www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Hi folks,

If things seem to have been quiet lately, it's because there's an awful lot going on "behind the scenes". Aside from too much work-related travel, I've been working with a few others to define a code of practice. This is shown below and all comments are welcome. I'm waiting for input from Butterfly Conservation before publicising it, but thought a few of you "out there" might want to comment.

Cheers,

- Pete

Introduction
The purpose of this code of practice is to support Butterfly Conservation’s aim of “Saving butterflies, moths and their habitats”.

For various reasons, such as the introduction of digital photography and the availability of information on the Internet, an interest in butterflies and moths has been steadily increasing over the last several years. While this interest is welcomed, it can also place a burden, in particular, on sensitive colonies and fragile sites.

This code of practice is aimed at alleviating this burden and provides concrete suggestions for being considerate with respect to wildlife in general, and their habitats. The code has been written to be brief, realistic and practical.

Terminology
This code includes specific terms whose meaning is as follows:

• A sensitive colony is a population of a given species that is prone to disturbance. An example might be a small colony of a rare species confined to a small site.
• A fragile site is a location that is susceptible to damage. An example might be a location that is easily damaged by visitors and their pets.
• Vague site details refer to a site that is not explicitly mentioned by name or location. For example, “a large deciduous forest in north Hampshire”.

Visiting Sites
Many of the more popular sites are suffering from intense visitor pressure, which can cause disturbance to wildlife, damage fragile sites, and diminish the tranquillity of the countryside. This code recommends the following:

• Try to avoid visiting popular sites at peak times. Visit mid-week if you can in order to spread the load.
• Complement visits to the most popular sites with visits to lesser-known sites.
• Try not to disturb (and certainly not harm) any butterflies or moths.
• Do not remove any butterflies, moths (including immature stages) or plants from a site (see Rearing in Captivity, below).
• Avoid damage to habitat, especially trampling of foodplants and nectar sources. Keep to footpaths wherever possible.
• Close gates behind you, do not leave litter and guard against fire.
• Keep dogs under strict control at all times and try to avoid taking them to fragile sites or sites containing sensitive colonies. This is for the benefit of the wildlife and other visitors.

Publicising Sites
Webmasters, newsletter editors and book authors are all in a position to publicise sites. This code recommends the following:

• Do not provide details of private sites in the public domain.
• Provide limited information with respect to fragile sites and sensitive colonies.

Publicising Sightings
With the advent of the Internet, webmasters are in a position to publicise sightings almost as soon as they occur. However, such information can inadvertently result in excessive visitor numbers and, unfortunately, collectors. This code recommends the following:

• Do not publicise sightings of the adult stage of sensitive colonies until after the peak of the flight period. Alternatively, provide vague site details.
• Do not publicise sightings of immature stages of sensitive colonies. Alternatively, provide vague site details.

Collecting
This code does not endorse any form of collecting.

Use of a Net
The use of nets is strongly discouraged. Netting of butterflies and moths should only be carried out in conjunction with valid research and sponsored by a recognised entomological authority (for example, when monitoring populations using a mark-and-recapture method).

Moth Trapping
Moth trapping can contribute greatly to our understanding of species distribution and stability. This code recommends the following:

• Take care when releasing moths as birds may take advantage of an easy meal.
• Release moths after dark. If moths have to be released during the day, captured moths should be released into an area with considerable vegetation cover to give them somewhere to hide.
• Do not release moths in the same location each time.
• Ensure that the trap is covered during the day, for example by a sheet, and kept out of direct sunlight and away from areas that get hot.

Rearing in Captivity
Stock reared in captivity can be obtained from a number of organisations and individuals. This code recommends the following:

• Do not take stock from the wild. There is an exception with respect to common species that can, for example, be reared through in a classroom – in which case the adults should be released at their place of origin.
• When purchasing stock, enquire about its source and do not purchase stock that has been taken from the wild, or its offspring.
• Never release captive-bred stock into the wild. This can disrupt conservation efforts and introduce disease.

