www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

NickB wrote:Paul, I feel, is perfectly justified to expect an apology for, what I can see, is unwarranted abuse.

Obviously, Paul doesn't actually talk out of his AH, this would be very difficult indeed, so I apologise profusely.

Martin

Jack Harrison wrote:

...opposite sides of the same human neurosis.

WTF does that mean?

Jack

What does WTF mean?

Martin

David M wrote:Martin, do you act autonomously because you get frustrated by bureaucracy and officialdom when dealing with recognised conservation bodies?

No.

Martin

David M wrote:I often think if we were dealing with a forest fire, by the time the 'i's had been dotted and the 't's crossed, the whole area would have already burned down, but at least we'd be able to reassure ourselves that our original plan to deal with it had been properly thought through!

I assume therefore that you wouldn't try to save your own property from such destruction if bureaucracy or officialdom did nothing?

Martin

NickB wrote:a UK-based genetic mixing would be preferable to extinction.....or would it?

A UK-based genetic mixing surely has to be preferable to extinction, but then using only the minimum of divergent material.

Martin

NickB wrote: I find that exchanges work best if the participants stick to reasoned debate, rather than resort to personal insults

I agree, tone it down Martin.

Regards Gruditch

Back to the thread. I can see that Martin as as committed to butterflies as others on this forum.

And that, as with any evidence-based strategy that is adopted by conservation organisations, proof that the strategy has NOT worked is often only after the negative effects have made themselves apparent, to the dis-advantage of the butterflies concerned. But the proof then does exist that it does not work! That does not necessarily do the butterflies much good, but science has moved forward and a PhD beckons for some ambitious academic.....Sometimes it does appear to be like that....

Yet it is often not difficult to have reached that conclusion before an hypothesis is tested, given an open mind and the ability to listen to those who bring their own different experience and knowledge to the subject. Knowledge is gained inside and outside of academia, often through years of personal study in the field, reading and in front of the computer - learning is not confined to those who are professional academics, yet it tends to be judged by them only in academic terms. So that, unless there is a paper on it, obvious steps for conservation of butterflies may be dismissed out-of-hand.

For me, anyone with a passion for butterflies and their conservation deserves a platform, so long as they stop eating the red-meat just before they contribute....

NickB wrote:As we have seen, species can change their behaviour and food-plants locally when faced with challenges.

Again, I would like examples, and examples which have changed more rapidly than the rate at which bottle-necked colonies of Mountain Ringlet have lost ground on the lower slopes of some of its mountains. Again, I would ask the question what happens when the ecological requirements of this species are higher than the mountains they inhabit due to climate change?

Martin

Martin White wrote:

David M wrote:I often think if we were dealing with a forest fire, by the time the 'i's had been dotted and the 't's crossed, the whole area would have already burned down, but at least we'd be able to reassure ourselves that our original plan to deal with it had been properly thought through!

I assume therefore that you wouldn't try to save your own property from such destruction if bureaucracy or officialdom did nothing?

Martin

Of course I would. That's self-preservation.

However, in this discussion, we're talking about butterfly preservation which can only be performed by the very same species that has been effectively destroying them with its impact on the climate and the landscape. I admire your attempts to contribute to this preservation, but you have to admit your methods are unusual and this is what I find interesting.

Which butterfly species is your current top priority?

NickB wrote:Do we feel we have the right to interfere?

We began interfering a very long time ago (c.5 thousand years). What we have now is far from a pristine enviornment with genetically altered butterflies evolved to fit that degraded enviornment. In my opinion we have an obligation to interfere. An obligation to put things right, or restore a proper balance. We don't have the right not to interfere, assuming, that is, we have the brains to do it correctly, but I'm fairly certain you knew this already.

Martin

NickB wrote:... or is it, we can, so we are going to do it, because we can?

I do have issues of a moral nature with this!
Specially GM'd butterflies to fit the niches we have left them with?

I think I understand your moral issues, but sometimes it's GM'd butterflies or a case of no butterflies at all irrespective of whatever niches we've left them with. My butterflies in this context are certainly GM'd, unfortunately.

Martin

WTF means "What The F*ck"

Jack

NickB wrote:proof that the strategy has NOT worked is often only after the negative effects have made themselves apparent, to the dis-advantage of the butterflies concerned. But the proof then does exist that it does not work! That does not necessarily do the butterflies much good, but science has moved forward and a PhD beckons for some ambitious academic.....Sometimes it does appear to be like that....

Once proof exists that a strategy has NOT worked this invariably leads to a cover-up or white-wash job to protect the employment prospects of the people involved. Ambitious academics with their new PHDs then repeat the same mistakes over and over again. This never does the butterflies any good, and science rarely moves on. One novelty of science is that provided with duplicate results two groups of scientists are capable of coming to two completely different conclusions. This depends on who is paying them and the belief systems of such employers. E.g. Saturated fats are very good for you (McDonalds) or harmful in anything but moderation (The Health Service). Although there are other methods, for example during China’s so called Cultural Revolution scientists could easily be persuaded to come up with spectacular crop yields or face threats of having some of their internal organs removed whilst still alive (and possibly external ones too). Personally speaking, I would come to any conclusion you could possibly care to name given the alterative of having my testicles removed whilst still breathing.

Martin

Martin referred to

....having [his]testicles removed whilst still breathing.

This thread really has degenerated into a load of b*llocks.

Jack

David M wrote:Which butterfly species is your current top priority?

Large Heath

Martin

Actually, I can see the merit in his analogy (painful though it seems).

Jack Harrison wrote:WTF means "What The F*ck"

Jack

I've been told to tone it down, so I'm not going to anwser someone who swears.

Martin

Martin White wrote:

Jack Harrison wrote:WTF means "What The F*ck"

Jack

I've been told to tone it down, so I'm not going to anwser someone who swears.

Martin

LOL!

Martin, you are an unintentional comedian (I mean that in the nicest way, BTW).

http://www.msghelp.net/showthread.php?tid=47064

Now for the challenge. Can anyone write a meaningful message about butterflies using only these acronyms?

(and no swearing in in accordance with the rules of the forum)

Jack

Martin White wrote:

David M wrote:Which butterfly species is your current top priority?

Large Heath

I'm interested to know why Large Heath only occurs from mid-Wales northwards despite seemingly ideal conditions being present further south, eg in S. Wales and Exmoor/Dartmoor region.