How can this be legal??

[lee3764]

And when I did a google search I noted that on a web page about collectors it mentioned that someone who was an egg collector had been convicted of selling Large Blue and High brown and was convicted at Salisbury magistrates. I then noticed from the Ebay listings the seller of these current specimens, which include large blue and High Brown is located in Salisbury which I thought was a bit of a coincidence.

It is coincidental - these are two different individuals.

Woodwalton Large Copper stock only exists in captivity now. Were is not for the efforts of hobby-breeders the stock would have been lost years ago.

The sale of specimens such as those listed on Ebay may be repugnant to many people, but it is important to keep these things in perspective. In the majority of cases it is perfectly legal to sell specimens resulting from captive bred stock. This may be repellent to many people, but it is legal. What we personally find distasteful is one matter, whether or not something should be curtailed on those grounds alone is another. We should be careful not to seek to impose our will on others simply as an emotion driven knee jerk reaction.

The majority of hobby-breeders are butterfly enthusiasts. Many are active members of BC, and some keen amateurs have assisted with the reintroduction of species to sites where they have been lost (Heath Fritillary, Pearl Bordered Fritillary (in Sussex) etc.).

When stock is required for a reintroduction it is very often these hugely experienced individuals who are called upon to assist.

It is also important to remember (if I may echo CC's comments) that when compared to the ongoing loss of suitable habitat; and in particular landscape-scale meta habitat, these issues are mere trifles, irrespective whether or not we find the sight of a set specimen for sale on Ebay distasteful.

Unless all butterfly enthusiasts, in whatever guise the may take, join together with a united voice we may as well forget it. The divide that seems to exist between butterfly photographers and any one who has a more hands on interest in whatever form that may take; scientific study, simple enjoyment through keen observation, or captive breeding, is worrying and potentially very unhelpful to what is ultimately our united cause: saving butterflies, moths and their habitats.

Felix.

Well said Felix!!!........My recent postings a few weeks ago regarding the use of Nets ruffled a few feathers but the same goes here; Jump on the seller or breeder & automatically assume they are guilty! Leave the knowledgeable folk who expertly captive breed the Large Copper continuously in captivity & go back to searching out that 'perfect photograph' & 20 years or so down the line when a piece of fenland is restored to a suitable state for the Large Copper to hopefully breed on then we can gratefully approach them to ask for some of their stock to help with a re-introduction project. If they are hounded by the Politically correct/ having a go at whoever they think they should /giving them short change brigade then it will be driven totally underground once & for all!
What is wrong with a livestock dealer (what few of them are still around) selling (for a reasonable price of course) captive reared stock for example of the Large Copper (Batavus) whilst maintaining & exchanging the stock with other expert breeders? When I was a child I purchased much livestock from Worldwide Butterflies Ltd from Sherbourne, Dorset & learnt a lot from the close interaction with all the lifestages of each particular species. What a shame that most children do not have the chance to indulge in this! Hopefully the anti breeding folk on here are proud of their stance against this!! I will continue to obtain legal livestock & raise them with my young children to educate them when the opportunity arises. I also take photos too but do not wish to be so blinking aloof as to have a pop at every Tom, Dick & Harry that either is seen with a net or dares to take an butterfly egg or larva to rear through & massively improve it's chances of reaching adulthood. Maybe these 'lovers of butterflies' should just continue to 'tick & click' (tick transect forms & click cameras) & let us get on with enjoying our hobby! From what I've read in recent weeks on here there is a huge gulf between these two camps that will not be resolved. It is pointless arguing your point against some butterfly/moth lovers as they own our country's butterflies/moths & all other objects with wings/legs as we MUST NOT TOUCH OR ELSE! Very good points from Cotswold Cockney too & I'm sure he is extremely knowledgeable in breeding but in years to come is these very important skills & information going to be largely lost forever? Brilliant observation for the Swallowtail disliking the milky sap from Milk Parsley & then biting the stem lower down to wilt the foiliage?! This might (hypothetically) just be very crucial information that could be critical in saving this magnificent species from eventual extiction in Britain! When the habitats are mostly gone & no one is allowed to do anything anymore then there will be virtually nothing to photograph either? Maybe then we all might join together? Doubt it though based on some of what I've read recently.

