www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

This is really addressed to Peter Eeles.Last year he was kind enough to give us his thoughts on access to Wrecclesham but this year with the change of ownership,much money having been spent on securing the site and burning off methane,is it responsible behaviour for UKButterfly members to effectively tresspass and possibly endanger the site and perhaps themselves.A danger is of explosion if a match is lit,as the signs on the site next door indicate.Peter-perhaps you could make enquiries-it would be nice to have permission for the site.I notice the forum on this subject is now locked!
P.J.U.

Hi PJ,

I know that Surrey BC were considering running a transect at Wrecclesham (with permission!). I suggest you contact them in the first instance to see what the score is.

Cheers,

- Pete

Thanks Pete,I have now done that,and will see what happens.
P.J.U.

I wonder if an organised field trip or two might be possible during the flight season? It has been done at one other landfill site with good butterfly populations (Carymoor) and happens fairly regularly at active quarries, for example for geological field trips. This would ease the health and safety worries of site management.

I am not familiar with Wrecclesham but I certainly get the impression from that it is not just good for butterflies but for other wildlife.

Isn’t there a mechanism for putting (at least a temporary) stop on developments that can harm a wild-rich locality, regardless of the ownership? Now I realise that drawing attention to this possibility might alert the owners of the sandpit. But on balance, I think it unlikely that anyone from XYZ Aggregates (or whoever) will be reading this thread.

So can any mechanism be used to stop unwanted destruction of the site before it’s too late?

Jack

Jack Harrison wrote:Isn’t there a mechanism for putting (at least a temporary) stop on developments that can harm a wild-rich locality, regardless of the ownership?

Best of luck with that, the moment the developers find out that the area is renowned for the unauthorised introduction of the Glanville. They will pass off all other fauna & flora, endangered or otherwise, as introduced.

Regards Gruditch

I take your point Gary, but what actually constitutes “unauthorised”? Introductions such as the Glanvilles at Wrecclesham might not be endorsed by Butterfly Conservation, but surely does BC have any legal clout as to what legally is and what is not allowed. BC issues sensible guidelines but they are no more than that. Or does BC have such legal power?

I’m being Devil’s Advocate here. I am not saying that I approve or disapprove of introductions. I am merely drawing attention to the words “unauthorised introductions”. Unapproved by BC yes (and maybe with good reason), but I cannot understand the concept of “unauthorised”.

Jack

I would consider any release carried out by one of our many conservation bodies, Wild Life Trust for example, to be an authorised realise. It would undoubtedly be carried out after proper scientific study, and with the land owners permission.

Not just some bloke, walking onto private land and releasing butterflies.



Regards Gruditch

Jack Harrison wrote:Isn’t there a mechanism for putting (at least a temporary) stop on developments that can harm a wild-rich locality, regardless of the ownership? Now I realise that drawing attention to this possibility might alert the owners of the sandpit. But on balance, I think it unlikely that anyone from XYZ Aggregates (or whoever) will be reading this thread.

So can any mechanism be used to stop unwanted destruction of the site before it’s too late?

Jack

It seems that money talks and development over-rules any conservation concerns or common sense. We have an ex-opencast mine that has been restored to close to how it was prior to the mining, other than it isn't currently farmed. This is the only site in East Lothian where Grayling are now found. It is also one of only two sites where Bee Orchids are found in East Lothian and is home to many other locally rare species. However, it is destined to become a new town. It also doesn't seem to matter that there is already an issue with congestion on the roads, particularly the A1 around this site, nor does it matter that the adjoining railway has no capacity for any more trains. As long as the developers can build their houses, sell them and then pack up and leave that is all that matters.

BC re brownfield site

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18513022

Note the remark:

The conservation group [BC] and the insect journal Atropos are encouraging people, where safe and legal access is possible, to explore....

Jack