Heartening news...

[David M]

According to this BBC report, the Large Blue has had its best summer in the UK for 150 years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62674800

Of particular interest is the section where it is stated that "...In contrast, this summer conservationists counted 750,000 large blue butterfly eggs. From those, they estimated that around 20,000 butterflies flew, making the south-west of England the largest known colony in Europe."

[PhilM]

Ummm, at this moment in time all seems well. However these butterflies appear to be from imported caterpillars that originated from Sweden. They will only progress if the conditions are right for them. There is obviously a difference in the Swedish microclimate and habitats of their origin and the "improved meadows" here in the UK that they now (unwillingly) find themselves in. A risky business in many ways... we shouldn't meddle with nature any more than we already have in my view. Risky business...

[Pete Eeles]

They've been here for 39 years and adjusted to their new home decades ago!

Cheers,

- Pete

[PhilM]

Yes Pete, but they declined for a reason. Whether that be climate change, predation, loss of habitat or something else doesn't change my view that we should not be importing animals from other lands to re-populate them. I can only see more long term harm than good coming from projects as this. If the conditions are right then the appropriate species will come or re-populate of their own will if they are able to, if not - well we shouldn't try to force them. And what was the importation of caterpillars for anyway? So people could see a beautiful blue butterfly again? To balance nature? For me we should let the natural ebb and flow of nature be, as it has always has been, and not interfere. I know my view may not be a popular one but there we are, it is what I believe.

I really hope the project continues to succeed and has no detriment to the species concerned or other species of fauna or flora or their habitats. But I have my doubts with these types of projects.

All the best,
Phil.

[David Simcox]

Hi Phil,

You raise some interesting points which I will endeavour to address.

The Large blue project has been underpinned by science from the very beginning and whilst the results are generally well received, I’m always happy to answer questions. I've put your points in italics

However these butterflies appear to be from imported caterpillars that originated from Sweden.

Yes, all of the Large blues which flew in the UK this year originate from 281 caterpillars which were released onto Green Down in Somerset in 1992 from eggs collected in Sweden.

There is obviously a difference in the Swedish microclimate and habitats of their origin and the "improved meadows" here in the UK that they now (unwillingly) find themselves in.

There are differences between the Swedish microclimate and the UK, we know that because we measured them and are now monitoring annually to understand the impacts of climate change, not just on Large blues but many other associated species. Sadly, grazing has declined on the sites in Sweden where they were collected and the populations are now under threat. By comparing the DNA of UK Large blues with Swedish populations we know that the UK populations are now more genetically diverse.

Yes Pete, but they declined for a reason. Whether that be climate change, predation, loss of habitat or something else doesn't change my view that we should not be importing animals from other lands to re-populate them.

The work of my colleague, Jeremy Thomas, in the 1970s identified exactly why the butterfly had declined. The early experimental introductions tested his hypotheses – this is how science works and his results enabled the conservation of the butterfly.

I can only see more long term harm than good coming from projects as this.

You are entitled to your opinion, do you have evidence to back up this statement, could you be more specific about your concerns?

For me we should let the natural ebb and flow of nature be, as it has always has been, and not interfere.

In my opinion, this is a very fatalistic point of view but one that is becoming depressingly popular despite the fact that we are seeing a lot of ‘ebb’ and very little ‘flow’. ‘Mother Nature’, to which I think you refer, can be brutal and surely we should intervene with positive measures, that are evidence based, to help our wildlife when we can? Thankfully, other scientists in different fields have certainly thought so, hence we have vaccines for Small Pox, Covid 19 etc.

I really hope the project continues to succeed and has no detriment to the species concerned or other species of fauna or flora or their habitats.

We have been monitoring the effects of ‘Large blue management’ on other species of fauna, flora and habitats for exactly 50 years and the results are very positive – this was discussed in the press release.

Many thanks for your interest in this project and for taking the time to raise your concerns.

David Simcox
(Large blue Project Officer)

[PhilM]

Hi David,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. You are helping me see the broader picture for which I am grateful. It is difficult to shift my thoughts as they are so well engrained on this subject so your comments are appreciated.

I am glad the project is based in science, mankind can only react on the basis of fact. I enjoy science myself at an enthusiast level. I am currently reading 'The Mind Of A Bee' by Lars Chittka which is a good example of what science has achieved in learning about other species so far and the huge amount still to be discovered. However I believe that science is so good at the minutiae it is sometimes guilty of neglecting the whole.

You asked me to to be more specific about my comment "I can only see more long term harm than good coming from projects as this."