[Neil Jones]

And when I did a google search I noted that on a web page about collectors it mentioned that someone who was an egg collector had been convicted of selling Large Blue and High brown and was convicted at Salisbury magistrates. I then noticed from the Ebay listings the seller of these current specimens, which include large blue and High Brown is located in Salisbury which I thought was a bit of a coincidence.

It is coincidental - these are two different individuals.

Woodwalton Large Copper stock only exists in captivity now. Were is not for the efforts of hobby-breeders the stock would have been lost years ago.

The sale of specimens such as those listed on Ebay may be repugnant to many people, but it is important to keep these things in perspective. In the majority of cases it is perfectly legal to sell specimens resulting from captive bred stock. This may be repellent to many people, but it is legal. What we personally find distasteful is one matter, whether or not something should be curtailed on those grounds alone is another. We should be careful not to seek to impose our will on others simply as an emotion driven knee jerk reaction.

The majority of hobby-breeders are butterfly enthusiasts. Many are active members of BC, and some keen amateurs have assisted with the reintroduction of species to sites where they have been lost (Heath Fritillary, Pearl Bordered Fritillary (in Sussex) etc.).

When stock is required for a reintroduction it is very often these hugely experienced individuals who are called upon to assist.

It is also important to remember (if I may echo CC's comments) that when compared to the ongoing loss of suitable habitat; and in particular landscape-scale meta habitat, these issues are mere trifles, irrespective whether or not we find the sight of a set specimen for sale on Ebay distasteful.

Unless all butterfly enthusiasts, in whatever guise the may take, join together with a united voice we may as well forget it. The divide that seems to exist between butterfly photographers and any one who has a more hands on interest in whatever form that may take; scientific study, simple enjoyment through keen observation, or captive breeding, is worrying and potentially very unhelpful to what is ultimately our united cause: saving butterflies, moths and their habitats.

Felix.

Well said Felix!!!........My recent postings a few weeks ago regarding the use of Nets ruffled a few feathers but the same goes here; Jump on the seller or breeder & automatically assume they are guilty! Leave the knowledgeable folk who expertly captive breed the Large Copper continuously in captivity & go back to searching out that 'perfect photograph' & 20 years or so down the line when a piece of fenland is restored to a suitable state for the Large Copper to hopefully breed on then we can gratefully approach them to ask for some of their stock to help with a re-introduction project.

I am afraid it will be useless for this purpose. We know from research with fruit flies that genetic changes occur very quickly in captive bred stock.
They evolve a domesticated race that is less able to survive in the wild.

I think you are far better off arguing that it is one of the ways in which
you get people interested in butterflies. Many of our foremost conservationists started by rearing caterpillars as a child.

I did and when I grew up I started the first of the BC branches in Wales.

If we are to reintroduce the large copper I fear we will need stock from Holland to ensure success. Of course the breeding skills developed will be of use then but not the stock.

[Piers]

I am afraid it will be useless for this purpose. We know from research with fruit flies that genetic changes occur very quickly in captive bred stock.

Fruit flies maybe, but captive bred butterfly stock has been used to great effect with reintroductions (some above board (Marsh Frit Cumbria, Heath Frit Cornwall), some not (Wood White Dorset, various species in Yorkshire)) and also to bolster existing populations following much needed habitat management where colonies have dwindled (Pearl Bordered Frit Sussex)

With the probable exception of the Large Copper, experienced breeders will usually vigorously back-cross to ensure genetic stability of their stock.

Felix.

[lee3764]

Blimey Neil,

I thought the captive Large Copper stock was pretty strong! The Dutch wild Batavus stock in Holland is pretty rare I heard but the skills for rearing up several 1000's of larvae for a reintroduction project are the same. This should be done with urgency then while there is enough wild stock to utilise some so long as the habitat can be made suitable for it. I know nothing about the fens & regret never seeing this brilliant species wild in this country both at Wood Walton & Wicken Fens between 1928 & 1993.
I too was a founder member of our Cornwall Butterfly Conservation branch 18 years ago but still have a very varied interest in many aspects of our native butterflies & to a smaller extent moths!
Cheers,
Lee (Cornwall).

