www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Hello, I organize a collecting trip to XXXX in the summer of 2011. So you have the opportunity to join me.
The trip will be taken place from 30 June till 15th July 2011.
In XXXX area. In this region we can find and collect different interesting butterflies

The tour will be guided by an experienced guide who will also be our cook. We will stay in tents on an altitude of 2.700 m.
The tour starts from XXXX

Please let me know if you are interested in joining this adventure. Don’t hesitate to ask me further questions.

permits for collecting and transit will be organised.

Hi Rik,

When you first contacted me, you gave me the impression that this was not a collecting trip but simply a vacation where nets would be used. Now that you've posted this, I can categorically say that this is not welcome on this website, which is primarily focused on conservation. As such, I've decided to let your post stand as concrete evidence to others that collecting is still alive and well, unfortunately.

I've edited your post and prevented you from replying on the forums.

- Pete

Wouldn't it be better just to delete the whole thing Pete?

Felix wrote:Wouldn't it be better just to delete the whole thing Pete?

Definitely not! Pete's the owner of this site and has made his stance clear for all to see.

Pete Eeles wrote:As such, I've decided to let your post stand as concrete evidence to others that collecting is still alive and well, unfortunately.

When I was a lad I caught and hopelessly pinned a couple of "cabbage whites", which I personally feel is just a part of what a nature-mad kid in the 1970s would be inclined to do. Same as throwing two beetles in a jar to see who wins the fight. I don't nowadays condone that sort of behaviour, but I was a terrible kid.

More recently I spent a huge number of hours in the Surrey countryside gathering species records for the forthcoming "Smaller Moths of Surrey". With the guidance of Jim Porter I formed a small (under 300 specimens) reference collection of various moths for which the literature was either not very clear, helpful or just plain out of print. Mostly Tortix and leafmining stuff, just one example per species unless polymorphic. Jim Porter confirmed the ID of species in the reference collection, and often donated some of his own specimens to fill the gaps. And off I went finding my own stuff. In the context given I feel satisfied that limited collecting is, to a degree, acceptable and maybe even necessary. I hold my hands up though if other members disagree. I no longer collect/pin anything.

"Rik", on the other hand, seems to be attempting to operate a collecting adventure holiday up a mountain somewhere. If this is just for fun, or for non-research reasons (and his open invite to forum members would suggest this is so) then Pete is utterly correct to block Rik and put an end to the thread. If Rik is collecting for a museum or private collection, then he should make this clear.

Gibster.

Just to avoid the can of worms that I can see being opened even from here Gibbo.

Blimey, you should have been here when I suggested that certain macro leps need to be killed and have their genitals examined under a x20 in order to confirm identification; you would have been forgiven for thinking that I had just sanctioned the extinction of the otter (or some other 'cuddly' animal that has an irrationally special place in the public's consciousness).

I was utterly pilloried, mostly by people that couldn't even adequately explain why..!

Good luck to you!

Felix.

Why oh why in this day and age of digital photography would anyone "collect" specimens?

I "collect photos" of many different leps, and now have a moth trap, but I feel so responsible for the moths that I attract to the light that I get up at silly o'clock to make sure that the birds don't get them. I feel terrible if a moth dies while in my care, but perhaps I'm just a softie.

I would never kill any lep for pleasure. That in my opinion is sick! There is no need of it.

Pete is right to keep this post to show that we do not all have the same love of nature, to let it thrive.

Take nothing but photos, leave nothing but footprints.

Rant over.

unbelievable... Rik... leave XXX the XXX alone, and grow up, take some responsibility

I am shocked and disgusted after reading that. Why cant people understand that collecting is a thing of the past? Things are different now. Surely the survival of a species is more important than someones so called "collection". Some species are endangered enough without people like Rik helping them along to extinction. Do you think its ok to murder a living thing for pleasure, Rik? How can you live with yourself?

If i happen to see anyone up a mountain with a net this year, im reporting them!

_astralis wrote:If i happen to see anyone up a mountain with a net this year, im reporting them!

Nice attitude.

If you happen to see anyone up a mountain with a net this year, would it ever occur to you that they may be studying invertebrates other than butterflies? Or even if they were working with the tiny percentage of entomological fauna that is 'butterflies' would it not occur to you that their activities might be totally legitimate?

If you happen to see anyone up a mountain with a net this year, would it ever occur to you to politely enquire what they are up to? You might actually learn something.

This narrow minded attitudes really gets my goat . There's more to entomology that butterflies astralis, and there's more to entomological study than taking photographs.

Report them. FFS!

Felix.

This topic comes up time and time again and Felix is absolutely right. It's just too easy to jump to conclusions.

Whenever I see someone with a net, I simply ask them what they're up to and have yet to come across a collector. The most interesting was a chap studying bumblebees on Martin Down - we had quite a natter!

