www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Julian wrote:Hi Pete

Well, I think you’ve summed up the emotive subject in a few succinct words. Very helpful. There are mixed/conflicting views - and we have to live with it. Thanks...
.....Personally I think there has to be a real paradigm shift or sea change in the way we view wildlife. I think the crux of the matter has to do with ambiguity regarding legal status and protection of wildlife species and their loss due to some higher need to ‘develop’ a site, i.e., to stick a supermarket, housing estate or road on top of it for the sake of our 'economy'. No wonder we are in such a mess. This not only confuses ( younger generations in particular ) but it also sends out a message of hypocrisy. Surely, the real higher need is to preserve and protect, and only then, to ‘develop’? This then would be a non- hypocritical and sincere message.
.....
Cheers
Julian

I think you hit the nail on the head Julian.
When corporate giants, like Tesco, are allowed to get away with their swamping the countryside with supermarkets and car parks, lorries and distribution centres, yet still be corporate sponsors of the Wildlife Trusts, what kind of mixed message does that send out? "Don't worry, we may be responsible for trashing the countryside - but it is really OK because we saved some cuddly animals here or cute birds over here...." (Not usually included: "And all this PR we managed to get from a lousy few thousand quid.... "... all the way to the bank!)
Hypocritical is perhaps the nicest way to explain such a stance - and that for the Wildlife Trusts who take those corporate pounds and allow their sponsors to attach their brands to institutions that are supposed to be actively campaigning against these same sponsors of monoculture that has lead to the desertification of our countryside in the first place
I notice on my RSPB magazine, Marks and Spencer are making some big play of being involved with "saving birds" or something....
H'mm..... "...not just any old Golden Eagle; that's a Marks and Spencer's....."
It could happen!

Julian wrote:
I think until 'we' can put our biodiversity above profit, then we will always be fighting a losing battle.

That in a nutshell is the whole problem. Profit is the only true God ... far too few folks really care which doesn't help. Few want to be accused of being a tree hugger... no way, now where's those Monster Truck 4 x 4 Brochures... I need a bigger one.... I'm alright jack.

Habitat destruction is not simply about extending Runways, Roads, putting up Multi Storey car parks, Supermarkets. etc etc, it comes in many other forms. For me, far worse are the subtle ways prime habitat can be destroyed, usually permanently. Even in my lifetime on a strictly local basis, I've now lost count of the multiplicity of subtle ways habitats can be made to simply disappear. I have in mind financial benefits, not just profits but tax avoidance measures, Government grants ( that's our taxes by the way ) which have transformed many of our fine broadleaved woodlands into softwood factory production lines where even the humble Speckled Wood struggles to survive where only a decade or two ago, Purple Emperors, several woodland species of Fritillarys, Greylings ( yes, in woodlands) and numerous other species of birds and plants no longer are present... gone forever. Same with the local grasslands where even as recently as the 1970s, numerous species of Blues, Marsh Fritillarys flew in great abundance... land improvement with fertiliser spread wide and thick after ploughing and bulldozer deployment... the list really is endless.

What is the answer ?.... Only a complete rethinking of values held by the species Homo sapiens worldwide will ever really change things. Problem is, it aint going to happen.

From my observations of my fellow man and woman over many years, already fast approaching unsustainable numbers worldwide and wont that be fun when the crunch really comes...what really needs to be done will never come to pass . That is until Mother Nature herself enforces her final say. Mother nature can and will come in many forms... Disease, famine, war on a scale unprecedented when someone who sees no alternative, or, believes their God is better than your God, presses those big red buttons to release those big hot bombs...

There, that's cheered you up no end... meantime keep up the good work, lets go beat up some net carriers and entomological pin possessors...

Sorted...
.