I have many concerns. Specifically, regarding the Large Blue project, the butterfly became extinct in the UK last century. Someone decided they should try to bring it back. Some areas of English countryside were modified to suite the species. Eggs from Sweden were used to populate these areas with caterpillars. The caterpillars progressed to adulthood, bred and established colonies of Large Blue butterflies throughout part of Britain with a Swedish lineage. At all times the situation was carefully monitored. The microclimate in Sweden was different to that in England as were the habitats. Scientists could not have known for sure at the time whether the imported caterpillars would have a negative effect on the ecology. There was a risk of some sort of upset, even if at the time it was unseen. Other organisms in the 'improved' English habitats may have been affected in some way, even though that may be undetected so far. The BBC bulletin reports the Large Blue (Swedish now English) colonies are the largest in Europe. That wasn't the case before science intervened. So the intervention has already changed things. What happens if they keep growing in numbers? Hypothetically, they could become an invasive pest species. Then more money with more interventions are needed in order to control them. More micro-habits are altered, more native species suffer. And what else is waiting in the wings ( ) maybe? To me, the risks, however small are not worth taking. Why did we decide to bring back the Large Blue butterfly, despite its beauty? What was the reason? What is the benefit? Perhaps you could explain that to me, so I understand more?

My wider point is this. Mother Nature in all her magnificence has admirably advanced over countless millennia. Species go extinct, others evolve. Until mankind decided to try and control her, she had done a pretty good job. We still haven't learned to step aside and not interfere. What we should be doing is conserving our existing habitats now, as they are, and -most importantly- we should educate, educate, educate. Conserve for now and for the future. Don't try to bring back species that have become extinct in a country already, that is nature acting in a way that she has always done and we shouldn't meddle with it.

One sentence in your reply really worries me David. It is this:

‘Mother Nature’, to which I think you refer, can be brutal and surely we should intervene with positive measures, that are evidence based, to help our wildlife when we can?

No, I really don't think we should. We are just another species that is a tiny part of all the nature there is on this planet. Mankind seems to have forgotten that. We are just an ape. The badge for the most developed species on Earth probably belongs to the Hymenopterans, but that discussion belongs elsewhere. We are suffering because of our misplaced 'superior' views. It is not up to us to interfere with nature as if we are some God-like creature, as if we are more wise than our fellow species that we share the planet with, some of which have millions of more generations of evolution to their credit. Nature is brutal, she has to be, the brutality of nature is evolution. We should NOT intervene. Leave nature alone and she will flourish.

I know we have opposing views in some respects but that is good. Science and progression thrive on debate. As I said in my opening sentences you have helped me see a bigger picture, and I thank-you for that, but my core beliefs remain the same.

Best Wishes,
Phil Morland.

[David Simcox]

Hi Phil,

Many thanks for your reply.
Ultimately, I think we will have to ‘agree to disagree’ on some of these issues. I certainly don’t see it as my role to try and change your, or anyone else’s, core beliefs but I am happy to answer questions about the Large blue project. With that in mind, you state:

Someone decided they should try to bring it back.

The decision was taken by representatives from several organisations meeting under the auspices of the Large Blue Butterfly Conservation Committee. They included two government agencies: the Institute of Terrestial Ecology (now Centre of Ecology and Hydrology), and the Nature Conservancy Council (now Natural England), together with wildlife charities including the Royal Society for Nature Conservation (now the Wildlife Trusts), the National Trust and the Royal Entomological Society.

Why did we decide to bring back the Large Blue butterfly, despite its beauty? What was the reason? What is the benefit?

It is worth noting that by the late 1970s Large blues were declining right across the whole of Europe and other rare butterflies in Britain were feared to be on the verge of extinction. Of particular concern, many species were disappearing from nature reserves in the UK which had been established to protect them.

Owing to its complex life-cycle, the Large blue was considered to be the most difficult to conserve and that if it was possible to do so, then much could be learnt which would help other species.

By utilising the ground-breaking research of the Large blue’s ecology and habitat requirements conducted by Jeremy Thomas, by systematic monitoring in the field and by working with a variety of conservation organisations, a blueprint for conserving Large blues emerged which is being continually tested both in the UK and in Europe.

Similar strategies have also led to other species recovering.

Many people think this has been, and is, a worthwhile exercise but clearly not all.

Your standpoint suggests that I am unlikely to bump into you on a Large blue site next year but if we did, I would be more than happy to continue our discussion.

Kind regards

David

[PhilM]

Hi David,

Thank you for your honest and comprehensive answer. I do respect your views and what you and others have done but, as you point out, I have opposing views in some areas and hope you respect mine. You are right when you say that you are not likely to see me on the Large Blue sites, I do however wish you and your colleagues well.

Thanks again,
Phil Morland.