The Law
Certain species and sites are protected by law. A list of butterfly species protected, and the level of protection afforded, is given at http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/reports_law.php.

About this Code
This code of practice has been developed with input from several organisations and individuals, most notably:

• Butterfly Conservation (http://www.butterfly-conservation.org)
• Adrian Hoskins (http://www.learnaboutbutterflies.com)
• Alan Thornbury (http://www.purple-emperor.co.uk)
• Colin Baker
• Guy Padfield (http://www.guypadfield.com)
• Peter Bruce-Jones
• Peter Eeles (http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk)
• Robin Turner (http://www.hantsiow-butterflies.org.uk)
• Mike Young (http://www.mikeyoungarps.com)

After reading it I have no questions, so I presume it does it's job well.

Well done to all involved...who is going to print a million copies and distribute them?

Martin.

Looks good. Clearly an awful lot of work and time has been put into this by all involved.

I'm glad that moth trapping gets a mention, although more could be said on this subject. Moth traps (MV traps in particular) are used today more than ever in entomological history. Far more potentially devastating to moth species than the chasing of butterflies with a net, and yet with none of the associated stigma (and quite rightly so).

We have yet to be in a position to ascertain the full effects of almost continual all-year-round trapping on individual moth species at certain sites, and while I wouldn't want to see their use restricted per se there are certainly some issues here.

It is beyond doubt that continued and regular moth trapping at certain sites can have a negative effect upon a species ability to breed and to distribute itself locally during it's flight season.

A famous illustration of this was the trapping of several hundred Small Elephant Hawk moths in one night alone on Martin Down where around 7 MV lights were operated across the site.

What do other members think? or care??

Felix.

Ps: Pete - Use of a net - is that 'use of a net for catching butterflies' or the use of a net for all orders? The use of a net is an essential tool in the legitimate study of certain invertebrate groups (diptera, hymenoptera etc).

Looks great to me Pete

Gruditch

Felix wrote:Ps: Pete - Use of a net - is that 'use of a net for catching butterflies' or the use of a net for all orders? The use of a net is an essential tool in the legitimate study of certain invertebrate groups (diptera, hymenoptera etc).

I think the key phrase here is "legitimate study" and what is meant by that

The point we've tried to imply throughout the code is that the needs of the butterfly/moth/whatever come first. The needs of photographers / site visitors etc. come second.

Cheers,

- Pete

Good show.

Thanks Pete.

Felix.

I have to express some reservations about the proposed protocols based on my experiences in the birding world.

One of the delightful aspects of the butterfly community compared to the birders is the openness about localities, sightings etc. Birders care often very secretive. If you are not part of the "in-crowd" a lot of information is kept from you. I was at one stage quite an active member of the local bird club but when I realised that many things were being kept from me, my interest rapidly declined. The final straw was when I commented that Buzzards were almost certainly breeding in my immediate area and was told that as it is a rare species (? - not in my experience) then I should "shut-up" and not talk about it. No one actually suggested that I might climb trees to rob nests but the implication was that I had no right to be party to privileged information.

I see that there is potential for the equivalent secrecy in the butterfly world if people are not free to talk about localities and sightings. I personally know only one collector who is still active (actually he does most collecting of his abroad) and I have not seen a butterfly collector in the field for donkey's years. I did come across a man with a net on a reserve last year and I politely challenged him. He was researching some types of micro-bugs for the University!

I am of the view that actually publicising localities helps in many ways. There is more likelihood that the habitat will be preserved if a larger number of people know about it. It is self policing and - like my experience with the bug man - and no collector is going to be able to carry out his activities.

I agree with much of the other ideas, such as over use of a site. I saw an example of this some years ago at a Duke of B locality. It was obvious where the butterfly occurred simply by noticing where the photographers had trampled the grass very heavily.

