Subject: The British Butterfly Conservation Society

From: Patrick Roper <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 09:35:04 +0000

Some of the points in Thomas Kral's posting of 20 March are incorrect,
perhaps because he has been mislead,  or distorted and I think it is
important to set the record straight for the benefit of other subscribers.

> I'll start by
>quoting Dr. Robert M. Pyle in the December 1995 issue of the _JOURNAL OF
>THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY, Vol 49, No. 4, page 406.
>
>"The British group Butterfly Conservation, however, has adopted an
>anti-collecting stance that has alienated and tarred many entomologists.
>I hope this sort of needless polarization can be avoided among North
>American collectors and watchers."

If Dr. Robert M. Pyle did indeed say that he is wrong and I shall be
obtaining a copy of his paper in order to deal with any inaccurate or
misleading material in the appropriate manner.

First, it needs to be pointed out that individual members of any society may
hold views that are not the policy of that society and I hope Dr. Pyle has
not taken one or two personal views as representing Butterfly Conservation
as a whole.  If he has we shall need to find out who he spoke to and what
they said.

The correct position has been fully covered by Alan Stubbs (1995) in "A
correction to Butterfly Conservation's claimed attitudes in invertebrate
conservation"  Br. J. Ent. Nat. Hist. vol 8, pt 4 171-174.  The following
comments are based partly on that account and Dr. Pyle, Thomas Kral and
others may check it if they wish. (Non-UK  readers should remember that the
society is only considering the position in Britain in formulating its
policies).

Butterfly Conservation (the shorthand name for the British Butterfly
Conservation Society) was founded over 25 years ago and, like many
conservation societies, has picked up the image that it is against all
collecting or it is accused of hypocrisy if its members are collecting.
With 10,000 members, most of whom joined because they like to see
butterflies alive, those who collect are in the minority.

Butterfly Conservation has been addressing this issue to determine where,
within its membership, the boundaries should come and its conservation
committee has devised a policy, which should be published soon.

The Butterfly Conservation guidelines closely follow the Joint Committee for
the Conservation of British Insects' (JCCBI) code on collecting, which all
leading British entomological societies have endorsed.  The code asks for
restraint with regard to scarce species, and advises there should be no
collecting at all with regard to the most vulnerable species.  The
justification for taking moths for identification and vouchers is upheld, as
indeed are such purposes within invertebrates as a whole.  The society is
somewhat tougher in that it cannot endorse the collecting of butterflies for
collecting's sake and effectively has a hands off policy with all rare and
scarce species, including scarce races etc.  The guidelines do, however,
allow for some flexibility with common species, in particular the finding
and keeping of a few caterpillars to learn about their life history.

The membership has yet to be asked to accept these guidelines and they are
therefore not official policy (which is why Dr. Pyle and Thomas Kral have
been mislead).  Alan Stubbs says "the predominant anti-collecting members
have to see the justification for taking and killing insects.  Those in
favour of some flexibility have to know that their reasonable needs, which
are necessary to support the conservation efforts via survey and study, are
understood and accepted within the society".  He goes on to say "the one
point that Butterfly Conservation has to be tougher on is butterfly
collecting, which is anathema these days in so many conservation circles.
.... there is no general justification that would hold the respect of the
conservation movement.  Anyone with particular needs ought to discuss these
openly with local conservation bodies and site owners."

I have been editor of Butterfly Conservation's members' magazine since 1990
and no general statement has been published on collecting during that period
(or before that I am specifically aware of, though I haven't trawled all
pre-1990 issues) so Dr. Pyle has not obtained his information from that
source.  The few items regarding collecting have been to do with specific
incidents.

> no-one has ever produced a specimen (proof), and recent scientific
research at Loch >Ness has debunked the myth -sounds alot like the
"overcollecting myth" regarding bug >collecting ->lots of people swear by
it, yet nobody ever proves anything!!!

Thomas, very few people in Britain (including myself)  believe the Loch Ness
Monster exists, especially if they are serious scientists and I suspect you
know that.  However, the story will run and run (aided and abetted by the
tourist industry) because it is virtually impossible to prove it does not
exist.  The point about the now extinct New Forest Burnet, Zygaena viciae
ytenensis, is that it was the view of many eminent, internationally
respected entomologists (most of whom were far from anti-collecting) that
the species was grossly overcollected and that this was threatening its very
existence.

> they talk about "witches" and that "King Arthur's band of warriors are
sleeping nearby"

It was not Neil Jones who talked about witches or King Arthur, it was me.
"Cwm gwrach", where the threatened colony of Eurodryas aurinia occurred, is
Welsh for "Valley of the Witch" and there is a local legend that King
Arthur's warriors are sleeping nearby.  My suggestion that if the colony was
disturbed the witch or the warriors might be aroused to action was what we
call in Britain "a joke".  I know there are cultural differences between
Europe and North America, but I do not believe for one moment, my dear
Thomas, that you thought I was serious.

Dr. Patrick P. Roper
Editor: Butterfly Conservation News

--
South View, Churchland Lane, Sedlescombe, East Sussex TN33 0PE, UK
Telephone: +44 (0) 1424 870208; Fax: +44 (0) 1424 870208
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Raper)
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 19:32:27 GMT

>source.  The few items regarding collecting have been to do with specific

Try 'Butterfly Conservation News' Number 49 (Autumn/Winter 1991) page
10-11 where the Director Andrew Philips gives 'the broad position of
BC' on the subject.

The article takes pains to state that it defines 'collecting' as "the
catching and killing of butterflies to set and place in a cabinet. We
are not talking here about any other insect order.....".

Or 'BC News' Number 48 (Summer 1991) page 36-41 "Conservation and
Collecting: Are they compatible?"

Where John F.Burton (a Vice-President of BC) comments: "...it is not
really justifyable nowadays to collect most Lepidoptera in the British
Isles that is, with the exception, in particular, of many of the
so-called Microlepidoptera..."

Or 'BC News" Number 46 page 8 "Collecting - Local Action (Nick Bowles
expresses, in his own forthright way, his views on collecting."

To my knowledge this article (which took the form of a featured
article rather than a letter) has no counter balance - other than a
letter to the editor in defense of collecting written by Peter Cribb
in Number 47 (Spring 1991).

Obviously some of these articles are the opinions of _some_ members of
BC and everyone is entitled to their opinions. My problem with BC now
and then was that opposite opinions were either not printed (I don't
know how many replies you got) or were not sought to balance the
argument. I would have liked to see a featured article (not a letter)
where a member from the AES (or similar) was invited to give a
response as to why they thought collecting was justified.

Thanks
Chris R.

PS: Like you Patrick, I haven't had the time to 'trawl through' all
the back issues but this was the impression I was left with at the
time.
--
All views are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer.