www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

There are hundreds of conservation schemes underway around the world in an effort to sustain butterflies and moths, wildlife in general and their habitats. One approach has been to leave several large areas of unproductive land to 're-wild' with little or no interference by humans. Nature has been allowed to be her own sculptor, with some remarkable results. Two such places of note are the Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands and the Knepp Estate in the United Kingdom.

Both areas have introduced megafauna or proxy megafauna to disturb unproductive soils. These animals are left to be wild with minimal interference. Little else in the way of mankind's input has taken place, nothing else added or taken away. The result is that nature has created rich natural soils with no pollutants and vast areas of scrubland that has attracted hundreds of species, some particularly rare, some even at risk of extinction.

As far as butterflies are concerned, the Knepp Estate, now called Knepp Wildland, recorded 15 different species in 2005. As I write this in 2022, 37 butterfly species are being reported. Wilding at Knepp began in 2001, so this is a remarkable natural achievement within just a few years. And it's only part of the story. Hundreds of new species of insects, other arthropods, birds, mammals, fish and flora have also found Knepp Wildland to be the place they want to live - and they are there of their own free will, nobody has introduced them. Apart from nature doing things naturally there are also huge economical benefits to the hands off approach to conservation.

Everyone has an individual understanding of conservation, what it is, what our aims should be and how projects should be funded. For me, this hands off approach seems to be the right way. I sometimes read of forced introductions, importing animals from foreign lands (including butterflies), the waste of charitable donations as introductions fail, the clearance of trees, shrubs and plants, even the reshaping of land to mankind's perceived ideal - all in the name of conservation - none of which sits comfortably with me. Personally, I am not a fan of the micro-management of a habitat to suit a particular species. I would rather see the species compete, succeed or fail as nature intended within a rich and vibrant natural habitat.

Most of the landscape inhabited by humans, and a lot that isn't, is man-made or altered in some way to suit our needs rather than those of the thousands of species that ultimately sustain us. Of course it is necessary that productive agricultural soils should be used to produce our food and we need our towns, villages and cities to live in. However, there are still vast areas of unproductive, managed and fallow land that could be given back to nature with very little cost or interference. Even small areas like our own private gardens or parts of our municipal parks could be left to run wild with some amazing results, if only we can overcome our desire to meddle and tidy up and 'do what's best'. If we are not careful we will gradually loose our bees and other pollinators, then our plants and other food sources. Scientists have predicted that homo sapiens would be extinct only four years after the last bee has died, should that ever happen. Leave nature alone and it will flourish.

Maybe it is time to take a look at a popular mantra and revise it a little. "Build It And They Will Come" perhaps would serve us better if one word was changed to become "Leave It And They Will Come".

I would very much like people with different opinions or ideas to join in this discussion, so we can all learn from each other and perhaps even discover some new methods of conserving our wonderful flora and fauna, for the benefit of all living things and consequently our remarkable planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/ ... ountryside

Mr Fiennes worked at the Knepp estate and is now at the Holkham estate in Norfolk showing farmers how to work with wildlife.

That's a very interesting link Charles, thanks for posting it. There is no doubt that the 'Wilding' concept achieved at Knepp and other locations is gaining ground, even with traditional farmers who are sometimes understandably cautious of changing practices that have existed throughout many generations of their family. Education, like the work Mr Fiennes is doing is so important. I think the average man in the street is also generally open to re-wilding ideas, once they understand what is happening. Perhaps the most worrying sector for me is the current sphere of conservationists, some of whom seem a little set in their own micro-management ways. In particular, conservation charities might resist somewhat because they rely on donations largely from the public. Wilding costs little and some might see this as a threat to their income streams. This is only my personal viewpoint of course, but to me micro-management of habitats is expensive and unnecessary. Conservation professionals though have a huge knowledge bank and that is where I see their future, as educators and consultants rather than micro-managers. And we will always need their scientific and monitoring skills. Success or failure with projects should be the driving force.

A great topic which is close to my heart, Phil. I've plenty to offer on this subject, as I've worked for an eNGO in the past and am very involved at Knepp, while also working very closely with the brilliant South Downs National Park Authority. You raise some very valid points and concerns, but discussion of these is going to require some mini-essays. At this time of year, like all ecologists, I'm mad busy making hay while the sun shines, so any spare moments go towards trying to keep my diary up-to-date (a couple of lighter days have just allowed me to claw a month of reports back). However, I'll return to this topic in the winter, when things are much less hectic.
BWs, Neil

Thanks for replying Neil, I was hoping you would comment in this thread as you have so much experience in the conservation world and are right on the frontline with your involvement at Knepp. I can fully appreciate your time constrains at this time of year. I'm really looking forward to your comments when you get the time closer to winter. Thank-you.

The whole conservation discussion has kind of struck a match inside me somewhere and I feel I need to express what may be my rather simplistic views I have on the subject, especially in regard to arthropods and lepidopterans in particular, which I study at home. I think because I am not involved with conservation on a day-to-day basis and ultimately just want what is right for nature, mankind and the planet in the long-term that I may have a more uncluttered view than some and unbiased view of things.

In the meantime I'd love to hear any other views and opinions from forum members and am keen to discuss with others what they think about this important subject, for the ultimate good of us all.

All the best,
Phil.

To persist in an area, butterflies (and most other invertebrates, and most plants) need the specific conditions they need to be present year after year, if not actually on the site, then at least somewhere they can readily reach nearby. Knepp can provide this because of its size. The blackthorn thickets that support Brown Hairstreak this year may no longer provide the right sort of foliage for the larvae in a couple of years time, but at Knepp that does not matter, because the grazing processes ensure that there will be something suitable for the butterfly nearby.

Most nature reserves are far smaller than Knepp, and sit in a fragmented landscape where there is nowhere nearby for a butterfly to go if the nature reserve becomes unsuitable. The butterflies survive on the site because it can reliably produce the same conditions in the same area, year after year. Knepp-style processes cannot ensure this, because they do not provide consistent management of small areas every year, and you lose the persistence of suitable conditions for butterflies year after year (and other invertebrates, and plants) over time. Lose the ability to manage a site of this sort, and you lose the species that make the site special; you will end up with a bunch of nature reserves that are great for playing hide-and-seek in, but contain no butterflies that couldn't be found in my back garden.