In conclusion, while I understand that the aims behind the proposed protocols are worthy, imposing unnecessary limitations on the interest that we all love so much could be counter productive.

Jack Harrison

Thanks Jack,

At one stage there was serious debate about whether all site information should be removed from UK Butterflies and elsewhere. The conclusion was that we need to maintain a balance between protection of sensitive sites and species, and fostering an interest. This is a very difficult balance to achieve, but the code of practice has made an attempt to do just that.

I know for a fact that publication of certain sites and sightings *has* resulted in site damage because I've seen it first hand. I believe the cause of this is a combination of the behaviour of individuals who are more interested in getting a photo than their environment, and also excessive visitor numbers. So - rather than doing nothing, a number of us put the code together to provide some guidance and recommendations. Some BC webmasters implement similar restrictions already (including Hampshire, and Upper Thames) although there isn't a consistent policy between them.

Cheers,

- Pete

My last post had an unfortunate typo which completely changed the meaning. I had said:

"imposing necessary limitations" when I of course meant "imposing unnecessary limitations" (now edited to read correctly)

I realise that I might be a lone voice with my views, but it would be very helpful to give instances when a so-called "confidential" locality that then became public actually resulted in the loss of a species.

I am certainly more than happy to go along with the idea about the actual protection of a locality (to minimise trampling, etc) but am against a policy whereby some people will be allowed to know and others won't. A secret web could easily result (I believe bird egg collectors have such a website). The big danger is that a small group of "insiders" know about a "secret site", keep that knowledge to themselves with a disastrous outcome for the species. Anecdotally, the last site for Large Blue in the Cotswolds was kept so confidential that it was not protected or properly monitored - and we know what happened next. That might not be a true story but even if not, it clearly illustrates the danger of secrecy.

Jack

jackharr wrote:It would be very helpful to give instances when a so-called "confidential" locality that then became public actually resulted in the loss of a species.

I'm not aware of any that resulted in the loss of a species. Perhaps I'm missing the point? But a simple example of a "series of unfortunate events" was the release of captive-bred Black-veined White at Stockbridge Down. This resulted in many visitors that ultimately flattened the best Marbled White breeding area on the Down.[/quote]

jackharr wrote:The big danger is that a small group of "insiders" know about a "secret site", keep that knowledge to themselves with a disastrous outcome for the species.

Why would withholding site or sightings details be a disastrous outcome? I really don't understand that.

jackharr wrote:I ... am against a policy whereby some people will be allowed to know and others won't.

Nobody has suggested that. But that depends on who "some people" are If you mean owners of private sites, or transect walkers monitoring a sensitive species on a sensitive site, then I have no problem with them knowing and not me.

jackharr wrote:Anecdotally, the last site for Large Blue in the Cotswolds was kept so confidential that it was not protected or properly monitored - and we know what happened next.

The reason for the demise, I believe, was because the association with a particular species of ant had not been determined. It had nothing to do with the fact that the sites were secret.

Cheers,

- Pete

I was aware that the story about the secrecy surrounding the last Large Blue site in the Cotswolds might or not have been true and I said exactly that in my post. But the principle was behind my comment "...keep that knowledge to themselves with a disastrous outcome for the species." In other words, if only a select few know, then the proper protection measures will probably not be implemented.

I agree that we can't have Joe Public trespassing on private sites, but why keep the existence of species on such private site confidential? It might encourage people to search for species at nearby non-private sites with quite possibly a beneficial outcome.

Has in been confirmed that the BV White at Stockbridge was a release? In other words, has someone owned up? At the time, I gave a very plausible meteorological explanation (storms drifting north from France) and certainly in the absence of definite proof of release, a natural explanation must remain on the table. I certainly will agree that the damage to the Marbled White territory was most unfortunate and measures to deal with that sort of thing in the future most definitely must be in the Code of Conduct.

