www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Thank you Pete. Whether the word should have been "objective" rather than scientific, you have have at least confirmed what many of us suspected, that the Long Tailed Blue at Kingsdown was collected by at least two collectors. The weather on their final week present at this location was fairly good, with reasonable mild nights, so I think their early demise can be ruled out (they were still being seen at another Kent site). Being that their numbers were never that great, collection by two people must have had a significant bearing on why they were not seen again here despite searching by the locals.

"it can never be proved that collectors were the primary cause of the specimens disappearing"
--> true

"just as it can never be proved that they weren't."
--> well for African/ South European LTB living in the UK, it should be able to prove it easily. For other species/spots, let's look at some scientific publications, please show them to us if you have any.

Then people comparing protected eagles with one of the most common Lycaenidae in the world like Lampides boeticus... I would say it is not "scientific" nor "objective" I didn't know eagles lay hundreds of eggs and were crashed by cars, eaten by spiders, birds, lizards.

I think your forum is great but I see few debates about real butterfly conservation issue (habitat destruction, pollution, pesticides...) and too many about "that collector must have killed everything otherwise I would have made a nice picture to show on my Flickr page".

Cheers
Talbot

talbot wrote:"it can never be proved that collectors were the primary cause of the specimens disappearing"
--> true

"just as it can never be proved that they weren't."
--> well for African/ South European LTB living in the UK, it should be able to prove it easily. For other species/spots, let's look at some scientific publications, please show them to us if you have any.

How on earth can it be easily proved that collectors had nothing to do with the elimination of the LTBs that were present at a single site in Kent over the course of 24 hours?!!! I thought I was being neutral - but it's quite clear which camp you're in!

talbot wrote:I think your forum is great but I see few debates about real butterfly conservation issue (habitat destruction, pollution, pesticides...) and too many about "that collector must have killed everything otherwise I would have made a nice picture to show on my Flickr page".

It's quite clear you've come here to pick a fight with most of the membership, it would seem. Just because some topics get raised more than others is no reason to attack those that disagree with recreational collecting (possibly for profit). Diversionary tactics won't work - we're smarter than that

Oh and, by the way, you're doing absolutely NOTHING to help bring the entire community of butterfly enthusiasts together; such divisive comments should be consigned to history.

Cheers,

- Pete

talbot wrote: I think your forum is great

You've a decidedly odd way of showing it.

but I see few debates about real butterfly conservation issue (habitat destruction, pollution, pesticides...) and too many about "that collector must have killed everything otherwise I would have made a nice picture to show on my Flickr page".

Translation - Stop condemning those unfairly maligned individuals who kill butterflies for purely cosmetic reasons and concentrate on other issues instead so these collectors can carry on with impunity.

I would just like to say that taken out of context yes "the guy with the net must have wiped them out" totally "unscientific" is rather unscientific but placed into the correct context it is completely reasonable for it to be discussed in a scientific debate. In this case, LTB's do seem to be showing signs of reacting to global climate change, not just by its recent incursions into the UK but also its expansion throughout Europe, as noted by Padfield on one of his local patches. As such, I believe new colonies (and they are colonies in every sense of the definition) should be protected as fully as possible so we can study how these animals are reacting to climate change. It may seem trivial to study a handful of one of the planets most widespread butterflies to some, but every piece of the jigsaw is as important as the other. We may find nothing to help us understand whats going on but we certainly won't know if someone with a net decides to take the whole colony for himself.

This is my opinion and I shall say no more on the subject.

Pete > LTB has no commercial value at all... so I doubt anyone would collect them for "profit". It would not even pay for the gaz.
Except historic specimens or rare aberrations, UK butterflies has no value at all on the market.

My point is a collector cannot "wipe out" a colony of LTB if we are talking of a real colony.
Then if we are talking of 5 specimens on a spot, we are not talking about a "whole colony". And yes the collector, the birds, the spiders, the lizards may have kill them.

I am just saying complaining about the "collectors" is not a way to conserve UK butterfly populations. You guys are missing the point (which is mainly habitat conservation). AFAIK BC teach how to spread moth for example.

It is a little bit like explaining British economy is in bad shape because of the Syrian refugees... without checking what happens in the City...

talbot wrote:Pete > LTB has no commercial value at all... so I doubt anyone would collect them for "profit". It would not even pay for the gaz. Except historic specimens or rare aberrations, UK butterflies has no value at all on the market.

British Long-tailed Blue command a higher price than non-British and one individual was selling their ova a few years ago ... at inflated prices.

talbot wrote:My point is a collector cannot "wipe out" a colony of LTB if we are talking of a real colony.

This is not the point being made. We're talking about the selfishness of collectors taking specimens from a site when it is known that visitors are travelling to it.

talbot wrote:I am just saying complaining about the "collectors" is not a way to conserve UK butterfly populations.

Nobody said it was - you seem to be starting a completely different topic! Getting back on topic, we know that the LTB individuals will either die or head south.

talbot wrote:You guys are missing the point (which is mainly habitat conservation).

As a butterfly community, we can complain about whatever we like - and that includes collectors and collecting. It also includes poor habitat management. And the weather ...

Cheers,

- Pete

As a butterfly community, we can complain about whatever we like

OK. Here in N.Scotland, I complain that we don't get Lulworth Skipper, Adonis Blue, Purple Emperor, Black Hairstreak........

Is that the sort of thing you meant Pete?

Jack

Jack Harrison wrote:

As a butterfly community, we can complain about whatever we like

OK. Here in N.Scotland, I complain that we don't get Lulworth Skipper, Adonis Blue, Purple Emperor, Black Hairstreak........

Is that the sort of thing you meant Pete?

Jack

I'd just like to note my displeasure about the lack of Scotch Argus, Mountain Ringlet, Checkered Skipper and Northern Brown Argus in London!

Indeed!

Whilst we're on about it, can you south-easterners have some (preferably the majority) of our Welsh rainfall? We'd also like to swap a few Marshies and High Browns for some Dukes and Chalkhills.

In Stafford, we get nearly nuffink

T.M.

So … after some investigation … it turns out that “talbot” is actually a moderator on the The Insect Collectors’ Forum (http://collector-secret.proboards.com). I’ve been discussing the subject of collecting with him privately and I thought we were making some progress through open and honest conversation. However, for him to come here under an alias to promote his own agenda is, in effect, “trolling” (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) and probably tells you all you need to know about the man. [Troll: “A person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people … with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response ... often for their own amusement.”]

He’s thrown the usual arguments at me for collecting, but his words do not match his actions. Here’s an example: http://collector-secret.proboards.com/t ... ollTo=6115. He’s also a prolific poster on the “Insect Collectors [Facebook] Group” here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/419259944829599/. Despite his negative opinion of UKBers, by the same token I see no mention of the value of collecting in his posts. I wonder if his ilk actually care about butterflies at all.

UKB members should therefore be VERY careful when conversing with members of that forum or Facebook group if this episode is anything to go by. Also, a lot of information posted on UKB is being replayed on that forum too, so please be careful what you post here on UKB. Here’s a typical thread: http://collector-secret.proboards.com/t ... fly-sitcom … with the predictable negativity towards UKBers emerging.

So … I’ve given up trying to build bridges (at least with this individual) when this self-appointed spokesperson acts in such an underhand manner. Ironically, he gives collectors a bad name This thread is now locked (and "talbot" banned, the first member ever to receive this honour) since it has confirmed my suspicions - that some collectors (and this one in particular) aren’t open to discussion and will continue with their own agenda and self-agrandisement whatever, so there’s no point in debating further. At least I tried.

Cheers,

- Pete