And, of course, if you're wanting to monitor species abroad then it's often essential to use a net to positively confirm ID, given the number of similar species that fly.

Cheers,

- Pete

Agreed Felix and Pete.

You will often see my Dad catching Hoverflies with his large black net. To identify certain species they need to have their genitalia examined under a microscope. poor blighters. They are released after ID has been confirmed.

He purchased a net for me for my Switzerland trip this year as I may need to catch the odd butterfly for ID purposes. I will definitely be releasing them with only their dignity damaged.

Forgot to say.

I would definitely enquire of anyone with a net what they are up to.

If collecting hmmmm??????? placement of net in certain regions springs to mind (light hearted titter)

Don't be too hard on astralis,I am sure she has only the butterflies welfare at the top of her list.

I don't really want to get dragged into this one again, as feelings run very high. Nevertheless, I feel it important that those of us who do use nets should be sensitive and recognise that we may cause very decent people, like astralis, genuine distress and impair their enjoyment of the countryside. I would go further and say I'm glad there are people like her who feel this way. I wish more people challenged me when they saw me using a net: then I could explain to them what I was doing, and why (those who know me will know that I release all insects alive as soon as they are identified).

Some net use is, in my opinion, justified. Other net use is not. The fact someone is engaged in scientific research does not automatically justify it. Whilst entirely agreeing with Felix and others that those opposed to nets should keep an open mind and not prejudge or jump to conclusions, net users also need to understand the offence they may give to other nature lovers and be tolerant in return.

Guy

Why is it always this humble bit of equipment that allegedly gives people offence? I'm sorry Guy I simply can not subscribe to that. And besides, were it even true, just because an individual is offended does not imply that they have a moral high ground.

Indeed, I would go as far as to say that if the sight of a net causes "genuine distress and impair[s] their enjoyment of the countryside" then that individual should really look within themselves and question their basic ability to reason subjectively.

Furthermore, what of the individual with the net? what about their "genuine distress and impair[ed] enjoyment of the countryside" when the peace of their work, hobby, interest or otherwise lawful and innocent pursuit is disrupted by the demands of others that they justify themselves, their actions, and even their right to be in the field?

Not everyone will share your desire to be constantly 'challenged' while enjoying the countryside and engaging in a legitimate pursuit Guy (whatever that may be). Some people are less gregarious than you, and less inclined to engage in idle chat with an inquisitive total stranger at any opportunity, or even to talk to anyone at all! This is perfectly normal and perfectly legitimate, and should be respected.

Sorry Guy, your response to this matter is impaired as it does not give consideration to the user of the net at all.

Felix.

Felix wrote:If you happen to see anyone up a mountain with a net this year, would it ever occur to you to politely enquire what they are up to? You might actually learn something.

I think you've taken that sentance completely the wrong way. Perhaps i should have said "If i see anyone up a mountain with a net this year and find out that they're collecting, im reporting them!". Do you think i would be stupid enough not to enquire what someone was doing first? Ive seen plenty of people out with nets before and its easy to see they were just using them to help with identification. I have no problem with that. I think its you that has taken this completely the wrong way and i dont deserve some of the things you said. I believe you've insulted me 3 times in that message:

Felix wrote:You might actually learn something.

I dont claim to know everything but i really dont appreciate your thinly veiled claim that im undereducated.

Felix wrote:This narrow minded attitudes really gets my goat

I like how you immediately jump to conclusions and think im narrow minded just because i dont agree with what you think.

Felix wrote:...there's more to entomological study than taking photographs.

So what if i like taking photographs? Im a photographer! Its what i do! From the way you write this, it sounds like you think im a bit of dirt on the bottom of your shoe. Photography is obviously beneath you.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and i didnt join these forums to get attacked and insulted. I would never say such things about someone even if they thought differently than me. Just to be clear, i was talking about COLLECTERS, not people who use nets for identification purposes. I thought that much was clear when i made specific reference to Rik.

Thank you to marmari and padfield who were the only ones that recognised that im entitled to express my own opinion. I agree with everything that Guy said.

Im sorry for the tone of this message but i feel it was more than justified.

Gill

Gillian.

I have sent you a PM. This needs to be taken off-line.

Felix.

Felix wrote:Why is it always this humble bit of equipment that allegedly gives people offence?

Because it is the primary tool used by collectors in the field.

Felix wrote:Furthermore, what of the individual with the net?

I see no difference between someone, out of curiosity, inquiring about the use of a net, and someone commenting on a pet dog. The net is irrelevant.

Cheers,

- Pete

This topic often seems to lead to a heated debate (Mrs Merton would be proud) and views expressed are often more extreme than on any other subject. On the subject of netting and examination of the genitalia for identification purposes, my view on this is that only accredited scientists and entomologists who NEED to know the ID should be catching and examining specimens in a way that may cause distress if not death. I have my doubts about the general publication of the genitalia diagrams (as in Tristan Lafranchis’ Europe book) in that it may encourage netting/examination by people who do not need to know and are not expert in the use of such techniques.