[lee3764]

I am afraid it will be useless for this purpose. We know from research with fruit flies that genetic changes occur very quickly in captive bred stock.

Fruit flies maybe, but captive bred butterfly stock has been used to great effect with reintroductions (some above board (Marsh Frit Cumbria, Heath Frit Cornwall), some not (Wood White Dorset, various species in Yorkshire)) and also to bolster existing populations following much needed habitat management where colonies have dwindled (Pearl Bordered Frit Sussex)

With the probable exception of the Large Copper, experienced breeders will usually vigorously back-cross to ensure genetic stability of their stock.

Felix.

Yep, your right Felix...........We still have the Heath Fritillary in Cornwall largely thanks to 2 fellow lepidopterists I know who used their breeding skills to breed 10 female Heath Frits from Devon (which prior to 1993 originated from Cornwall) into over 1600 adult Heath Fritillary butterflies within 12 months!! This was all done under EN Licence (so that will please those who may think this is illegal) and a thriving colony exists again on Duchy of Cornwall land where it became extinct in 2003. The reintroduction occurred in 2006 & a 10 year management plan has recently been agreed & the future looks good for what is our (Cornwall's) only Heath Fritillary colony!!!! Well done to those two elderly Gents who brilliantly used their skills to multiply the original H.F. adults 16,000% (I think) within a year. The Devon colony is doing very well too! If we weren't to touch, rear, breed etc, etc then both Devon & Cornwall would have lost & not regained the Heath Fritillary!!
I read the Marsh Fritillary story a year or two ago re- Cumbria & was amazed at just how many Marsh Frits they turned the last Cumbria Marsh Frit larva webb into even though they did use a couple of other sourced stock (Scottish I believe?). Long may they survive & prosper!
Look after our expert breeders please!
Lee (Cornwall).

[Padfield]

When the habitats are mostly gone & no one is allowed to do anything anymore then there will be virtually nothing to photograph either? Maybe then we all might join together? Doubt it though based on some of what I've read recently.

Which site have you been browsing, then, Lee? Certainly not this one. The response to your netting comments was perfectly measured and didn't represent the clash of cultures you seem to be suggesting, unless you deliberately distort what was said. The same applies to Felix's observations about a 'worrying and potentially unhelpful divide' between photographers and hands-on entomologists, which strikes me as at least a great exaggeration of the reality, if not actually a distortion of it. Felix described me, reasonably accurately, as about as extreme as you can get in certain respects, and yet I'm not on the 'other side'. So if I'm not, then who is? I don't mean that aggressively - read, rather, a puzzled tone into my voice.

You maybe don't mind people selling wood whites on e-Bay. As it happens, I do mind. That's not a declaration of war, just a statement of a difference of opinion and perhaps values. My opinion will have no effect on whether or not wood whites continue to be sold on e-Bay. I will continue to express my opinions verbally and by example, as should everyone, without fear of being put into one camp or another. Disagreement is perfectly healthy, and I would far rather live in a world where people like Gruditch and Lee feel free to express their opposing views forcefully than one where people are cowed into silence.

I really don't think this alleged divide into, say, 'soft' and 'hard' entomologists exists; but even if I'm wrong on that, it is surely irrelevant to the future of the British countryside and its wildlife. If the political will isn't changed the most any of us will be able to do, whether stockists, breeders, photographers, gardeners or twitchers, is stick little bits of sellotape on a tattered ecological map.

Guy

[Piers]

The same applies to Felix's observations about a 'worrying and potentially unhelpful divide' between photographers and hands-on entomologists, which strikes me as at least a great exaggeration of the reality, if not actually a distortion of it. Guy.

Steady on Guy...!
Rather than being a distortion of reality, this is my opinion based upon my personal experiences and observations; and it's an opinion shared by other entomologists as well, not the least by the late Prof. Philip Corbet, formerly our foremost expert on odonata who was accosted by 'dragonfly watchers' after netting a damselfly (at some site or other) and quite literally bullied into releasing it. Netting the insect was part of Prof. Corbet's work for crying out loud. This is but one example.

I don't know about other areas of Europe in this respect Guy, but amongst many entomologists there is a very real feeling of the divisions of which I wrote in my previous post.

