www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Jack Harrison wrote:

Where would an individual releasing Scotch Argus at Lindrick (something I know nothing about, BTW) report their release?

The BC magazine "Butterfly" is one obvious place. Or Natural England. Or even this forum perhaps.

Jack

While I agree with you Jack, sadly there is little incentive to report such a thing on this forum when there would be the preidictable knee jerk condemnation from certain quarters before an atom of thought.

Neil Jones wrote:He claims on TV to have done TWO THOUSAND introductions. Over a 20 year period this would be A HUNDRED every year. Is there time to properly evaluate and examine every site at this rate?

And you really think this meant two thousand different releases at two thousand different sites???

NickB wrote:Perhaps "better to ask forgiveness than permission" should be our mantra...

It's been mine for years, in many aspects of my life... as my exasperated partner would doubtless testify.

nickB wrote:...this is NOT an example of a stupid introduction...

Interesting. So where lies the distinction?

Are MW's introductions not stupid because his stock is carefully sourced, the prospective release site and donor site carefully assessed, the results to a greater extent successful?

Or are they stupid because the could confuse monitoring (because the 'situation' is such that much as he would like to he is unable to broadcast any project he is working on).

Is the marbled frit a stupid introduction (not MW) because no matter how successful the introduction may be, the species could not be part of our fauna naturally due to the inability of the species to colonise this country naturally.

But how stupid was the extraordinary effort that was made to introduce the bivoltine batavus race of the large copper, a subspecies that probably never graced our shores? This latter example was heavily funded and much effort went into maintaining a 'zoo' population. I always considered that was a bloody stupid waste of time and effort attempting to introduce a double brooded alien race into the UK, even though it was generally accepted because it was "official".

Felix.

Felix wrote:

Neil Jones wrote:He claims on TV to have done TWO THOUSAND introductions. Over a 20 year period this would be A HUNDRED every year. Is there time to properly evaluate and examine every site at this rate?

And you really think this meant two thousand different releases at two thousand different sites???

Look at the research. It is difficult to do. To evaluate a site takes years. To establish what is already on a site takes years.
Even if he releases 10 species on each site which would be really really high there are still 10 sites to evaluate every year.

Felix wrote:

Jack Harrison wrote:

Where would an individual releasing Scotch Argus at Lindrick (something I know nothing about, BTW) report their release?

The BC magazine "Butterfly" is one obvious place. Or Natural England. Or even this forum perhaps.

Jack

there would be the preidictable knee jerk condemnation from certain quarters before an atom of thought.

"before an atom of thought"? What is your evidence for this?

to add my "two pennyworth". I enjoyed the prog inspite of the distractions. these may have put nature minded people off, as the tv guides all stressed that aspect of the prog. The night before was our members ev at our local wildlifetrust branch. I presented a few bf photos & mentioned the prog at the end, this produced some wry smiles & comments from those who had read the tv guides!

I am just glad someone is helping the enviroment by cutting down the miles i have to travel to see the rarer bf's. I wish someone would introduce the chequred skipper to Dersingham bog, I could walk there & less midges to boot! Eric

This little verbal battle reminds me of a gliding friend of mine (died two years ago). He was a pugnacious little chap who even in middle age loved a punch-up just for the hell of it. (I hasten to add that I never had such a disagreement with him.) He was routinely banned from club bars.

Apparently on one occasion when he got into a brawl, the protagonists adjourned to the gents to continue the fight. After some five minutes of fisticuffs which left them both bloodied and bruised, the fight fizzled out. Ralph apparently said to his opponent: “That was fun wasn’t it?”

This verbal battle on ukb is fun isn’t it?

Jack

Eric mentioned Dersingham bog.

I went there for the first time last autumn. What a splendid place! It was a bit late in the season for butterflies but the most interesting seen was a Small Copper.

Apart from the common species, what else is there Eric? Green Hairstreak, White Admiral, and Grayling perhaps. (and much less likely, Silver Studded Blue)

Jack

Felix wrote:

NickB wrote:Perhaps "better to ask forgiveness than permission" should be our mantra...

It's been mine for years, in many aspects of my life... as my exasperated partner would doubtless testify.

nickB wrote:...this is NOT an example of a stupid introduction...

