www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Not wanting to cast any doubt, and well done Pete for contacting Martin, but the only sites that have really been mentioned in these threads and were of particular interest to me are those in Notts and Lincs which are according to Martin "secret".

Roger:

Ask Martin White and he'll make you a new one.

Roger. I am impressed. In ten short words, you have "come out" as a Creationist and invoked the assistance of your Deity

Jack

I think this whole issue of secrecy underlines the differences between those who freely contribute their information and knowledge to this site and those who rely on their own "IP" to make a living; no doubt they find the information on UKB useful to their businesses too in some way, if information=power=money?
Re: Martin's "little secrets"....
If the introductions to Lincolnshire and Chambers Wood in particular are anything to go by they are a very poorly-kept secret....I refer to David Newland's blog re: his excellent book on where to see butterflies in the UK and a visit he made to Chambers Wood for that publication...

" I did, however, find Marsh Fritillaries at Chambers Wood, near Lincoln (see the book) on 28.05.09 and there are now also Dingy Skippers there which have been introduced to Little Scrubbs Meadow by the same local person who made the original introduction of Marsh Fritillaries. "

All we are looking for is clarity and greater understanding; I echo Jack's earlier comments - what is all this secrecy about?
N

This is what I wrote on the very first page of this thread -

"Last month it was "Twitchers - A Very British Obsession". I know the three main characters the editors chose to portray. The main character, Lee Evans, was so unhappy with how his five and a half hours of interview were chopped into the 'juiciest quotes' he has since given a full interview damning the programme and putting forward a defence of himself! "Car crash tv" he called it. "They knew what they wanted, and the birds barely had a look in".

It will be interesting to see how the butterfly enthusiasts fare..."

Now we are up the 11th page of the thread, I wonder if Martin 'Scapegoat' White may be feeling that he too ought to be conducting his own version of Lee's interview??? Poor chap, portrayed as either a sad whacko living with his mom or evil villain flicking larvae into the undergrowth, arch nemesis of all that is natural.

As Lee said, "car crash tv". Well, it's certainly keeping us buzzing through the cold snap!

Gibster.

Pete Eeles wrote:

Neil Jones wrote:Interesting. Just to point out one thing. As far as I can find, and it is something that I would expect to know anyway as part of my everyday life, there is no such thing as , "The Intellectual Copyright Act".

Probably meant the Copyright Act, which I believe covers intellectual property.

Cheers

- Pete

Well there is more than one Copyright Act, but anyway it isn't relevant. In general copyright protects artistic work not information.

Jack Harrison wrote:But I am very strongly against secrecy in these matters – it amounts to deception and no-one knows just what is a natural occurrence, and what is the result of human activity.

So do you also object to BC's "deception" by not publishing information too?

Cheers,

- Pete

Pete Eeles wrote:

Jack Harrison wrote:But I am very strongly against secrecy in these matters – it amounts to deception and no-one knows just what is a natural occurrence, and what is the result of human activity.

So do you also object to BC's "deception" by not publishing information too?

Cheers,

- Pete

What information does BC not publish?

Neil Jones wrote:

Pete Eeles wrote:Probably meant the Copyright Act, which I believe covers intellectual property.

Well there is more than one Copyright Act, but anyway it isn't relevant. In general copyright protects artistic work not information.

And specifically? Surely literary works are afforded copyright protection? I feel my first Harry Potter novel coming on

Anyway, I think this is missing the point, even if Martin has misquoted the relevant protection.

Cheers,

- Pete

So do you also object to BC's "deception" by not publishing information too?

As Neil Jones asks, what are they keeping quiet? I suppose if a senior member of staff were to be having an adulterous fling with a junior, then that is nothing to do with conservation and confidentially is justified in that instance.

But putting aside trivialities such as that, yes I do object to BC not publishing information. I pay my subscriptions so as far as I am concerned, that entitles me to know what is going on. Failure to keep members informed suggests that BC management does not trust us - that is an insult. If for example, a new habitat is being created for Large Blues in the Cotswolds, tell us but trust us not to interfere and thereby compromise the plan.

BC Management is accountable to its members. Full stop.

Jack

Jack Harrison wrote:

So do you also object to BC's "deception" by not publishing information too?

As Neil Jones asks, what are they keeping quiet? I suppose if a senior member of staff were to be having an adulterous fling with a junior, then that is nothing to do with conservation and confidentially is justified in that instance.

But putting aside trivialities such as that, yes I do object to BC not publishing information. I pay my subscriptions so as far as I am concerned, that entitles me to know what is going on. Failure to keep members informed suggests that BC management does not trust us - that is an insult. If for example, a new habitat is being created for Large Blues in the Cotswolds, tell us but trust us not to interfere and thereby compromise the plan.

BC Management is accountable to its members. Full stop.

Jack

Jack, what is it that you think is not being published? Can we have some evidence please?
I have never seen any secrecy about BC introductions. The Cumbrian Marsh Fritillaries were all over the newspapers.

Jack Harrison wrote:

So do you also object to BC's "deception" by not publishing information too?

As Neil Jones asks, what are they keeping quiet? I suppose if a senior member of staff were to be having an adulterous fling with a junior, then that is nothing to do with conservation and confidentially is justified in that instance.