In this thread I am not stating who, if anyone, is right or wrong. What I am saying however, is that the situation is unhelpful (at best) and self defeating regarding what should be our common aims.

Felix.

[Jack Harrison]

This argument is fun. Keep going chaps.

Great shame Peter Mandelson isn’t into butterflies

Jack

[Padfield]

...amongst many entomologists there is a very real feeling of the divisions of which I wrote in my previous post.

A 'real feeling' doesn't make a reality. People from many different walks of life feel persecuted and misunderstood but this doesn't mean they are! It is striking that scientists, whose professional work is marked by cautious reserve, quite frequently make generalisations outside their area of expertise without any sense of constraint by evidential considerations. The piece you recently cited by David Attenborough was a case in point. It was wildly opinionated without any reference to essential evidence needed to support claims - I saved a copy to my computer to use as an example to my students of how not to write arguments. Personally, I found it a great shame that someone with David Attenborough's authority should make such irresponsible and unsupported statements, and this sentiment has been communicated to me by others who read the article.

You may be absolutely right, that lay 'butterfly-lovers' are in some significant way on a different 'side' from professional entomologists (claim 1) and that this is potentially harmful (claim 2). I would need hard evidence for both claims, as from the heady days when I studied invertebrate zoology at Cambridge through to the equally heady days now, when I spend my time in the hills with professional entomologists, I have seen nothing of this divide.

Again, there is no sense of antagonism in what I am writing. I just think we have enough real foes to fight without inventing straw adversaries!!

Guy

[Padfield]

This argument is fun. Keep going chaps.

I try not to repeat myself, Jack, which means I will run out of things to say in the end!!

Guy

[Gruditch]

Hopefully the anti breeding folk on here

I think some people were just concerned, and rightly so, that some butterflies were being taken from the wild, I don't think that makes them anti breeding.

Maybe these 'lovers of butterflies' should just continue to 'tick & click'

This comes across at a bit condescending toward the great efforts that the hundreds of transect walkers put in, I'm sure you did not intend it to.

I found it a great shame that someone with David Attenborough's authority should make such irresponsible and unsupported statements, and this sentiment has been communicated to me by others who read the article.

I also was saddened to see that article by the great Sir David. With our dwindling, and fragmented countryside, playing host to increasingly isolated and vulnerable colonies. It hardly makes sense to encourage the youth of today, to go out and plunder it for personal collections.

Regards Gruditch

[Jack Harrison]

Felix:

Jack Harrison wrote:This argument is fun. Keep going chaps.

Great shame Peter Mandelson isn’t into butterflies

Jack


It bloody isn't. I don't need someone else telling me that my opinions aren't my opinions after all.

I'm enjoying keeping out of the debate Cameras at twelve paces in the morning?

Jack

[Mark Senior]

As has been discussed a year or so ago on an earlier thread , the habitat suitable for many of our butterflies is now so fragmented that natural colonisation/recolonisation is no longer possible . We would have to wait an awful long time for Heath Fritillaries to recolonise devon/Cornwall from Blean Woods in Kent .
I think it is a prime requirement for butterfly enthusiasts to attempt to reintroduce species to new potentially suitable sites and to improve the gene pool by transferring butterflies between distant sites . If as was the case with the Large Copper this is a failure that is a dissappointment but will still add to our knowledge and possibly lead to future success .
I realise my view may be considered extreme by some but to be brutally honest , they are the sort of people who would rather be sitting on Collard Hill waiting for it to be colonised naturally by stray immigrants from France than observing the Large Blues that are now flying there and elsewhere in this country .

[Pete Eeles]

I think it is a prime requirement for butterfly enthusiasts to attempt to reintroduce species to new potentially suitable sites and to improve the gene pool by transferring butterflies between distant sites.

I completely disagree. Such actions should be left to the "experts" otherwise we'll have no butterflies left! Sorry

Cheers,

- Pete

[Pete Eeles]

Maybe these 'lovers of butterflies' should just continue to 'tick & click'

This comes across at a bit condescending toward the great efforts that the hundreds of transect walkers put in, I'm sure you did not intend it to.

I'm sure he didn't either.

