Re-introductions

by Rob Parker

The Role of Species Re-introductions

(Thoughts from the Suffolk Branch)

1. We believe in having a National/HQ

Butterfly Conservation policy for reintroductions, and are generally happy with che present code, although a few minor observations are offered at Annex

A. We wish HQ to play a role in advising other organisations on (or against) re-introductions in specific situations. We are ready to do likewise within Suffolk, following the same policy line. 3. We would support properly planned reintroductions that meet reasonable criteria ofhaving a fair prospect of success, whether implemented by the Branch or by some other conservation organisation, provided that a licence was obtained following due consultation with BC Conservation Office.

We unequivocally oppose unlicenced releases in circumstances that do not meet the guidelines.

4. We do not support the liberation of captive-bred stock by individuals attempting to strengthen a local population, but would prefer to know about such attempts, rather than to find that such individuals were making clandestine releases. We discourage such releases, but do not often get notification of advance intent.

5. This Branch has had recent experience of A pre-planned release by another Wildlife organisation, made after consultation with us. In this case, Silver-scudded blues 2. We want to see increased butterfly were established for a season or two at diversiry in Suffolk, as well as greater least, and we hope they will succeed, numbers of the existing resident species. despite our earlier scepticism.Random

We are presently monitoring the results sightings of non-resident species, such of the Silver-studded blue "link-up" as Swallowtail and Marbled white, were colony re-established at Aldringham probably the result of releases. As for the

Walks, but are not actively pursuing unexpected appearance, and any fresh re-introduction programmes, probable breeding of Queen of though we are keen to strengthen Spain fritillaries at populations and restore historic _.-= • - ~ _ Minsmere, we hope

distribution patterns if the right circumstances can be found. We are in I /".'. ,., ,, ,- • • • / ·• /i ~,:."' • their arrival was natural, and will be favour of habitat modification to •' , 1 •.; overjoyed if they encourage natural re-colonisation of 11' '.,/ • • become properly "lost" species, but oppose attempts to . • established. introduce species which have never ~- • \\\ been recorded from the County. '\"-,_ • • • • • • • • • • • \. "' Silver-studded Blue by Beryl Johnson

6. Such experiences leave us ready to consider a flexible, optimistic approach to individual cases, despite our inherent resistance to "unnatural practice", and the problems that releases cause for recording. Turning to the 3 "exam questions" you posed:

Responding to Enquiries. When enquiries are received about intended releases, we advise on the present ground rules (ie the BC Code}, explain why the practice is unlikely to be successful, and then seek to discourage the release, hopefully without losing contact with the enquiry. In the case of serious enquiries from SWf, RSPB etc, we would refer to BC Conservation Office to add weight to the Branch view.

Recording. Known, or suspected, releases are not accepted as County records, but are mentioned incidentally in accounts, if only to acknowledge that the insect was seen, and to anribute release as a more likely cause than natural colonisation. The recording panel investigates unusual moth records, and often rejects them, but is mindful that the real impact on County records of a few unexplained sightings is not great.

Differences of Opinion. We find we have a good consensus of approval for re-introductions which meet the criteria of the code, and are licensed. The main differences within the Committee relate to how forcefully we should act against those who disregard the code. We accept that the County Recorders deserve a louder voice than others, since they have to live with the consequences of over-enthusiastic liberations. The whole process of airing the topic in comminee has been useful. 7. These thoughts are a Committee view from the Suffolk Branch, drafted by the

Chairman and incorporating input from all members.

Rob Parker Chairman, Suffolk BC

ANNEXA

Comments on BC Policy and Code of Practice.

Terminology. The term "re-establishment" is perhaps technically better than "reintroduction" at describing the process we are discussing, but having defined it Uune 1995 Terminology), the Explanatory Notes do not use it consistently: In the title, it becomes the code on "Restoration".

In iii}, "introduction" is used.

In xii), failed "introductions" are referred to. Also "the butterfly" is cited, and "the species" would be better, catering for moths too. If the code is to be re-written, consideration should be given to using reestablishment in preference to reintroduction, and all the terms used should be defined.

Creed. It can be argued that anyone joining Bunerfly Conservation should be enrolled on the understanding that they undertake to abide by the BC Code of Practice. Such an undertaking would encourage individuals to behave responsibly, and might be worth considering as a long-term objective.