But putting aside trivialities such as that, yes I do object to BC not publishing information. I pay my subscriptions so as far as I am concerned, that entitles me to know what is going on. Failure to keep members informed suggests that BC management does not trust us - that is an insult. If for example, a new habitat is being created for Large Blues in the Cotswolds, tell us but trust us not to interfere and thereby compromise the plan.

BC Management is accountable to its members. Full stop.

Jack

Just checking! So, nothing specifically to do with Martin, then!

As you know, BC does withhold information, as do most branches, for a whole bunch of very obvious reasons. And there are numerous examples of unscrupulous individuals spoiling things for the rest of us. Such as the removal of Marsh Fritillary larval webs from Bentley Wood a few years ago. Or the trampling of prime habitat because someone released Black-veined White on Stockbridge Down that was subsequently reported.

Personally, I think the withholding of sightings of fragile colonies, of information of fragile and private sites, and of details of sensitive projects, is the right and responsible thing to do. And I know you disagree.

Cheers,

- Pete

Neil Jones wrote:

Pete Eeles wrote:

Jack Harrison wrote:But I am very strongly against secrecy in these matters – it amounts to deception and no-one knows just what is a natural occurrence, and what is the result of human activity.

So do you also object to BC's "deception" by not publishing information too?

Cheers,

- Pete

What information does BC not publish?

Dunno - it's not been published

A simple example - the specific location of the reintroduction of Marsh Fritillary in Cumbria. In general, I'm sure there are many sensitive projects that don't go into any specifics when mentioned.

Cheers,

- Pete

Well, as someone else said earlier, there sure have been some lively debates recently. Very healthy.

Jack (a closet Ricky Ponting fan - a man who won't lose an argument )

...I think I'm calling on the 3rd umpire for this one....

Pete:

Personally, I think the withholding of sightings of fragile colonies, of information of fragile and private sites, and of details of sensitive projects, is the right and responsible thing to do. And I know you disagree.

I rather enjoyed that argument - deliberately a little provocative at times I have to admit.

If I am asked to keep some particular information confidential, then of course I will accept the wishes of the supplier of that information..

But I do see a significance difference between confidentially at a personal level and a culture of corporate secrecy as an exercise of power I have a sneaking admiration for some aspects of the WikiLeaks revelations (but by no means all their activities). WikiLeaks has exposed abuses of power -in effect: "we have to power to keep it secret, so we will do so because we can".

Secrecy should not be the default position; it should be used only in exceptional circumstances. Corporate accountability is vital.

Jack

Jack Harrison wrote:Pete:

Personally, I think the withholding of sightings of fragile colonies, of information of fragile and private sites, and of details of sensitive projects, is the right and responsible thing to do. And I know you disagree.

I rather enjoyed that argument - deliberately a little provocative at times I have to admit.

... Secrecy should not be the default position.

I think we finally agree

Yes - this has been one of the healthiest discussions ever on UKB and am glad we can have such as a debate "out in the open". I certainly feel somewhat better-informed as a result, even if my personal views haven't changed.

Cheers,

- Pete

Quick question - where in the UK does Martin live?

I have just done some internet research. At my age – having got this far – statistically I can anticipate another 12 years. That’s 12 more years being a pain on this web group. I plan to enjoy the challenge

Hard luck you lot (Groaning is allowed.)

Jack

Jack Harrison wrote:That’s 12 more years being a pain on this web group.
Jack

LOL! Make it 24, Jack. By then I'll be a pensioner and twice the pain you ever were!

I came across the discussion on the recent 'A Very British Obsession' tv programme. I found the programme refreshing in its lighthearted but well thought-out approach to a serious subject - brave souls indeed Matthew and Neil putting their heads on the chopping-block. Thanks Julian for your well balanced contribution to the discussion. I for one have introduced many hundreds of children to conservation ideas in a school setting through annual breeding of Peacocks or Sm Torts from larvae collected in the wild. Pupation, emergence and release times were always magic moments for the whole school making a life-long impact for many. Not to mention parasites - better than any horror movie - and it's live!

Some of you Surrey dudes might be interested to note my meeting 2 parties of 'collectors' bashing for Black Hairstreak in 2004 at one of the top-spots here in Bucks. I initially did the usual NIMBY/ moral outrage number on them. However I ended up being totally impressed with their in-depth knowledge of conservation issues across the whole spectrum. They made a very cogent argument that it is impossible to collect-out a species such as a Black Hairstreak - an argument I later came to respect if not necessarily accept.

The collected specimens were intended for Surrey - "at the back of Alice Holt" - there's some potential food for thought. Quite a distance from Cranleigh! Must be very close to the Hants border but I have no further knowledge of location. I had the impression it was a 'top-up' for a previous introduction.

We know there are many lepidopterists out there involved in similar activities through personal interest on an amateur basis. I'm not convinced they are any more a threat than the rest of us human kind in bringing planet Earth to the sorry state it's in. Perhaps we could try to work more harmoniously and respectfully recognising the diversity of opinions and experiences out there.

Happy New Year/Season

Tom D