I exclude netting, examining and releasing which, if done by experienced people and with care, does not cause distress.

On the subject of collecting, I suspect it is now very rare in the UK and the probability is that anyone at a site of a rare species with a net is far more likely to be a scientist than a collector. But I think it is always right to ask the question and if the answer is not satisfactory, to report it to the local BC branch. A photo of the person in question would be very helpful.

However, in Europe and beyond, collecting is sadly not uncommon. Some rare localised species e.g. Odd-spot Blue and Chelmos Blue have been collected to near-extinction. As I have a European web site with contact information, I sometimes get emails from dealers usually from Russia or Iran offering rare species. I do see people with nets occasionally, especially in the Alpes, and I do ask what they are collecting. I have had interesting discussions such as with the recorder for Coleoptera (beetles) for the French Alpes, but I have also encountered people whose intentions are not so pure and I have to say I take a rather robust approach.

Collecting should only be undertaken for scientific purposes sanctioned by the relevant conservation authority. For personal reasons, even if only wanting to correctly identify a species, is just not acceptable. Cameras are good enough these days to take detailed photos to facilitate identification in all but a few cases. No-one has the right to kill these creatures for personal interest or gratification. Irrespective of whether collecting damages the population, it is immoral and obscene.

On the subject of comments expressed on the forum, I am 100% with astralis. To criticise her opinions as narrow-minded is grossly unfair. I can understand that a woman on her own in the mountains would be hesitant to enquire/challenge a man with a net, because if he is a collector the reaction is likely to be hostile. So reporting the matter seems entirely reasonable and to be encouraged. If they are an entomologist, no problem. On the few occasions I have enquired of a net-holder and they have had legitimate reasons, they have been quite understanding of the enquiry. I cannot see why a legitimate entomologist should take exception to such an enquiry.

Let's direct our negative emotions to the Riks of this world.

Roger

This is in reply to Felix: As it will take a little time to compose others might well have replied in between!

Point by point, but not necessarily in the same order:

1 "Some people are less gregarious than you, and less inclined to engage in idle chat with an inquisitive total stranger at any opportunity, or even to talk to anyone at all!"

Wrong! I am famed locally for being ungregarious. I refuse all invitations to social events, am given unique licence not to attend school social functions (after a reprimand to staff for not attending such things, the owner of the school took me aside and said, 'obviously, this does not apply to you, Guy') and have not spoken to a single soul except two barmaids (I was drinking alone) and one ticket inspector since school closed on Friday.

2 "Why is it always this humble bit of equipment that allegedly gives people offence?"

Because rightly or wrongly, they are offended to see the liberty of free creatures taken away. I stress, 'rightly or wrongly', because your question was 'why does it give offence?' This is the fairly obvious reason.

3 "Indeed, I would go as far as to say that if the sight of a net causes "genuine distress and impair[s] their enjoyment of the countryside" then that individual should really look within themselves and question their basic ability to reason subjectively."

Reasoning is, of its nature, objective. Value judgments are subjective. Purely objective reasoning, without taking value judgments or ethical propositions as premises, is widely regarded as being incapable of leading to ethical conclusions (premises in the indicative cannot lead to conclusions in the imperative). Some philosophers have dissented from this view but they are in the minority. Most famously, John Searle tried to derive an ethical obligation from the fact (stated in the indicative) that someone had made a promise. He is generally regarded as having failed.

Yes, people should question their values, and the roots of their values, but objective reasoning will only be a part of that questioning.

4 "Furthermore, what of the individual with the net? what about their "genuine distress and impair[ed] enjoyment of the countryside" when the peace of their work, hobby, interest or otherwise lawful and innocent pursuit is disrupted by the demands of others that they justify themselves, their actions, and even their right to be in the field?"

Annoyance, obstruction - that I can understand. I'm (genuinely) sorry if you have been distressed by vigilantes in the course of your presumably legitimate activities - and I would never seek to distress you. But the entomologists I know in Switzerland express no more than irritation on the rare occasions they have been challenged.

There is no moral high ground here, on one side or the other. Protecting nature means understanding it, and understanding it, tragically, means investigating it, sometimes invasively. A great many entomologists, and lepidopterists in particular, sympathise with that word 'tragically' and increasingly encourage people not to engage in invasive activities where at all possible. Tristan Lafranchis is one who springs to mind.

Nets are symbolic of invasive entomology and I for one (yes, this is my value judgment, with which I suspect you will disagree, Felix) prefer to encourage enjoyment of nature without their use. Since I cannot record the distribution of threatened Pyrgus species without one, I continue to use one. In doing so, I take upon myself the responsibility for justifying my activities.

Guy