I suspect that Cornwall BC members would like to know what you did mean, Lee, rather than leaving it to others to interpret

But I suspect you're making a point regarding what you consider to be acceptable. Which is why phrases such as 'lovers of butterflies' (in quotes) need to be spelled out since we're all lovers of butterflies (no quotes). in fact, perhaps that's the only thing we can all agree on. Where we differ is in the various aspects of this absorbing hobby. I suspect we'd all respond differently to the following questions (and things get heated when you then try and force your opinion on someone else, of course!):

Do you find the destruction of habitat disturbing?
Do you find the collecting and killing of adults for a collection disturbing?
Do you find the collecting of immature stages in order to rear through perfect specimens that are then killed for a collection disturbing?
Do you find the collecting of immature stages in order to observe and educate disturbing?
Do you find the release of captive-bred stock of unknown origin into the wild disturbing?
Do you find the photography without any regard for habitat disturbing?
Do you find the use of nets disturbing?

Of course, context is everything (e.g. collecting immature stages might be fine to you - so long as it's not a rare/protected species).

Cheers,

- Pete

[lee3764]

When the habitats are mostly gone & no one is allowed to do anything anymore then there will be virtually nothing to photograph either? Maybe then we all might join together? Doubt it though based on some of what I've read recently.

You maybe don't mind people selling wood whites on e-Bay. As it happens, I do mind. That's not a declaration of war, just a statement of a difference of opinion and perhaps values. My opinion will have no effect on whether or not wood whites continue to be sold on e-Bay. I will continue to express my opinions verbally and by example, as should everyone, without fear of being put into one camp or another. Disagreement is perfectly healthy, and I would far rather live in a world where people like Gruditch and Lee feel free to express their opposing views forcefully than one where people are cowed into silence.

I really don't think this alleged divide into, say, 'soft' and 'hard' entomologists exists; but even if I'm wrong on that, it is surely irrelevant to the future of the British countryside and its wildlife. If the political will isn't changed the most any of us will be able to do, whether stockists, breeders, photographers, gardeners or twitchers, is stick little bits of sellotape on a tattered ecological map.

Guy

It may not exist as you see it Guy in Switzerland but it DOES exist here in Great Britain and I did not mention Wood Whites on ebay; I hope the chap concerned checked of course that the data on each Wood White showed that they were caught prior to 1989 when the 1981 Wildlife & Countyside act made it illegal to sell that species if it was wild caught from 1989 onwards. He should have stated clearly that they were so to avoid suspicion but don't condemn him as selling them illegally without sending the chap a message to ask him the data on each specimen first! Turning to the seller of the Large Copper ex Wood Walton Fen captive reared stock.........What is the problem? This is the advert from ebay that was suspected/questioned to be illegal....
'This is an auction for captive bred Large Copper larvae, dispar batavus, ex Wood Walton Fen stock. These extremely rare Butterfly larvae are very easy to rear on either Great Water or normal Broad Leaved Dock. The larvae are for sale at 25 for £12.00, please add £2.50 to cover the cost of postage and packing.'


This is legal and should be encouraged to keep as many responsible breeders as possible to keep this stock going. Of course taking this subspecies from the wild in the Netherlands should not take place as Batavus is fully protected there I believe? If you keep it legal then No one should have a go at you (but they do!).
What's with the bits of sellotape Guy??
There seems to be an unofficial sub-committee somewhere who are trying to grind down the 'hands on entomologists'. How on earth is it right for the late Philip Corbett to be bullied into releasing a damselfly that he caught to study? Another case of bullying by those less knowledgeable that Mr Corbett himself?
As for whoever slated Sir David Attenborough's article about encouraging children to collect certain nature/insect items.....Shame on you as the man should be admired! He is brilliant and at least due to who he is can only be slated from a distance over this. People DO listen & take note of what he says and nearly all the time he is spot on! He is also president of Butterfly Conservation. He has a very responsible role there which he carries out admirably.
'Tick & click' refers to those who are NOT hands on entomologists and who do not agree & may have a pop at the 'hands on' entomologists. I know a great many transect walkers in Cornwall who do a great job and NEVER have a go at the real Lepidopterists/Entomologists. A lot has been learnt in the last few decades from the real Lepidopterists/Entomologists here in Cornwall.
A year or so ago there were people virtually pushed or barged away from the best Large Blues at Collard Hill by several semi-aggressive photo hunting photographers looking for that perfect shot! Disgusting behaviour I say & not how true Lepidopterists/Entomologists behave! This is an example of what should be stamped out as well as a few individuals who clearly & illegally exploit the protected species just for greed & profit. These are the exception though & 99.9% of us are responsible whether we carry nets or not and whether we pick a butterfly egg/larve from the wild so long as it is not from the few totally protected species just to enjoy & learn the life history of it. F.W.Frohawk did this with every British species 100 odd years ago & published the best ever book on the natural history of all of our butterflies which covered every life stage in great detail both describing & painting/sketching. It was called 'The Natural History of British Butterflies' & was published in 1924. It remains to this day a classic & also pretty valuable & sought after. Maybe every butterfly enthusiast should read these two books at least once to realise just what so many people are missing. It of course would not be possible to exactly replicate today due to legal restrictions on true British stock but the knowledge gained from reading each species account stays with me always. My two battered volumes are well read & well enjoyed!
Comments anyone?? (I'm sure there will be!)
Lee (Cornwall).