Hehe. Spot on again CC. Where I live we have Britain's largest manned toad crossing patrol and the local borough council -Ipswich Borough Council- Ipswich Borough Council have decided to sell the field for £4 million to a developer to build more houses. Really in keeping with biodiversity targets, especially when toads have legal status. Doesn't it make you proud? NOT.
Julian

Nick you are also right here...about the behaviour of corporate giants...like Tusco

"Don't worry, we may be responsible for trashing the countryside - but it is really OK because we saved some cuddly animals here or cute birds over here...." (Not usually included: "And all this PR we managed to get from a lousy few thousand quid.... "... all the way to the bank!)

To me, this appears even worse than just ignoring the problem. And yet we are sold the 'lie', and often buy it, hook, line and sinker, from the experts, and the politicians who may provide a mitigation element, or compensation for the loss of biodiversity... .

But there is a 'but' here, and for me it's this. It is easy to knock them, but, we have to get them on board somehow, anyhow. Clearly they do put profit first. They are in business. Number 1 goal. Profit. But maybe, just maybe, by signing up to protecting either flagship species, or fluffy bunnies maybe one day, we might get them to change their stance. I doubt it but...it's worth a try. Anything is better than nothing but you make a valid point

Exasperated.

I may just ( ) be an old cynic - but as soon as organisations like the RSPB, WT's etc became "corporate" themselves and started to employ professional fund raisers and managers, they long ago ceased to be really concerned with the "ethics" of where the money came from! They are simply running a business!
And like any other business they must not say anything to upset their sponsors - a bit of a conflict of interests, wouldn't you say, when M&S or Tesco are sponsoring some scheme down the road, whilst a new supermarket and car-park is built over some site that provides a refuge for wildlife somewhere else?
It is all obscenely cosy for me....and on the ground these organisations do have committed and concerned staff and volunteers...

Nick and others....

You are not in a minority being cynical. That makes at least 3 of us! I think there may have been others...

Anyway, just trying to think outside the box....Is there a slight chance then, if it is all too cosy, that the boards of these corporations have a policy, be it written or otherwise on this, i.e., throwing us the odd bone or scrap to keep us happy whilst knowing that this lets them off the hook ? Is there a chance that they talk about it?

"Off the record"

If it's the case then we are truly pandering to their needs and not only letting them off the hook but wasting precious energy. Our wildlife institution corporate directors/officers being misled by it too ? What do they really believe? Surely they realize they are being hoodwinked too? These are smartly turned out, clever, experienced experts with a love of nature aren't they? Can human nature be that hypocritical? This is really worrying.

The best or closest I could find on protecting biodiversity from Tusco's page on Corporate Social Responsibilty was this from Ireland:

Biodiversity - Nature's Choice

Tesco Ireland aims to sell products that not only look and taste good but also are grown with care for the environment by applying best agricultural practice through its supply chain. Tesco developed "Nature's Choice" to help achieve this.

All food production causes some disruption to the environment. Nature's Choice is about identifying and adopting farming management systems and practices which will lessen these impacts. The scheme identifies key principles and practices to ensure production and handling systems are sound and responsible.

The scheme is currently being rolled out to our fruit and vegetable suppliers. We anticipate that all our growers will be accredited to Nature's Choice by the end of 2004.

Ok, it accepts that food production impacts wildlife but and it's the same with developers and Town/city councils. Tokenism. But at least Tusco's got rid of GM produce. I suppose we have something to be thankful for.

Managing the image and brand that is Tesco is of course very important and valuable to them....
..they monitor trends and when it becomes profitable they will be right behind that trend...
....and Nature's Choice simply a good way of marketing and promoting how Green they really are, since consumers care...
Sponsoring conservation groups links their brand to something "good", not the negative things that supermarkets have done to our farming and countryside...
....whilst exploiting our desire to think we are "doing something" by selecting that brand when we buy our food!
You are right, Julian - square that circle
(Maybe these things are better in a blog or personal diary - I can't decide............?)

Nick you are right. I think we should square the circle. Maybe begin this as another thread somewhere?. The original post was about the legality of selling butterflies ...no matter how related these later comments have been to that.
Julian