www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

David M wrote:

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!

...Yikes! There's the gauntlet thrown down, Jack!

...Yikes! There's the gauntlet thrown down, Jack!

By then I might have changed into a grumpy old man instead of being the cheery, never controversial, wouldn't dream of disagreeing person that I am today

Jack

..careful, Jack, the halo may slip...

Jack Harrison wrote:Pete says with ref to Martin White:

I guess I could ask him

Please do and maybe also invite him to join the bear pit of this thread on ukb

Jack

I've spotted that Martin has just joined the site.
Excellent. I will gladly listen to what he has to say on this and any other topic, as he's almost certainly going to know more than I do!
Brave man, though...

Dave

I noticed that too and it is surely a welcome thing.

Maybe he's just a guy who values his privacy, so we should respect him for opening up a personal diary.

Excellent - and welcome Martin. I for one look forward to your contributions and being able to pick up some useful tips.

Jack

Yep! Welcome to the Bear Pit, Martin

Agreed
You are more than welcome Martin.
I look forward to your posts.

Yes. A warm welcome Martin.

Hi all,

I’ve only just caught up with this thread – it makes very interesting reading. Of the many well-considered views expressed, my favourite post is Julian’s (p.10, December 26), which is packed full of sentiments I share. All-in-all it’s been a very healthy debate.

Going back to the start of the thread, I think the vast majority of commentators realised that this programme was designed for a much wider audience than ‘us’, and as such it was never going to cover some of the ground that ‘we’ might have wished it to. I think Guy hit the nail on the head (p.2, December 18). Many butterfly enthusiasts (including myself) would undoubtedly have made something that looked very different – in which case we (as producers) would probably have been sacked by the BBC, and we would all have been deprived of the longest piece of ‘butterfly TV’ that I can remember seeing (at prime time too!). Quite simply, it’s a case of ‘horses for courses’ and ‘all publicity is good’.

Valid points were made by Neil Jones and others, that some very important issues (at least to ‘us’) were merely touched upon, and in some cases not explained or investigated at all; such as the butterfly release debate that subsequently graced these pages. That did leave a hole which was obvious to those with a particular interest in such issues – but would this have detracted from the enjoyment of the programme by the much wider, target audience?

From the feedback that I’ve heard and read, the much wider, target audience seem to have enjoyed the programme immensely. I have as many friends who have no interest whatsoever in butterflies, as those that are passionate about them. The former usually ‘glaze over’ as soon as I mention butterflies, but those who watched the programme were enthralled by it. The points or messages they all picked up on were: “I didn’t realise that we had such beautiful and fascinating butterflies in the UK”, “something is wrong with the British countryside and our butterflies are declining”, followed by the question “what is it that you actually do to help conserve them?” If just these broad-brush messages were delivered, then that must count as a box ticked. Other contributors reported similar feedback.

Most of those (UKBers) with a real interest in butterflies have said that they (to differing degrees) enjoyed it, despite various reservations and caveats. I think that was inevitable. However, the programme spawned a rapidly developing 12 page debate, largely focusing on some of the issues at least highlighted, if not clarified. The topic of ‘official/unofficial’ releases is a very complex and emotive one. It has been very refreshing to see such an important debate take place – in a constructive and mutually respectful manner. I think both sides of the argument have been put forward very eloquently by others, so I shan’t revisit ground that has already been covered, aside from making one point. Responsible breeders will become ever-more important to conservationists in our fight to save some of the most endangered of our species.

So it seems to me that the programme managed to both engage its intended target audience, and initiate lively and important debate amongst serious butterfly-heads; I think the producer, Simon Bell, and his team should take great credit for that.

In response to a couple of points that were also raised within this thread: That is my bicycle Jack! It’s a folding Japanese commuter bicycle that even fits the passenger seat of my ridiculously small and inappropriate car - and I’ve got one for Hannah too. It’s a very useful mode of transport for clocking up the maximum number of grounded Emperors per hour (top speed = 7 eph).

I agree with Paul Wetton – the most effective Emperor bait of them all is a smelly fox scat, if necessary revitalised with urine, but Hannah won’t agree to stockpiling in the fridge. In close second place is the belachan recipe I finally perfected towards the end of the last PE flight season – much more effective than either dog faeces or horse dung. A friend took some video footage of a PE fluttering around the neck of a flask of the stuff I was holding last July.

Neil

For those that missed it, want to record it, or perhaps just wanted to see Neil's bike on the telly again, the show is repeated tonight/tomorrow morning on BBC1 at 02.10.

I presume that also means it should be back on the iplayer too.

Cheers

Lee