[Mark Tutton]

I for one would like to thank David for giving such a comprehensive reply and for the efforts of the Large Blue Butterfly Conservation committee in getting this butterfly established back in the UK.
It is my understanding that it was mostly human influences that tipped the Large Blue over the precipice - destroying sites by ploughing and seeding and excessive collecting of valuable specimens by over zealous collectors. It was sad that the understanding of the butterflies specialised habitat requirements came just too late, shortly after the last butterflies were lost in Devon.
I have been delighted, to see this butterfly at four different sites, and fortunate to have had some fascinating discussions with some of the scientists who continue to study this butterfly and it’s habitat. These revealed that we are still learning much about its ecology and associated requirements, not only to the Large Blues benefit but to many other species as well.

Kind Regards
Mark

[David M]

Indeed, Mark. A pleasure to read David's comments and our thanks should continue to be extended to the entire team for the work that has been done to make this reintroduction such a resounding success. It is seen as a 'gold standard' project and the fact that it is now confidently claimed that arion is more numerous in the south west of England than anywhere else in Europe is evidence that almost four decades of painstaking investment of time and resources have paid colossal dividends.

Where human activity/behaviour has been responsible for local extinctions, I am very much in favour of reintroduction schemes, and support the Chequered Skipper project in much the same way as I support the Large Blue one.

Would be great if we could get Large Copper back successfully too.

[PhilM]

it is now confidently claimed that arion is more numerous in the south west of England than anywhere else in Europe

Yes, but it was eutyphron that was in Britain before the intervention. Now we indeed do have arion. I liken this to the Victorians introducing vast numbers of Spanish bluebell. Many of bluebells we see in the countryside today are of the Spanish variety Hyacinthoides hispanica, not the native British bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta.

[Catteraxe]

For a number of years Green Down has been claiming, via published material, that it boats the most Large Blues anywhere in the world.

A quote from its website "Green Down and the surrounding railway cutting has the highest density of large blue in the world".

The fact that we have them will always be a bone of contention. Personally I view the incumbent Swedish species as an introduction rather than a re-introduction but still happy to see and photograph them.

Kevin.

[NickC]

Yes, but it was eutyphron that was in Britain before the intervention. Now we indeed do have arion. I liken this to the Victorians introducing vast numbers of Spanish bluebell. Many of bluebells we see in the countryside today are of the Spanish variety Hyacinthoides hispanica, not the native British bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta.

I do not think that is a fair comparison; eutyphron and arion are different subspecies, but the bluebells you mention are different species.

[PhilM]

I understand your point Nick. I would like to try and put my view on the things this debate has raised more concisely.

Conservation means to conserve things, protect them as they are, not to alter them. The Large Blue project is an Intervention. Intervention means to alter things to suit a particular goal. Somewhere along the line some conservationists have changed what conservation means in their minds and have become interventionists. I can understand why: historically (those Victorians again) we introduced hundreds of flora or fauna species because we liked to look at them or wanted to be one up on our neighbours. A good number of these introductions have now, much later, caused problems in nature. It was not the Victorians fault, they did not understand the damage that could come later, they only saw the positives (somewhat similar to what the Industrial Revolution has done for us). In the 1970s conservation as a science was a fairly new endeavour and we did what we thought was right at the time. But we now know differently, yet some still stick to old ideals and methods. I have 100% admiration for true conservationists, people that conserve our precious flora, fauna and ecosystems. But some interventionists, wrongly in my view, still see themselves as conservationists. Mankind has no right to intervene with the natural coarse of evolution. Only nature can do that. It is time to delineate conservation and intervention more clearly and and stop intervening, before a catastrophe happens. We have had enough failed introductions, warnings which we can all recall and, to me at least, it is time to stop intervening and concentrate more on true conserving. Leave nature alone and she will flourish.

[bugboy]

This is an interesting and thought-provoking thread which has helped to cement my feelings on the subject. I am personally firmly in favour of re-introductions when it’s based on solid scientific facts and carefully monitored to ensure there are no long-lasting negative impacts.

In a perfect world I wholeheartedly agree with PhilM’s views, however, that’s not the world we live in. Mother nature is being constantly and increasingly battered from all angles and I think to stand back now and expect mother nature to sort things out herself is fundamentally wrong, even naïve. Where humans are responsible for the destruction/local extinction and nature is unable to repair without our help, then surely it’s our responsibility to step in. The Large blues did indeed decline for a reason, almost all due to human activity. I’m curious, if one UK population of Large Blue had survived and that had been used to repopulate other previously extinct sites would we be having the same conversation? Is it just because they’re from a different country, a purely human construct?

