of local areas (which already happens, of course) is healthy and brings out the best of the internet. The idea of twitchers zooming all over the country because a sighting is released on a 'butterflyline' strikes me as much less what it is all about. Perhaps Jack is right, and there's just no need to put things like this in a code of practice. But I can't see any harm in stating unambiguously that the butterflies' interests come before the butterfly-watchers' interests and that this consideration may inevitably affect particular decisions to publicise the full details of sightings.

If it boiled down to whether certain individuals trusted other individuals I agree it would all be rather unpleasant. But I don't think it is about this. It's about that great public notice-board called the World-Wide Web, whose effects on butterflies we don't really know yet. Aren't Pete and others (including myself) merely saying that it should be treated with a little caution?

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

Response from Dave Brown:

This is becoming a really interesting and healthy debate. At least we are all agreed that the protection of butterflies and their habitat is the prime objective. The people who trample everywhere to take photographs are the sort in every form of society whom have only their self interest at heart. You rarely change people like this no matter what you say or do. Most nature reserves have footpaths which should be followed at all times and most things can be seen or photographed from these. I would rather not comment on the type of people who take butterflies or eggs from the wild, but clearly if identified should be prosecuted.

Having re-read the proposed Code of Practice I think we have, based on comments so far, a coming together of all the items perhaps except the clauses Publicising Sightings and Publicising Sites (public). Even some of this has varying levels of support. So Pete, bearing in mind there are lots of other sources of information on the web, pagers and even books, what is the proposal to control this information on your site. Could it for instance include alternative locations for particular species that can accept large visitor pressure? A bit like the RSPB who publicise a few locations for Osprey in the hope that other sites will escape the masses. I still feel that we need to maintain a very healthy public interest in butterflies and the protection and development of their habitat, also encourage membership of those groups who are actively protecting our wildlife.

Assuming that sighting information is filtered then picking up on an earlier suggestion, I like the idea of escorting people you can trust (members?) to the more sensitive sites.

Dave Brown

[Pete Eeles]

"what is the proposal to control this information on your site"
I guess I'd hope that visitors would follow the code and not publish the information.

"Could it for instance include alternative locations for particular species that can accept large visitor pressure?"
That's a good point. I'd need to add something to identify sensitive/fragile sites and those that are more accommodating.

"I like the idea of escorting people you can trust (members?) to the more sensitive sites"
Sounds good to me too. Perhaps extend the events forum to include "meet ups"

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gruditch]

"I like the idea of escorting people you can trust (members?) to the more sensitive sites"
Sounds good to me too. Perhaps extend the events forum to include "meet ups"

I think this would have to be in total cooperation with the Trust/ warden that runs the particular site. I know several wardens that would be horrified to see me leading a dozen or so ( members ) I can supposedly trust to a site that he showed me to in the strictest confidence.

Gruditch

[Rogerdodge]

Gary
I don't envisage this being (often) a group thing, although a largeish get together from time to time would be very pleasant.
I see it as more an individual thing - you show me yours, and I'll show you mine (sites, that is!)!!

Roger

[Piers]

I don't envisage this being (often) a group thing, although a largeish get together from time to time would be very pleasant.
I see it as more an individual thing - you show me yours, and I'll show you mine (sites, that is!)!!

I think that this would be an excellent idea.

I am sure that we all have 'special' sites around our own 'patch' that would be of huge interest to other members. I for one would be happy to take someone around some of the areas local to me that are particularly good for one species or another which provide great photo opportunities without having to join a queue!

Felix.

[Gruditch]

Gary
I don't envisage this being (often) a group thing, although a largeish get together from time to time would be very pleasant.
I see it as more an individual thing - you show me yours, and I'll show you mine (sites, that is!)!!

Roger

This already goes on as you know, I've already shown you mine, and I'm hopping to see yours in the near future.

But what I don't understand is why when you can for example, look through Discover Butterflies in Britain, by D E Newland, and find a reliable site for every single butterfly in the UK. Yet some people still find it necessary that they must know, and let everybody else on the planet know,(via the web), the locations of the more sensitive sites. A Marsh Frit on site A, is the same as a Marsh Frit site B after all.

Gruditch

[Jack Harrison]

Let me suggest a compromise - in fact, the system already exists.

Most people will want to see a particular species nearest to where they live if only to minimise travel. Yes agreed, a Marsh Fritillary in Cornwall is the same as one in Hampshire, but for most enthusiasts, it is far easier (and more environmentally friendly in terms of travel) to see them in Hampshire.

As is pointed out, many of the sites for rarities are in the public domain. I know localities for ALL resident species, so it's certainly not a case of needing a "tick" (to use birding parlance). Many enthusiasts on the group will be equally knowledgeable but not all and we must remember those who are relatively inexperienced and give all the help we can.