"I ... am against a policy whereby some people will be allowed to know and others won't." with reply "Nobody has suggested that."
So how would that work if some information is kept confidential? Confidentiality means that some will know and some won't.

I elaborate on my birding experience. I posted a note on a website saying that I was pretty confident that Buzzards were breeding in or near my village of Great Chishill and maybe someone more knowledgeable might like to pin down the exact spot for the records. I was told that I had no right to broadcast information like that and I was told to stop talking about it. You are beginning to get the measure of the sort of person I am, so you will understand that comment did not go down at all well. My birding activities virtually ceased from that moment and a pastime that I had previously enjoyed faded away to be only an occasional activity. Certainly, I no longer post any of my sightings on the relevant bird group; I have been shunned and clearly not accepted as one of "the crowd". I would hate to see that experience - for me or for anyone else - repeated on ukbutterflies.

Jack Harrison

Thanks for the clarifications Jack. Your comments are not dissimilar to those discussed in the group that put the code together

"If only a select few know, then the proper protection measures will probably not be implemented".
You seem to be implying that restricting sightings means that the information will not get to the right people? I don't believe the code would cause this to be the case or anything to change on that front. Most sightings go to BC or some other organisation in one form or another, and then the various webmasters make those available according to the policy they have in place. For example, the Hants policy is to restrict sightings of certain species (Marsh Fritillary, Small Eggar and Reddish Buff) and at certain sites (private sites, as it happens).

"Why keep the existence of species on such private site confidential?"
Because people do trespass and cause damage. There's a particular site in Hants for Duke of Burgundy that is private, and that receives quite a lot of trampling of larval foodplant each year because the site is unofficially "known". I believe that if it were made more public then even more trampling would occur.

"It might encourage people to search for species at nearby non-private sites with quite possibly a beneficial outcome."
I agree - but see above.

"Has in been confirmed that the BV White at Stockbridge was a release?"
Yes. One of the Hants BC committee members knows who it is. Anyway - the point was that the sighting inadvertantly caused damage. I've personally no problem with sightings of rare immigrants being publicised since I don't consider them sensitive species. The only problem was that they were released in a sensitive part of a well-known site. This resulted the trampling. As it happens, someone took the egg batch that was laid also, I believe.

"I certainly will agree that the damage to the Marbled White territory was most unfortunate and measures to deal with that sort of thing in the future most definitely must be in the Code of Conduct."
Any suggestions?

"Confidentiality means that some will know and some won't."
Yes - you're correct. Some will know and some won't. People in a position to protect the species will know, and Joe Public won't. What's wrong with that? It doesn't mean that the species/site won't be protected.

I actually think we have the same objective in mind Jack - I'd be surprised if not. In fact, I suspect most of the visitors to UK Butterflies are in the same boat. But if you have some alternative suggestions for how we can maintain a balance of fostering an interest, and protecting fragile and sensitives sites and species, I'd like to hear them. This is, of course, based on the assumption that there are certain sites and species that have come under pressure due to a lack of considerate behaviour, and excessive visitor numbers - something the code is trying to raise an awareness of, and suggest concrete approaches to address.

Thanks again for the debate Jack!

Cheers,

- Pete

"Confidentiality means that some will know and some won't."
Yes - you're correct. Some will know and some won't. People in a position to protect the species will know, and Joe Public won't. What's wrong with that?

So how does one go about becoming one of the privileged hierarchy as opposed to mere "Jo Public", and what qualifies the elite to make that differentiation?

Felix.

You'd have to ask Butterfly Conservation and other bodies that question. My observation is that transect walkers and "Joe Public" report their sightings to the appropriate organisations, and those organisations decide what information is disseminated more widely.

There is no "elite" here and, as I said, I think it's wholly appropriate for organisations such as BC, RSPB etc. etc. to withhold information if it results in the right level of protection.

So - I guess you could get employment with BC

Cheers,

- Pete

Hmmm. So can we assume that if a member of UKB reports a sighting this will be displayed on the forum and not censored? or will this fly in the face of Hants BC sightings policy (for example)?