Interesting. So where lies the distinction?
Are MW's introductions not stupid because his stock is carefully sourced, the prospective release site and donor site carefully assessed, the results to a greater extent successful?
Or are they stupid because the could confuse monitoring (because the 'situation' is such that much as he would like to he is unable to broadcast any project he is working on).
Is the marbled frit a stupid introduction (not MW) because no matter how successful the introduction may be, the species could not be part of our fauna naturally due to the inability of the species to colonise this country naturally.
But how stupid was the extraordinary effort that was made to introduce the bivoltine batavus race of the large copper, a subspecies that probably never graced our shores? This latter example was heavily funded and much effort went into maintaining a 'zoo' population. I always considered that was a bloody stupid waste of time and effort attempting to introduce a double brooded alien race into the UK, even though it was generally accepted because it was "official".
Felix.

Your examples highlight some interesting points.
1) Not stupid: I agree - well thought-out (re)introductions with some chance of success are not stupid. I do not really care if the academic side is involved or not to "validate" the result. I can see that openness on both sides would be the best solution.
2) Stupid: I disagree - if MW's aim is to conserve and expand the range and number of butterflies, as Pete says, he shares our common aims.
3) Stupid: I agree - Alien species should not be introduced where no records exist of their presence; they have little chance of long-term survival.

4) Not very clever, one could say "stupid": I agree - An experiment by any stretch of the imagination that would not be representative of what we have lost should it succeed, which in itself is a long-shot. Yet this gets the publicity and funding...
Is MW any worse than this? Which of the two will probably leave the best legacy? A pile of data on why things went wrong or some living examples of that data?

Jack Harrison wrote:This little verbal battle reminds me of a gliding friend of mine (died two years ago). He was a pugnacious little chap who even in middle age loved a punch-up just for the hell of it. (I hasten to add that I never had such a disagreement with him.) He was routinely banned from club bars.

Apparently on one occasion when he got into a brawl, the protagonists adjourned to the gents to continue the fight. After some five minutes of fisticuffs which left them both bloodied and bruised, the fight fizzled out. Ralph apparently said to his opponent: “That was fun wasn’t it?”

This verbal battle on ukb is fun isn’t it?

Jack

Depending on your perspective, it could well be "fun". Personally, I think "important" is a much better qualification. These are REAL issues that are dividing a COMMON community, at least in my mind. This is a discussion of individuals that have a passion to see our native butterflies thrive - some are conservationists, others are breeders. Others set up zoos. Others foster the marketing and publicity angle.

I sometimes think the divisions undermine the common cause and the BBC prog demonstrates that.

And I think this debate is SO SO important. I wouldn't call it fun, no. It's more important than that (as the great Bill Shankly would say).

Cheers,

- Pete

This is a very difficult discussion.
The last thing I want to do is fall out with Pete and Felix – two guys who I have enormous respect for.
I can, to an extent, understand their defence of this chap.
I can see that these introductions and re-introductions have been made with the best of intentions.
I don't think any of us wouldn't like to see greater numbers of species and/or greater numbers of individuals on our favourite sites.
However, it cannot be denied that secret introductions, no matter how well intentioned or well researched, can seriously damage the subsequent collection of data - the data upon which we base our arguments for greater expenditure on the conservation of butterflies.
If I were one of those laudable people that carry out transect work I would now be questioning the validity of my data - particularly if I did this in the midlands.

So, in order to correct the skew that his actions will have placed on data collection by serious amateur and professional entomologists over the years, I suggest that he should be given an amnesty from prosecution in return for handing over his records to BC/Nat Hist Mus/Natural England or whoever would be the relevant party(ies).

I understand that his guerrilla tactics have come about due a frustration with the amount of time it takes for the official wheels to turn.
Perhaps this is somewhere else that attention should be focussed.
It has been mentioned in a previous post that the top echelons at BC are all pretty ancient.
Perhaps a younger leadership would get these things moving quicker.
I know that there are a number of "younger" people on this forum (indeed - involved in this very discussion) who have the knowledge, drive and talents to run BC.
So, next year, let's have some younger names standing for election.
They’d get my vote!

Not sure about that Roger. Certainly the average age of the professional staff at BC is a good deal less than that of the membership.

Rogerdodge wrote:This is a very difficult discussion. The last thing I want to do is fall out with Pete and Felix – two guys who I have enormous respect for.

Likewise. Falling out will never happen. I know you too well

Rogerdodge wrote:I can, to an extent, understand their defence of this chap.

