Apologies for what has turned out to be a very long post - but I'm sure you won't read it if you're not really interested!
My reasons for feeling that the passages I quoted in my earlier post are so bad are twofold. First, in the light of this full definition, it doesn't distinguish between temporary capture and specimen-taking. Collectors like the one we're discussing can use the code's arguments that you & I might only apply to the former, to justify the latter in their own minds. Second, the old code clearly paints those who wish to object to collection as 'the bad guys' (e.g. describing some of them as having 'agendas', suggesting that some of them may be prone to using violence, asking that their behaviour be noted down). Those words don't seem to me to be open to misinterpretation, particularly if you are aware of the context in which the code was drawn up.
If you read some of the supporting material in BDS publications from around the time you'll get a good idea of what the BDS was trying to do with the old version of the code. It was drawn up as part of of public rebuke to the people at Penlee who objected to Philip Corbet's behaviour. To me, the BDS over-reacted, and their 2004-2009 code increased the risk of bad collecting practice (the 2009 revision of the code feels like a recognition of that on their part).
Fair points, and I am broadly aware of the details of the Green Darner incident (the details that were published anyway), and the arguments expressed by various parties at the time. I would still be prepared to argue (perhaps incorrectly?) that any organisation facing the possibility of objections like this has justifiable reasons for asking for the behaviour of objectors to be reported to the relevant commitee members (who will then be able to consider the reactions noted when deciding whether, and how, policies/guidlines should be changed to best suit the wishes/needs of
all parties). As for the potential threat of violence - If you read through this forum thread you will find that several bird forum members have at least implied that they would take physical action in such a situation (and if any of these members are serious about this I hope that they don't automatically assume the worst if they ever come across someone netting dragonflies and take 'action' without finding out what is actually happening).
I believe that limited collecting is not necessarily harmfull, if it is done for a scientific purpose or for providing a voucher specimen. No one has yet offered any evidence to show that the 'collector' concerned has not taken for one of those purposes.
It is true that the killing of a voucher specimen, or specimens for scientific research, is not necessarily harmful. Insect populations, even small ones, typically contain relatively large numbers of individuals, with a high natural mortality rate - and, in the case of the larger dragonflies, only a fraction of these are likely to be seen at any part of a site at any one time.
I am pleased to see that there seems to be general acceptance that the killing of some specimens may sometimes still be necessary for the serious study of many insects (even if this is found to be distasteful by many). Any entomologist that is seen to be taking specimens should be able to give a reasonable explanation of the reason why they need to do this, and at least a brief account of what they hope to learn (exact details of the latter may be withheld by some simply because they do not want information released before they publish, but they should be able to reveal enough to show that the research is genuine). Remember that for some other invertebrate groups specimens are still needed for accurate identification.
Whether voucher specimens of out of place migrants, and first county or regional records of odonata species is clearly debatable. Many species have increased their distribution in Britain during recent years, and I very much doubt that voucher specimens have been collected (or requested) to prove this. My personal opinion is certainly that it is unnecessary, and photographs should be provided instead (these should then ideally be published in journals, magazines etc. so that evidence of the occurences has the best possible chance of remaining available to future generations). Admittedly photographs may not be useful for all purposes, and if Aeshna affinis is found to be two almost identical species in the future it may not be possible to identify which occurred without a specimen - but what would really be gained from that potential knowledge?
Attitudes to the killing of specimens of easily identifiable species are changing, and (IMO) this is reflected in the revised code of practice of the BDS (and also the code of practice published by Butterfly Conservation). As our understanding of identification grows it will no doubt gradually change for other invertebrate groups as well.
With regard to the specific incident that this thread is concerned with (the Hadleigh SMH), there is IMO very little chance of anything at all being gained from a voucher specimen - and I can think of nothing worthwhile that could be discovered from a specimen that would justify the damage caused by public opinion to scientific collection in general. It is naive for anyone to take the view that museum collections are no longer necessary (and I don't think anyone has said that on here?), and as they are still useful it may sometimes still be necessary for specimens to be collected. Of course, anyone who is genuinely collecting on behalf of, and with the knowledge of, an institution like the Natural History Museum [formerly the British Museum (natural history)], will be keen to avoid any incident that will tarnish the reputation of that institution - even if it means failing to collect the desired specimen.
Similarly, taking a single specimen of a migratory species of dragonfly which has little chance of establishing itself here is not in my opinion going to be a major catastrophy.
The fact that the taking of a single specimen is realistically unlikely to have a lasting effect on the chance of colonisation is not the issue here, however it is perhaps easy to understand that any small chance that there is for the species to become established, is reduced slightly everytime a specimen is taken (and if there is no objection to one collector taking a specimen then doesn't that imply that it is Ok for others to do the same?).
I hope that all those who have read and contributed to this thread also take note of the comments about the possible damage that can be caused to habitats, and their invertebrate populations, by accidental trampling or ignorance of the potential damage they may be causing. Irresponsible behaviour at a dragonfly twitch could potentially cause more damage to sensitive sites than the taking of a single specimen (not that I'm supporting the latter). I'm sure that many of those who have read this thread will be keen to do all they can to stop a collector at any future twitch - I would suggest that this vigilance should be extended to photographers and others who may be causing damage to the habitat (although I'm not suggesting thatany action should be taken other than explaning the harm they may be doing and asking them to step back!).
Roy.