My point being, is this an independent site for enthusiasts to share and debate views, opinions, photographs and sightings, or is it subject to a higher authority who will edit what information it deems 'appropriate' for an individual to share?

I am confident in being able to make that decision myself rather than have someone else make it for me.

Fxile.

People will continue to release whether we like it or not. I wonder if the Code of Conduct should include a half way house?

I suggest that while we discourage unapproved releases, when it is IS done, then please would the releaser come clean and thus avoid some of the unfortunate confusion that occurs when the rest of us don't know whether the sightings are "genuine" or not. We might say "naughty, naughty, slap on wrist", but gently point out that it is even more naughty not to tell people what they have done.

Had the Stockbridge releaser admitted from the start, the mass twitch would have been a non-event and no collateral damage would have occurred. I suppose he might have got a sneaky buzz out of seeing the outcome of his hoax, but I think that is rather unlikely. So please if you are reading this, do let us know in future what's going on.

Jack Harrison

Hi Jack,

Yes. One of the Hants BC committee members knows who it is.

Perhaps this individual could have shared his information.

Flixe

Felix wrote:Hmmm. So can we assume that if a member of UKB reports a sighting this will be displayed on the forum and not censored? or will this fly in the face of Hants BC sightings policy (for example)?

That, Felix, is a very good question - one that we don't have an answer for (Robin Turner, Hants BC webmaster, might want to chip in here!). Although I consider everyone I've ever corresponded with on this forum to be a "good egg", the forums *are* open to public viewing and I'd like to be supportive of BC policies without being overly bureaucratic (for example, simply mention that sightings of certain species, or sites, should be treated delicately - which may be sufficient). One of the reasons for creating the code was to encourage debates like this. So consider it an open question for now

Felix wrote:My point being, is this an independent site for enthusiasts to share and debate views, opinions, photographs and sightings, or is it subject to a higher authority who will edit what information it deems 'appropriate' for an individual to share?

I'd like the UK Butterflies forums to be a place where we can openly discuss sightings and sites in a responsible manner, in accordance with a code we agree. Mechanisms exist to set up groups that allow sensitive information to be published, as it happens, but let's keep this debate going to see if, and how, we need to restrict anything.

Felix wrote:I am confident in being able to make that decision myself rather than have someone else make it for me.

Completely understand. Unfortunately, not everyone is in the same position.

Again - thanks for the comments. Good discussion.

Cheers,

- Pete

jackharr wrote:People will continue to release whether we like it or not. I wonder if the Code of Conduct should include a half way house?

Interesting thought Jack! Perhaps the code should allow continue to discourage releases of captive-bred stock (for the reasons given) but, if individuals choose not to follow the code, they can use a mechanism (yet to be implemented) to register their release with UK Butterflies so that the rest of us know. Of course, this would all be anonymous.

Good stuff. That's 2 good suggestions in the last 10 minutes

Cheers,

- Pete

I've just arrived home to a whole flurry of posts...

I am a relative newcomer to butterflying, and any views i have on butterfly/bird twitching are newly formed...mainly by word of mouth on here and the television. I visited Stockbridge Down at the tail end of the Black-veined White episode, and, while I came away with photos, I was horrified/shocked at the trampling that happened (making sure I didn't exacerbate the problem)

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, but if I came across, say, an Apollo or a Monarch, I would report it to my local recorder and ask if I should/could post the sighting on the interweb. I dare say I would be asked to hold off for a while, and I would respect that. While I would be dying to post it on here, the needs of the butterflies must come first . I'm sure we all feel that way, don't we? Is there one amongst us that feels thier need/want to boast of how he has seen this species or that is more important than the well being of the insect in question? It's because I feel there are people involved in this that have a much better view of the big picture than I, that I would always seek thier guidance. Does anyone here think they know better than BC?

Martin.