I must take issue at some of the words used by PhilM though, which often appear in discussions such as these to elicit human emotions (no suggestion that this is deliberate in this case). As harsh as it is to most human societies, our emotions don’t really have much place in conservation, you only have to watch one animal eating another to realise this! Nature is, well nature and to use the word ‘Unwillingly’ for example when referring to their transport to their new home suggests that they would care in some way that they are now living in south-west England rather than Sweden.

The term ‘improved Meadows’ genuinely bemuses me. For the Large Blue to flourish the sites aren’t ‘improved’, they’ve been reverted back to how they were, I.e. a wildlife rich ecosystem where mother nature is largely allowed to do her own thing. By getting the management right for the LB, it’s also right for countless other species which require the same habitat, I’m always amazed at the sheer density of butterflies at these sites (which by default means other taxa will be at similar densities), they’ve not been ‘improved’ they’ve been put back to the point where mother nature is able to look after them with only minimal human intervention (grazing at the appropriate time with the appropriate animals.)

I really hope the project continues to succeed and has no detriment to the species concerned or other species of fauna or flora or their habitats. But I have my doubts with these types of projects.

This sentence suggests that the Large Blue is somehow an alien invader. They’re not, as a species they are meant to be there, the habitat they’ve been introduced into is their habitat as much as it is all the other fauna and flora that live there, they’re filling a niche left empty due to their extinction. Now you could argue that mother nature will evolve to fill the niche and yes, left to her own devices I totally agree but unfortunately as I said at the start that’s not the world we live in.

I don’t really see how a re-introduction can be described as an intervention: UK large blues were happily evolving for a few thousand years: humans came along and caused their extinction: More humans realised the mistake and put them back: UK large Blues continue evolving (which the monitoring is proving). The point here is the original native stock didn’t materialise out of nowhere, it colonised from continental stock after the last ice age. I also think it’s perfectly right and acceptable to refer to the Large Blues currently in the UK as ‘UK large Blues’. (No one complains about our naturally occurring migrants being referred to as UK Red Admirals/Painted Ladies/Clouded Yellows/Long-tailed Blues etc etc) This takes me back to my previous point of would we be having this discussion if the re-introduced stock wasn’t foreign? It’s only foreign by human standards. I do think as an island nation we get a little too hung up over the difference between our native stock and that from our neighbouring countries. (that’s not to say that given the option we shouldn’t choose native stock over non-native, but only if the science backs this up).

Whilst I agree that past human meddling with mother nature was wrong (only a fool wouldn’t), incorporating introductions in modern conservation techniques is fundamentally the right thing to do. Without doing this we are missing a major part of what conservation truly is, we’ve learnt so much by doing it, lessons which have helped stop further extinction happening. Indeed conservation without the introduction of extinct species isn’t conservation at all, it’s just keeping the status quo which actually, when you think about it, goes against mother nature and evolution. Of course there’s a risk but to stand back, knowing full well where we went wrong in the past, and assuming mother nature can cope is far riskier.

Anyway, that’s my tuppence worth

[PhilM]

Hi Paul, and others,

I've just spent the best part of an hour posting my reply to Paul (bugboy) and others, submitted it only to find I'd been logged out and lost it all to the ether. Such is life.

The gist was that I addressed some of Paul's (who, I admire greatly) comments in a positive way to clarify my viewpoint further. I've come to the sad conclusion that UKB forums are probably not the place for me to air my (strong) beliefs on conservation matters and that there is not much else for me here either, as I can't get out and about to photograph butterflies due to my restricted physical abilities. I do however think that Peter (Eeles) is doing a great job in bringing UK butterflyers together, and that there is no better forum for butterfly enthusiasts in the UK. Best wishes to everyone here, especially those that I've chatted with. Bugboy was one of the best of all.

Signing off UKB,
Best wishes,
Phil.

[bugboy]

Hi Paul, and others,

I've just spent the best part of an hour posting my reply to Paul (bugboy) and others, submitted it only to find I'd been logged out and lost it all to the ether. Such is life.

The gist was that I addressed some of Paul's (who, I admire greatly) comments in a positive way to clarify my viewpoint further. I've come to the sad conclusion that UKB forums are probably not the place for me to air my (strong) beliefs on conservation matters and that there is not much else for me here either, as I can't get out and about to photograph butterflies due to my restricted physical abilities. I do however think that Peter (Eeles) is doing a great job in bringing UK butterflyers together, and that there is no better forum for butterfly enthusiasts in the UK. Best wishes to everyone here, especially those that I've chatted with. Bugboy was one of the best of all.

Signing off UKB,
Best wishes,
Phil Morland.

Hi Phil, hopefully you'll still see this. Sorry you've decided to leave and I do hope you change your mind. Your posts have added variety to the forum since you joined and were in no way unwelcome.