www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Kinda like myself Seth but I've just given a polite answer and that'll be the end of it for me as I have better things to do currently.

Martin, when you say "introduction of non-native strains" into regions such as Japan, do you mean strains of species already present or are you introducing new species into these areas?
I would have thought that even the introduction of a new genetic strain of a species would be illegal in many countries.

Martin clearly knows his “stuff” and his results speak for themselves. I make no judgement on the ethics (and indeed legality) of his methods – I leave that to others. He uses some scientific terms that are frankly a little beyond me.

But I do have to ask one question – doubtless others have been wondering the same but are too polite to ask.

“Martin: what is your scientific/entomological background and what academic qualifications (if any) do you have?”

Jack

Paul Wetton wrote: Lets keep our fingers crossed that long term effects of these introductions continue to profit the species involved.

Anyone with any examples where the long term effects of such introductions havn't profited the species involved? Any species?

Martin

Pete Eeles wrote:Without specifics it's difficult to comment since any concern would be largely species-specific.

Criteria-specific, yes, which makes it a lot easier to understand. But, considering one answer invariably leads to a whole host of further questions, I'll decline to answer this one for the time being.

Martin

Pete Eeles wrote: I do agree with Paul's sentiments, that introducing non-native genes artificially into the gene pool (without good reason and good planning) is arguably a high-risk strategy since there could (I imagine) be the prospect of any introduction having a negative effect, as well as positive.

I agree with Pete, mine is a high risk strategy with potentially disastrous results, but not possibly in the way Pete imagines. Again, I would need examples of where the adding of non-native genes (either artificially or otherwise) has had a negative effect on any species. What I would do if I were you would be to argue that breeders could easily do irrevocable harm by the improper use of antibiotics, with the potential of adding a "super-bug" to the enviornment with catastrophic results. Then I might listen.

Martin

Pete Eeles wrote: I could understand doing this when a species is on its last legs - such as the Cumbrian Marsh Fritillary being crossed with stock from other regions, or when reintroducing a species that has been lost altogether (e.g. Large Blue from Sweden, Chequered Skipper from France, Large Copper from the Netherlands)

I approached The Nature Conservancy Council [now Natural England] (Caroline Peachey [Steel]) regarding the Cumbrian Marsh Fritillary nearly thirty years ago when the county still had six colonies. My suggestion was to take a small number of post-hibernation larvae from each remaining site, cross them together and re-enforce each colony with the resulting progeny (as if, were it not for mankind's fragmentation of suitable habitat, the sites would be able for natural spread). This idea was recieved with the same sort of reverence as a very loud fart at the vicarage during high-tea. Crossing them with Scottish examples to "save the Cumbria race", as then happened, would most definitely not have been necessary.

Martin

Pete Eeles wrote:, but would hate to see the "races" that have adapted to the environment in the British Isles over tens of thousands of years disappear as a result of genetic experimentation!

So would I, but, at most, only just slightly over one lot of ten thousand years, surely? Maybe you mean generations, not years?

Although, I would admit to answering these statements myself without the use of a spell or grammar-checker, so please forgive my mistakes!

Martin

Pete Eeles wrote:Given your experience, Martin, I'm sure you're more careful than that!? I'd also be interested in the purpose of introducing non-native strains both in Britain and elsewhere

I think you've pretty much already answered this one yourself.

Martin

Pete Eeles wrote:- or since you mention global warming, the evidence that suggests certain species need help adjusting to this.

Bottle-necked colonies certainly do. For evidence look no further than Mountain Ringlets moving higher up mountains. Whats happens when their ecological requirements are higher than the mountains they inhabit? You could move them to higher [uninhabited] mountains. Or adjust their genetic tolerance so this includes lower stratum? I can already think of one very good [reasonably easy] way of doing this. Can anyone else?

Martin

Paul Wetton wrote:Martin, when you say "introduction of non-native strains" into regions such as Japan, do you mean strains of species already present or are you introducing new species into these areas?
I would have thought that even the introduction of a new genetic strain of a species would be illegal in many countries.

I have helped in these introductions, not actually undertaken them myself. I might well advise or provide the stock, but the legality of these particular introductions is clearly not my responsibility, nor is the fact the I am constantly ignored. On the subject of legality, I never treat the law with any greater contempt than that with which the law treats itself.

Martin

David M wrote:Bugger the etiquette. This guy has much knowledge to offer and I personally love reading it.

Historically, those who were abnormally unorthodox often made the greatest contribution to political and social change.

Maybe I could get a small part on TV?

Martin

Jack Harrison wrote:Martin clearly knows his “stuff” and his results speak for themselves. I make no judgement on the ethics (and indeed legality) of his methods – I leave that to others. He uses some scientific terms that are frankly a little beyond me.

But I do have to ask one question – doubtless others have been wondering the same but are too polite to ask.

“Martin: what is your scientific/entomological background and what academic qualifications (if any) do you have?”

Jack

Wherever possible I try to write so that I am intelligible to an average eight year old. Or intelligible to myself as I was at this age. It is certainly my fault that you do not understand some of my “scientific terms”. Perhaps you could send me a list of the terms you don’t understand for me to try and explain or for me to try and use better examples in future. All my qualifications are in horticulture. Almost as good as some of Matthew Oates’. I do not wish to brag about my entomological background suffice to say that if you believe my results (most don’t) then surely this should speak volumes in itself. I would, however, like you to know that my science is fundamentally different from the orthodox version. While orthodox science tries to prove what it thinks to be true, mine doesn’t. It likes to prove what is true, irrelevant of what I may or may not like to believe. I’ve never been known to fall in love with any of my theories, and they end up in the rubbish bin faster than meat off Jack Sprat’s plate if they’ve proven faulty. All in all; you’ll find the average scientist would find it somewhat offensive to include me amongst their fraternity. Personally speaking, I cannot disassociate between the ludicrous natures of both religion and orthodox science, each appear to me to be opposite sides of the same human neurosis. But please let’s keep this one between ourselves.