Not sure where you're seeing that Rodge. I'm deliberately being neutral - neither promoting nor condoning - just trying to instill facts into this important and emotive discussion. But if you were to press me and say "does this chap have a point", I'd say "yes".

Rogerdodge wrote:However, it cannot be denied that secret introductions, no matter how well intentioned or well researched, can seriously damage the subsequent collection of data - the data upon which we base our arguments for greater expenditure on the conservation of butterflies.

In certain cases I completely agree. See - we're friends again

Rogerdodge wrote:It has been mentioned in a previous post that the top echelons at BC are all pretty ancient. Perhaps a younger leadership would get these things moving quicker.

I know most of the senior bods at BC and have the utmost respect for them (and know you do too). Age isn't an issue with the BC leadership some of whom are younger than us (as Matsukaze says)! - the age discussion was simply an earlier comment related to fostering an interest in the younger generation. I'm pleased to say that all of the "big wigs" at BC are not only good at listening and taking on board comments, but also take action. Martin Warren epitomises this.

Rogerdodge wrote:So, next year, let's have some younger names standing for election. They’d get my vote!

So how would that reconcile the different perspectives of conservationists v breeders?

Cheers,

- Pete

Rogerdodge wrote:This is a very difficult discussion.
The last thing I want to do is fall out with Pete and Felix – two guys who I have enormous respect for.
I can, to an extent, understand their defence of this chap.
I can see that these introductions and re-introductions have been made with the best of intentions.
I don't think any of us wouldn't like to see greater numbers of species and/or greater numbers of individuals on our favourite sites.
However, it cannot be denied that secret introductions, no matter how well intentioned or well researched, can seriously damage the subsequent collection of data - the data upon which we base our arguments for greater expenditure on the conservation of butterflies.
If I were one of those laudable people that carry out transect work I would now be questioning the validity of my data - particularly if I did this in the midlands.

Precisely. I am not against introductions but I look at the data which clearly say that they don't work unless you do them properly.

So, in order to correct the skew that his actions will have placed on data collection by serious amateur and professional entomologists over the years, I suggest that he should be given an amnesty from prosecution in return for handing over his records to BC/Nat Hist Mus/Natural England or whoever would be the relevant party(ies).

The interesting question is immunity from doing what? Collecting endangered species? Or something else?

I understand that his guerrilla tactics have come about due a frustration with the amount of time it takes for the official wheels to turn.

No I don't think this is the case at all. The practice of introducing things used to happen before the decline in butterflies. L. Hugh Newman was at it with Winston Churchill of all people and one of the Rothschilds moved Black Hairstreaks around years before. Look at the Large Coppers. Yes, with modern knowledge it seems stupid ,but that happened in the 1920s first.

It is simple. They like breeding butterflies . So do I . The releasing is then a justification.

Perhaps this is somewhere else that attention should be focussed.
It has been mentioned in a previous post that the top echelons at BC are all pretty ancient.

I know all the current trustees and those previously going back more than a decade and a half. I also know the senior staff. I wouldn't say they were ancient at all.

Perhaps a younger leadership would get these things moving quicker.
I know that there are a number of "younger" people on this forum (indeed - involved in this very discussion) who have the knowledge, drive and talents to run BC.
So, next year, let's have some younger names standing for election.
They’d get my vote!

This is a common mistake saying youth will press for change. It may have an element of truth but you are more likely to get change if you chose people with the element of personality called "Openness to Experience". This is determined by the time you reach adulthood if not before and stays with you.

I too have a great deal of respect for Martin Warren.

I think this valuable discussion is shaping what we would consider appropriate behaviour of anyone breeding and releasing butterflies. For example:

1. Releasing non-native species is pointless at best and damaging at worst (e.g. Marbled Fritillary).

2. Releasing non-native subspecies could be pointless (e.g. Large Copper ssp. batavus) at best or damaging (e.g. Marsh Fritillary inter-breeding with native subspecies) at worst.

3. Releasing native species within the potential range of that species (e.g. Marbled White) can skew conservation studies looking at, for example, climate change.

4. Releasing native species outside of their potential range (e.g. Scotch Argus in Worksop) does no harm (assuming the donor site can withstand this).

Perhaps this is all common sense. But I realise that some individuals are lacking in this department

Thanks for the input all - this is really important.