So my compromise suggestion is this. If a species is really rare, eg Marsh Fritillary and it is considered by some that localities in say Gloucestershire are best kept confidential (and as you know, I don't agree with that, but there we are) then it could be reported for example that "In one of its Gloucs localities, 17 males and 12 females were seen in Tetrad SO90G"
(that is not necessarily a genuine site - it's more or less picked at random)

Explanation and conversion to tetrads: http://www.bto.org/birdatlas/taking_part/gridrefs.htm

This preserves the degree of confidentiality that many are arguing for but is passably satisfying for those like me simply want to know that the species hangs on in that locality and is apparently doing well.

Incidentally, I find the idea of conducted visits by members of the "in-crowd" is abhorrent. Again it suggests that some people can't be trusted if they visit on their own. If someone is taken on such a conducted tour, he will of course then be in a position to reveal the locality so any confidentiality is immediately lost. (Unless we have the equivalent of a Butterfly Official Secrets Act). Why not simply give the locality in the first place?

I don't especially want to know the locations of every sensitive site FOR THE PURPOSES OF VISITING as I am unlikely to be able to go to more than a handful. But I want the RIGHT TO KNOW even if I never use that information. So in summary, although far from happy with downgrading site locations to mere tetrads, the tetrad system is already in place and might offer some sort of compromise.

Jack

[Pete Eeles]

Thanks Jack - isn't using a tetrad just one way of providing "vague site details" as suggested in the provisional code (i.e. the code doesn't need to change in this regard)?

Cheers,

- Pete

[Hamearis]

Incidentally, I find the idea of conducted visits by members of the "in-crowd" is abhorrent. Again it suggests that some people can't be trusted if they visit on their own. If someone is taken on such a conducted tour, he will of course then be in a position to reveal the locality so any confidentiality is immediately lost. (Unless we have the equivalent of a Butterfly Official Secrets Act). Why not simply give the locality in the first place?

Jack
I don't see this suggestion in the same way you do.
My impression is that it will be a matter of someone wanting to be shown around a known site by a local.
For example, if someone posted that they are visiting Martin Down and is there anyone that could point them to some good areas, I would willingly meet them and show them around.
I didn't see this connected to the confidentiality issue at all.
Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick.
Hamearis

[Jack Harrison]

Thanks Jack - isn't using a tetrad just one way of providing "vague site details" as suggested in the provisional code (i.e. the code doesn't need to change in this regard)?

I had interpreted "vague site details" as being exactly that - vague. For example, Marsh Fritillary "North Hampshire" is far too imprecise.

As you know, I would rather see full 6 figure grid references; you propose "vague"; I am suggesting a compromise - tetrad.

Hamearis's comments are of course quite valid and maybe my earlier posting wasn't quite clear. I would willing show a visitor what I consider to be the best ride in Fermyn but I wouldn't do so with any measure of secrecy. I would simply want to help that person save a lot of time and effort. Meanwhile, someone else might say:
"Oh you want to wander right through this bit of wood, past the open area and then into the next block of woodland Just seen four Purple Emperors on the ground together there".
This is the sort of thing that spreads information, doesn't try to suppress and in fact eases visitor pressure.

Jack

[roundwood123]

I have been looking at the posts that have been made regarding the Code of Practice with great interest and i thought i would post my own thoughts on a couple of issue`s that have arisen from the perspective of someone who is very new to the world of "butterflying".
I can understand why people who have a great knowledge of butterflies and their lifestyle requirements could get a bit irritated at the thought of information suppresion, but that same info in the hands of someone like me [thats me of a year ago] could without doubt lead to habitat destruction, to be very honest i can remember charging through the undergrowth just to get a photo of a first, i will be much more carefull this season as i now have a far greater understanding of butterfly habitats.
With regard to organised or escorted trips to see Butterflies, great, i intend to go on as many as possible this year, Cambs and Essex butterflies are doing escorted walks to see Black Hairstreaks, i shall be there.

[twitcher]

Well I might as well put my pennys worth in. I would definitely agree with Jackarr as far as I dont like the fact that some people should be in the know about certain sites and the others who they think are deemed worthy escorted round, isnt that a case of my way or no way.Surely if there are high risk reserves then a (CODE OF PRACTICE) should be written down for the people and placed as notices or leaflets at the entrance to these places and if some idiot is tramping through the breeding plants etc , its up to others to politly point that out .No site is going to be free of unwanted attention but surely thats just a fact of conservation whether it be birds flowers or butterflies etc, half an hours work on the net and youve got a very good idea to the location of anything, minimising the problem is perhaps the answer rather than trying an off limits approach. perhaps at risk sites should if possible be only open at weekends where there are more responsible people about to keep a DISCREET eye on things . wouldnt the other extreme be to remove ALL site listings from this website, or is it just the ones we think need protecting that warrant that much attention (like the RSPB( sore subject .)I dont have a vast knowledge of butterflies like some , but I think that the majority of damage to habitat is done by the uninformed rather than the malicious.
forgive an amateur shaun