[lee3764]

I suspect that Cornwall BC members would like to know what you did mean, Lee, rather than leaving it to others to interpret

But I suspect you're making a point regarding what you consider to be acceptable. Which is why phrases such as 'lovers of butterflies' (in quotes) need to be spelled out since we're all lovers of butterflies (no quotes). in fact, perhaps that's the only thing we can all agree on. Where we differ is in the various aspects of this absorbing hobby. I suspect we'd all respond differently to the following questions (and things get heated when you then try and force your opinion on someone else, of course!):
Oh well...here goes with my questionaire Pete.

Do you find the destruction of habitat disturbing? YES-VERY DISTURBING INDEED!! THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM THAT STILL CONTINUES. IT IS THE MAIN REASON WHY BUTTERFLIES ARE BECOMING RARER & MORE THREATENED!
Do you find the collecting and killing of adults for a collection disturbing? UNNECCESSARY NOWDAYS unless an aberration that could be of scientific interest or a moth for I/D purpose & CERTAINLY DISTURBING IF RARE/PROTECTED.
Do you find the collecting of immature stages in order to rear through perfect specimens that are then killed for a collection disturbing? Not disturbing but if you collect then this should be the way such as the chap selling Large Copper larvae on ebay. No need to take wild butterflies but is not illegal for most species!
Do you find the collecting of immature stages in order to observe and educate disturbing? NOT AT ALL! AS LONG AS IT'S NOT PROTECTED FULLY THEN THIS IS EXTREMELY EDUCATIONAL & REWARDING!
Do you find the release of captive-bred stock of unknown origin into the wild disturbing? Unknown origin should not happen. Disturbing? Not really unless it's a pest species!Do you find the photography without any regard for habitat disturbing? Of course I find this disturbing! Respect other fellow well behaved enthusiasts & above all the surrounding wildlife & countryside!
Do you find the use of nets disturbing? No I do NOT find the sensible use of nets disturbing. Some other people do though!
Of course, context is everything (e.g. collecting immature stages might be fine to you - so long as it's not a rare/protected species).

Cheers,

- Pete[/quote]

Cheers Pete. I've stated my answers after each question.
Lee.

[Pete Eeles]

Thanks Lee - wasn't supposed to be a questionnaire - but thanks for responding! Perhaps we should set up a poll and see what we come up with?!

With regard to your earlier post, Lee ...

Before I respond, I do want to say that I think it's very important that this kind of debate is ... er ... debated! Sensitive topics have been brushed under the carpet for so long that I find these debates quite refreshing, even if we don't all agree (and, as a result, sometimes have heated debates!). And ... I respect everyone's opinions here - they are, after all, yours. I just may not happen to agree with them

So here are some responses based on MY opinion and, as Guy put it, values (I'll only mention items I don't agree with you on, Lee). Most responses are, as far as I'm concerned, common sense as much as anything else:

"This is legal and should be encouraged to keep as many responsible breeders as possible to keep this stock going".
I think this needs to be qualified with "capable" also. There's a real danger that amateurs who don't know what they're doing will have no success and actually diminish any captive-bred gene pool as a result.