Martin

In my opinion introductions can be a god send for example the Large Blue but I think we will all agree that introductions can also be extremely dangerous not only to the established natives of said species but also other critters in the ecosystem. As you said Martin yours is a high risk stategy.

I therefore, agree that in certain circumstances we probably should be introducing or more specifically re-introducing species. I think that protocol of some sort should be followed and if so this should be a protocol designed by the so called experst, ecologists, butterfly experts etc and I would include you in this catagory Martin as you are an expert breeder and have thorough knowledge of butterfly ecology (I assume).

I do not think that releasing butterflies throughout the countryside is correct and in my opinion should be discouraged, even when much thought has gone into a release. As I said this is my personal opinion but I feel the need to state it here. My reasoning is partly that no one has the right to play god beleiving purely in their own ability and that there thinking and science is correct and also the long term effects are never known and thus restraint should be practiced. Your high risk strategy may be disastrous for a population or even a species but not to yourself so it is not you that is really taking the risk.

I would like other people from UKButterflies to express their own personal opinions in this thread as I would like to hear what others have to say on this subject.

Thanks to all .

...opposite sides of the same human neurosis.

WTF does that mean?

Jack

Martin, do you act autonomously because you get frustrated by bureaucracy and officialdom when dealing with recognised conservation bodies?

As someone who works for the government, I myself get irritated by the hoops you sometimes have to jump through in order to get something done which, ostensibly, appears straightforward.

Often, the minutae rather than the major issues cause the problem, as well as the obsession with things going through the right channels and being appropriately sanctioned by those of suitable 'grade'.

I often think if we were dealing with a forest fire, by the time the 'i's had been dotted and the 't's crossed, the whole area would have already burned down, but at least we'd be able to reassure ourselves that our original plan to deal with it had been properly thought through!

I have to agree that some people appear to judge others, not by what they see in front of them, but by the initials they can see after.....
Which, for people who have devoted far more years in the field, accumulating and absorbing knowledge as they go, than some who do indeed have letters after their name, can be a real problem.
Especially if those, with letters, dismiss those without, out-of-hand! Had Martin's idea for Cumbrian Marsh Frits been accepted, it may have averted the situation he described; I can appreciate the frustration! (As DavidM acknowledges, dealing with authority does not necessarily mean that the right decisions are taken for the right reasons - using his analogy, one might say that Butterfly Conservation could be accused of being more interested in delivering proof of a decline, than taking active measures to halt that decline......)

But back to the thread; I too have to express concern that UK species should be allowed to continue, so far as possible, without genes from other European ssp's.
Of course, with our small and isolated populations, a UK-based genetic mixing would be preferable to extinction.....or would it?
As we have seen, species can change their behaviour and food-plants locally when faced with challenges.

Do we feel we have the right to interfere?

... or is it, we can, so we are going to do it, because we can?

I do have issues of a moral nature with this!
Specially GM'd butterflies to fit the niches we have left them with?

Paul Wetton wrote: but I think we will all agree that introductions can also be extremely dangerous not only to the established natives of said species but also other critters in the ecosystem. As you said Martin yours is a high risk stategy.

Again, I would like examples of supposed extremely dangerous introductions to natives and other critters, as I doubt very much this is something you actually believe. What you seem to be bigoted in favour is the extremely dangerous practice of habitat mismanagement which does badly affect the genetic balance and extinction of other critters somewhat immediately. Bigots and especially hypocrites make extremely poor Devil’s Advocates with such an extremely biased viewpoint. Your argument for a high risk strategy would be better served if you could spell strategy correctly. You talk out of your AH.

Martin

Whilst I attempt to understand others' views in this thread, even if they are contrary to my own, I find that exchanges work best if the participants stick to reasoned debate, rather than resort to personal insults. This usually signifies either that someone is loosing an argument, or is unable to articulate fully what they are trying to say; charitably I put Martin into the latter category for his last outburst.

Martin, you undoubtedly bring with you a great knowledge to this forum; however, your behaviour is not befitting of this forum, sadly.....

Paul, I feel, is perfectly justified to expect an apology for, what I can see, is unwarranted abuse.

Paul Wetton wrote:no one has the right to play god beleiving purely in their own ability and that there thinking and science is correct and also the long term effects are never known and thus restraint should be practiced. Your high risk strategy may be disastrous for a population or even a species but not to yourself so it is not you that is really taking the risk.

The idiots at Butterfly Conservation play God all the time, believing utterly in their own ability, with habitat [mis]management (and with no risks to themselves). The long term effects are known and restraint after any episode of complete and utter stinking stupidity is never practiced. This has been (no maybe about it) disastrous for numerous butterfly populations, with their supporting ecology wholly destroyed, yet I bet you’ll remain forever with a cork up your AH on this one. There is absolutely not one scrap of evidence to suggest the long term effects of my introductions will have any disastrous results and plenty of evidence to suggest the complete opposite. Assuming one of my colonies does die out and somehow wipe from existence its supporting ecology at some point in the remote future, as you seem to be advocating, then surely this is far better than having no butterflies or ecology in the interim. Disbelief in my theories, by no matter how many people, will never stop them from actually working, and this, I believe, is what you find truly offensive.

Martin