www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

..and when you dance with the devil, you find yourself dancing to the devil's tune .....
If accepting anyone's money is OK and accepting the break-up of our forests, whether M&S may sponsor a local reserve to gain acceptance of their planning applications or not, then it will be as little to the overall scheme as passing water into the wind...
..and let us face it then, we should all be encouraging people to take their last look at these butterflies we intensively manage, to visit our butterfly zoos, as these beautiful creatures slowly disappear in our increasingly "bio-scarce" countryside elsewhere

Gruditch wrote:

Matsukaze wrote:A lot of BC's conservation money comes from central government. It's understandable if they have a reluctance to bite the hand that feeds them.

The hand that feeds them. Come on Matsukaze, you know BC do what they do, because successive governments have allowed the wholesale destruction of the UK's wildlife habitat.

Like any conservation body, BC may receive money in the form of grants, (that they have to apply for), from the government, that hardly makes them bedfellows.

Regards Gruditch

Sorry folks. I wasn't trying to suggest that BC were complicit in any way with the government's actions, but can see that what I posted earlier could come across as saying that. Gruditch is of course right, BC have gone after government money as it has been the best source of money for works to conserve the habitat of butterflies and moths.

The trouble is, open opposition to the government might put at risk BC's funding sources in future, which would have worse consequences for butterflies and moths than the sale of large areas of forest. I don't like it much, but I can see this might be a necessity, and it doesn't stop them arguing for a sensible forestry policy behind the scenes, which I'd imagine they are doing.

Matsukaze wrote:it doesn't stop them arguing for a sensible forestry policy behind the scenes,

I've no doubt they have stressed their concerns about the sell off, but wisely not done so in the full view of the British media.

Regards Gruditch

So BC's role IS to "pick-up the pieces"?

I know that some may find my views controversial. But don’t get me wrong - I am still out there, counting, photographing, doing walks with the local BC Branch and wielding a rake from time to time, just like many people on this forum who can give that much time to their passion for butterflies. Yet it is impossible to talk about the plight of butterflies to the general public without leading into the broader question of why there has been such a massive decline in butterfly numbers in the 50 years since I was a boy? Is it perhaps related to the decline in our bird populations and our loss of wild-flower species? What is behind all these things?

It is only when you look at the wider picture of the way our countryside and urban space has developed that a few basic things become clear. If you remove systematically, through greed, ignorance or neglect, the habitats where wildlife thrives, you will have less wildlife, simple. It is not rocket science. Existing in increasingly isolated pockets, those areas left become less viable and increasingly vulnerable to extinction over time. I think we have reached that stage now, for many species.

That is what makes the Forestry Commission sell-off such a critical decision for the long-term future of many species, not just butterflies. Their work in a huge variety of ways and with many conservation groups, has helped many species back from the brink on a national scale, where such actions are desperately needed. It is only through large-scale and long-term landscape planning that we can avoid the butterfly zoos I have mentioned earlier. The Forestry Commission has been one land-owner that has that scale and reach across the country.

If this modern-day Enclosure of publicly-owned land takes place, how many land-owners will BC and all our conservation organisations have to deal with? Hundreds? And what are the chances of coordinated, national responses across all those, compared to the Forestry Commission?

So as I explain to my grandchildren in my local Tesco’s Nature Reserve (conveniently situated next to the supermarket car-park) that things used to be different, before the agro-chemical trade and supermarkets forced the farmers to make the countryside a series of monocultures and before Centre Parcs’ Forest experience became the norm, it was really possible to see these things elsewhere. I hope in their innocence they don’t ask too many difficult questions, such as,

“Well, why did everyone just let it happen?"

NickB wrote:“Well, why did everyone just let it happen?"

Because the great majority of people demand it:

- The overwhelming majority of people support the big supermarkets (and by default their ethical position) by shopping there and/or using their financial and other services, and demand increasingly cheap (and nutritionally barren) food products. Anyone who shops in these super markets (myself included, although not too often (smug git)) supports their disgraceful policy towards farming and our environment.

- The majority of people in this country support the apparent requirement for an increase in the rate of house building to mitigate an alleged housing shortage (although not in their back yard of course).

- The majority of people in this country would like to see the economy recover (whether it is from the effects of global recession or the actions of an irresponsible government it's not important where you stand) and this shall require significant investment in the country's infrastructure and growth in the sectors of the economy which generate significant income for the treasury, as well as perhaps (in the long term) a return to a manufacturing (and natural-resource hungry) base.

- A worrying percentage of the population consider it appropriate to build a massive amount of highly inefficient wind farms in some of the least developed areas of the countryside.

- Almost every single person in this country who is able to sustain cognitive thought would like an increase in the standard of living that both they and their family enjoy (by whatever measure they choose) and this is nigh impossible to achieve without significant environmental detriment.

The great majority of people in this country therefore support the continued degradation of our natural environment, irrespective of whether or not they declare how terrible it is.

Felix.

Well said! And it is only by recognising these contradictions and confronting those who claim to be "wildlife friendly" with some of these unpleasant truths that we can hope to make progress!

I agree entirely with NickB & Felix...

the only way to preserve our wildlife is to pay for it. i would be willing to stump up £1000 towards the purchase of perhaps a meadow or piece of woodland which otherwise would be lost or degraded...

anyone else ?

Charles

...If we made sure suitable environmental management was enforced in our planning and agriculture, we would all pay anyway, through our local taxes and the price the supermarkets charged us for our food......philanthropic though Charles' gesture is, this may be a fairer way to distribute the costs?
Mind you Charles, if you want to start an appeal to purchase Brampton Wood for BC....... at least we'd have our own local butterfly zoo for Black Hairstreak

Those of you who suggest that any valuable trees in sold off Woods/Forests will be felled are probably correct, its already happed a couple of miles down the road from my home in North Essex, One day whilst walking in the wood i noticed the Forestry commision had put up a for sale sign, 6 months later the trees are being felled and a large section of the wood looks like a bomb site, so far they have left the majority of the wood alone... but for how long.

NickB wrote: Mind you Charles, if you want to start an appeal to purchase Brampton Wood for BC....... at least we'd have our own local butterfly zoo for Black Hairstreak

fortunately Brampton Wood is owned by the Wildlife Trust which is not a Government plaything.
i would be happy to pay for a gibbet to be erected in the carpark to display the remains of the car thieves who lurk there.

charles


PS have just been turned down by several online car insurers due to the break-in at Brampton Wood...even though i did not claim a penny...

Charles Nicol wrote: i would be happy to pay for a gibbet to be erected in the carpark to display the remains of the car thieves who lurk there.
charles

PS have just been turned down by several online car insurers due to the break-in at Brampton Wood...even though i did not claim a penny...

You know Charles, if Mr Cameron's Big Society starts to give things like security back to the "local community" to organise, there may well be some local vigilante group to ensure "security" in the Brampton area who would take your suggestions seriously and offer summary justice........

NickB wrote:

Charles Nicol wrote: i would be happy to pay for a gibbet to be erected in the carpark to display the remains of the car thieves who lurk there.
charles

PS have just been turned down by several online car insurers due to the break-in at Brampton Wood...even though i did not claim a penny...

You know Charles, if Mr Cameron's Big Society starts to give things like security back to the "local community" to organise, there may well be some local vigilante group to ensure "security" in the Brampton area who would take your suggestions seriously and offer summary justice........

It's a shame I don't live near Brampton Wood then, I hate car thieves and the state has proven itself impotent in addressing such offences and offenders. I'll get me cudgel...

Felix.

The consultation goes live today. It runs to 64 pages and I haven't read it all yet but here is a direct link to the consultation document:

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-8D3G4M

It includes details on how to respond (either online or by post).

There is also more information on the Forestry Commission website:

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/newsrele.nsf ... 25003C8EE5

And the DEFRA website:

http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/01/27 ... s-forests/

Cheers

Lee

There was a quite informative debate/phone-in regarding the forest sell-off on Tuesday's 'You and Yours' programme on Radio 4.

Here's a link to the programme's home page, from which you can listen to the programme yourself:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xpp1x

Paul

I presume that a number of us will be making a submission to the consultation process. It would therefore be useful if Butterfly Conservation were to publish a boilerplate, that way me might be able to present a fairly united front. Furthermore it would be nice if we had some indication from BC as to whether they are replying just for themselves, or for the county groups, or are the counties making their own representations? I assume that individually we are replying as members of the public, though each reply might be seen in a slightly different light if we tick the box "Representative of a community group"

I see that BC yesterday published on its website a rather wishy-washy statement headed "Fears for the Future of Important Habitat" with a list of principals dated October last year. We have under three months to formulate and submit our responses. I wonder how long before we can see some leadership from BC ?

Where will the money come from to buy public land for wildlife. Has BC launched an appeal for funds for this purpose, or did I miss it ?

Does anybody from BC read this forum or should I copy this to them ?

By all means raise your concerns directly with BC John.

Butterfly Conservation, if and when they respond, shall be doing so on behalf of it's collective membership. Butterfly Conservation is it's membership. If you consider BC's line to date to be wishy-washy you should take them to task and encourage greater clarity.

If you need to establish the position of your own branch regarding their response to this matter (where they perhaps have a specific interest) I would urge you to contact them directly.

However, I would also encourage everyone to represent themselves in this matter also. Particularly as not all members of this community will necessarily agree with BC's stance or political (small 'P') position.

Felix.

JohnR: I wonder how long before we can see some leadership from BC ?

Butterfly Conservation does seem to be getting a lot of criticism on ukb.

I had been rather cynical myself before until I was pointed to and read the Annual Report. I subsequently changed my views somewhat. BC clearly works hard raising funds and getting sponsorship; BC management success in these fields has to be recognised.

Local branches of BC without doubt do a superb job. But I remain sceptical about the “hands-off” policy of HQ with regard to rank and file members of BC. It is vital that the top management at HQ are made aware that some members are not entirely happy. There is an indefinable feeling of “disconnect”.

I repeat what I have said before. Responses/reactions from HQ on these pages would not go amiss. Surely HQ wouldn’t want the nickname "The Ivory Tower"?

On the specific issue of Forestry sell-off, I for one look to BC Management to lead the way in voicing our concerns.

Jack

I really don't think it's reasonable to expect the BC executive to become embroiled in debates on public forums such as this. However, given the nature of the organisation I would expect them to produce a firm policy statement that it's members could look to and then decide for themselves whether BC represented their personal point of view on this matter.

Felix: I really don't think it's reasonable to expect the BC executive to become embroiled in debates on public forums such as this.

Hmm!

Politicians have rapidly embraced new ways of working with the public - they are only too aware that engaging the public is essential. Only yesterday, Barrack Obama made a YouTube broadcast. I can contact my MP by e-mail (and occasionally do so) on “Have your say”. MPs are answerable to the electorate. Boards of Directors are answerable to shareholders.

I fail to see why the BC Executive should consider a public forum such as ukb or indeed anything BC itself might set up, as an inappropriate way to sound out members' views.

I am quite prepared to accept that BC Executive does an excellent job within certain self-defined constraints. But the “Ivory Tower” philosophy of seemingly remaining aloof is not the way to keep everyone happy.

Jack