"There seems to be an unofficial sub-committee somewhere who are trying to grind down the 'hands on entomologists'"
I think there are individuals who have a different opinion, which is fine. I don't think there's any underground movement!

"How on earth is it right for the late Philip Corbett to be bullied into releasing a damselfly that he caught to study?"
Well - in MY opinion where netting is appropriate in the right situation - then this response to a net is just wrong, possibly the result of a public perception that "people with nets are bad".

"As for whoever slated Sir David Attenborough's article about encouraging children to collect certain nature/insect items"
Again - I think the comments made should have been qualified. We all know what point was really being made - that most of us became interested in nature gained that interest when we were young, and we brought things home / collected / whatever. Today's youth are much more restricted. I think that was the point of the comments made - we need to address this - how do we encourage the younger generation?

"'Tick & click' refers to those who are NOT hands on entomologists ... the real Lepidopterists/Entomologists"
I've no idea what the "hands on" or "real" entomologists are. I wonder if I'm one?

"A year or so ago there were people virtually pushed or barged away from the best Large Blues at Collard Hill by several semi-aggressive photo hunting photographers looking for that perfect shot! Disgusting behaviour I say"
I completely agree.

"& not how true Lepidopterists/Entomologists behave!"
I completely disagree. I've met some well-known entomologists who are also photo hunting photographers / bullies / etc. I think your distinction is artificial, and you're simply talking about behaviours that decent people exhibit (or not!). But to say that "real" entomologists are decent, and everyone else isn't, is clearly not the case!

"Maybe every butterfly enthusiast should read these two books at least once to realise just what so many people are missing"
And some (not me) say that, because it's already been done, there's no need for it to be replicated.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Cotswold Cockney]

There's a real danger that amateurs who don't know what they're doing will have no success and actually diminish any captive-bred gene pool as a result.

- Pete

Hmmmm.... that is of course a real possibility.

As I have observed more than several times over the past half century, there is an even BIGGER danger where highly qualified academic "professionals" entrusted with the well being of certain species have failed miserably. Indeed, highly qualified academics and the ability to succeed are all too frequently mutually exclusive. I would not trust most of them anywhere near a living creature ~ they just don't get it. Indeed, in many walks of life and other areas of endeavour, BEWARE PROFESSIONALS. It is an experience I have encountered all too frequently. Experience is a good teacher.

There are far too many who excel only at getting things wrong, often but, not always with the best of intent ...

I am convinced it is one of the main reasons why the former "Green and Pleasant" is now in the state it's now in! Those we entrust with this Nation's well being at every level and in all directions all too clearly and frequently demonstrate that they cannot be trusted to be honest let alone get it right...

We have become a nation that all too frequnetly excels only at ... getting it wrong. Not always but ...

I have been on this planet longer than most of the contributors here and during that time I have paid attention to the antics and behaviour of my fellow men ... and women.

Consider this.... many of the worthwhile 'discoveries' to benefit us all are as a result not of some highly rewarded professional study, but by some unpaid dedicated 'amateur' who finds these things for themselves with their only motivation being the simple need to know... many who are quite prepared to invest their unpaid time 24/7/365 and not simply a 9 to 4 reasonably and sometimes highly over rewarded employment. All too often failure has been highly rewarded.

Apart from that, everything in the garden is lovely ~ there again, just maybe we are all doomed... there is some evidence to suggest the latter is a distinct possibility.

There, that's cheered you all up no end...
.

[Mark Senior]

I think it is a prime requirement for butterfly enthusiasts to attempt to reintroduce species to new potentially suitable sites and to improve the gene pool by transferring butterflies between distant sites.

I completely disagree. Such actions should be left to the "experts" otherwise we'll have no butterflies left! Sorry

Cheers,

- Pete

With great respect , Pete , I could not disagree more . Who is to decide who is to be designated an expert and therefore allowed to attempt a reintroduction and who is an amateur and should not . Yet more red tape ???
What happens when a current " expert " dies ? Does an "amateur" suddenly get appointed to be an "expert" in his place and how is he selected or do we just let all the experts gradually die out as no amateur would ever be allowed to experiment and learn by success or failure the knowledge to become a new expert .
I would expect that there is far more knowledge and experience in the minds of all of us amateurs than in all the so called experts .