Cheers,

- Pete

I think that is a very pragmatic summary Pete

Pete Eeles wrote:I think this valuable discussion is shaping what we would consider appropriate behaviour of anyone breeding and releasing butterflies. For example:

1. Releasing non-native species is pointless at best and damaging at worst (e.g. Marbled Fritillary).

It is also illegal

2. Releasing non-native subspecies could be pointless (e.g. Large Copper ssp. batavus) at best or damaging (e.g. Marsh Fritillary inter-breeding with native subspecies) at worst.

I think the current plans for batavus in the Norfolk Broads are OK. See:
http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/u ... n_plan.pdf

3. Releasing native species within the potential range of that species (e.g. Marbled White) can skew conservation studies looking at, for example, climate change.


4. Releasing native species outside of their potential range (e.g. Scotch Argus in Worksop) does no harm (assuming the donor site can withstand this).

Perhaps this is all common sense. But I realise that some individuals are lacking in this department

Thanks for the input all - this is really important.

Cheers,

- Pete

This has all been a fantastic discussion with a well thought out summary Pete.

I think expert breeders should have a part to play using their expertise to aid in re-introductions of native species / sub species with the backing of maybe BC or other bodies such as UKB who would give serious thought and planning to these schemes. I am no butterfly expert but this just seems to be common sense.

Use all the assets we have to conserve the dwindliong numbers of butterflies in GB.

Anyone wishing to watch 2 films without time lapse and slowmo have a look at my website.

A specific point re introductions: In 2008 someone reported seeing a pearl-bordered frit in a hedge near to a wood in mid-norfolk. Now the PBF went extinct in the 80's round here- it's possible, given the poor coverage of the area, that it might have hung on undiscovered for 25 years. So I could have run up some leaflets, gone door to door with a "have you seen this butterfly?" spiel, approached the owner of the wood and done a survey the next year. But actually what we did was go "cardboard box job" and get on with something else. We have to because every year we get wierd stuff: I've got a guy releasing monarchs just north of norwich; a guy in sprowston releasing birdwings; a chap breeding swallowtails and releasing them in Diss; and a bunch putting chalkhill blues at warham camp. We can't possibly investigate a strange sighting with any seriousness, because the reality is it will be a breeder. When the silver-washed turned up this year I initially ignored the first three reports on that basis - it was only when the reports started coming in from all over the county that I started taking them seriously. So there could be isolated colonies dieing out because we never find them to put management in, because we can't take any report seriously.

When we translocated the silver-studied blues from their last remaining Norfolk site it took years to get the owners on side, the management in place, the funding sorted out and the ground prepared - since ssb's need ideally two year old heather, you need to strip the ground three years before to allow the new heather to grow, and to strip a new patch each year to ensure the sucession of growth. And there's the surveys to check you have the right ants in place, the permission to take and introduce to obtain.

The guys who stuck the calkhills in warham may get them to breed for a few years, but the colony will die out (again - this is the third introduction on the site in the last century) because there isn't any other suitable habitat anywhere else - so no satallite colonies, no chance of moving about the landscape - just a big chalk bank in a sea of clay. One assumes that the site that produced the original CHB's can stand the loss - but introducing them to norfolk is no different to gassing them and sticking pins through them - except that the specimens won't even be available for study in a museum.

And as for the difficulty in reporting your actions - every county recorder has a telephone number on the bc website - just pick up the phone and say "someone has released x number of Y species at z location on such and such a date" and hang up. At least that way you don't screw up years of research when you decide to play with your toy butterflies.
Andy B

PS Any plans to re-introduce large copper to Norfolk are now thankfully abandoned. There isn't a donar population to support the losses - and ievery attempt was a dismal failure.

Ok, so for arguments sake could it not be that the indiscriminate captive breeding of butterflies by enthusiastic amateurs is at the core of some of the problems that have been highlighted in this thread, rather than the activities of the very few individuals like MW who are very serious regarding their aims and methods?

After all, if you enjoy rearing or breeding butterflies you will ultimately end up with a not inconsiderable number of imagines. So what does an amateur rearer/breeder do? kill them and set them, kill them and bin them, or release them somewhere?

Not a problem if you are breeding locally obtained speckled wood, but what if you have rashly purchased 50 legitimate captive bred Spanish marsh fritillary larvae on a whim at an entomological fair in Kettering? or perhaps 20 black hairstreak ova because you wish to study, record and photograph the development of the early stages?

There is nothing wrong in wishing to study these creatures, or even to rear them for fun, but the problem of what to do with the resulting adult insects remains.

Felix.