<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18702"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>>>>Since this thread began a week ago, US population has increased
by 60,000. That is 1.2 million more acres (1,800 square miles) of habitat
disruption: 500,000 acres in the US and 700,000 acres outsourced. The total area
mentioned is double the area of Champaign County,
Illinois. <<<</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It seems to me that this sort of extrapolation is unreasonable.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Some "facts" gleaned from Google searches:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_acres_of_land_are_in_the_world">How
many acres of land are in the world</A> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The land are of the earth is about 148,940,000 km² , or about 57,491,000
mi<SUP>2</SUP> or about 36,794,240,000 acres. <BR><A
href="http://one-simple-idea.com/Environment1.htm">Population and Arable
Land</A> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>However, there are only <B>12</B> million square miles
(<B>7.68</B> billion acres) of <B><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land">arable</A></B> land.</FONT>
</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana><A
href="http://one-simple-idea.com/Environment1.htm">Population and Arable
Land</A> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>The <B>U.S.</B> has <B>3.794</B> million square miles,
of which <B>3.54</B> million square miles is land area (for a fast growing U.S.
population of <B><A
title="U.S. Population growing by about 5 million per year !"
href="http://one-simple-idea.com/PopulationUS.gif" target=_blank>300 million
people</A></B> as of the end of year 2006).<BR>That is only <B>8.09</B> acres
per person in the <B>U.S.</B><BR>However, only about a quarter of that is arable
land.<BR>That means there are only about <B>2.02</B> acres per person of arable
land in the U.S.</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=World+Land+Area+in+Acres&domains=mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu&sitesearch=#hl=en&sugexp=les%3Bcrnk_timediscountb&gs_rn=3&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=Public%20Land%20Acreage%20in%20the%20Uni&pq=world%20land%20area%20in%20acres&cp=40&gs_id=3m&xhr=t&q=Public%20Land%20Acreage%20in%20the%20United%20States&es_nrs=true&pf=p&domains=mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Public+Land+Acreage+in+the+United+States&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42553238,d.b2I&fp=a2243397dc2002ce&biw=924&bih=549">public
land acreage in the united states - Google Search</A> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=st>The federal government owns 655 million
<STRONG>acres</STRONG> of land in the <STRONG>U.S.</STRONG>, 29% of the total
2.3 billion <STRONG>acres</STRONG>.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am not sure whether Military lands or Indian lands are included in the
655 million acres cited above.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is not reasonable to assume that each new person born into or arriving
in the United States "requires" the average number of acres attributed per
capita at any given time. We will not be adding to the inventory of
government held lands, waste spaces, etc. Nor will we be doing it anywhere
else. The "footprint" of each new person on the planet or in the United
States eats into and decreases the averages.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10">Bob
Patterson<BR>12601 Buckingham Drive<BR>Bowie, Maryland 20715<BR>(301) - 262-2459
pm. hours<BR><A
href="http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/Plates.shtml">Moth Photographers
Group Website</A><U><BR><A
href="http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/Files1/Live/BP/BPsite/identified.shtml">My
Personal Moths Website</A><BR>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 2/17/2013 4:52:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mexicodoug@aol.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>Thanks
Jim, Thanks Dennis,<BR><BR>I'm saddened to hear this. I also think a
reasonable interpretation <BR>could attribute this to the farming practices,
and if everything is <BR>sitting in the middle of the corn varieties bred to
have herbicide <BR>tolerance ... it doesn't take a genius to have at least a
little <BR>confidence as to the causal relationship with the change in farming
<BR>technique.<BR><BR>I don't have the same sensitivity to this issue as
you. In my case it <BR>is simply an empty feeling that accompanies the
continued loss of <BR>biodiversity in some place far away while I have my own
set of <BR>ecological problems closer to the heart. So it is with the
due respect <BR>of not living with it in my backyard that I ask your
indulgence to <BR>think about my comments.<BR><BR>First, the good; I want to
congratulate you both on dedicating your <BR>time to insects that in the
public perception are probably <BR>insignificant, drab little skippers which
get about as much respect as <BR>moths in musty closet. I personally
find miniature skippers <BR>marvelously exquisite and certainly more
intellectually challenging <BR>than Monarchs sans the migration
phenomenon. You are presenting first <BR>hand data which when combined
with other species statistics gives us a <BR>more concrete measuring stick of
ecological health by not picking some <BR>"pretty" generalized ecological
indicator. Far more useful for <BR>scientific analysis to describe the
rate the ecosystem is declining.<BR><BR>Next, the bad: As scientific, the
hypothesis that it is Bt corn (or <BR>whatever the hypothesis) needs to be
tested rather than conveniently <BR>assumed as I did in my first paragraph, I
want to be sure that I am <BR>properly interpreting the loss in its context.
Are these species at the <BR>fringe of their ranges and is there any other
explanation we should <BR>rule out? The edge of a USDA type zone which
breathes cyclically? And <BR>was this land the robust natural habitat
for these skippers before the <BR>farmers came on to the scene ... or was
their appearance likely <BR>prompted by prior farming techniques which altered
the ecosystem and <BR>gave them the cornfield-niche in the first place?
There are more <BR>considerations I'm sure you've both though about, and it is
a very <BR>healthy discussion to go through them as the due diligence of
<BR>presenting unbiased statements.<BR><BR>Finally, the ugly: I hope anyone
reading this knows that my question <BR>was not whether the test-tube bred
corn was detrimental to habitat. It <BR>was whether the Bt-Corn pollen,
is killing the larvae as the Cornell <BR>study said it would and was used
indiscriminately under what would be <BR>pseudoscientific pretences to create
anarchy in the agricultural <BR>industry and all of its dependents 12-15 years
ago, and was still <BR>kicking and screaming 10 years ago. If it didn't,
I'm relieved but <BR>need to re-evaluate the reputation of those who jumped on
this <BR>bandwagon and see whether they fudged their research techniques for
the <BR>purpose distorting truth and advancing an agenda. Please don't
think <BR>I'm supporting the use of these agricultural techniques. I
need <BR>Bt-corn in my zone as much as I want to live next to a garbage
dump. <BR>But a balanced approach is imperative where scientific
credibility is <BR>not abused by those who prey on the ignorance of the public
perception <BR>because they feel they have a superior moral calling.
There is no room <BR>in science for Popes. In Sagan's words - there are
no "scientific <BR>authorities", just a method and to that I would add a
scholarly conduct <BR>which is as old as science itself, when it branched off
from philosophy <BR>and religion.<BR><BR>Epilogue: In a country where less
than 2% of the population is <BR>interested in doing commercial farming and
land is being gobbled up at <BR>IMO truly alarming rates due to unfettered
population growth which is <BR>transparently demonstrable (I'm an alarmist!
;-) , it is not surprising <BR>to me that ecological niches are
decreasing. I fail to see how a small <BR>group of elite and affluent
find terrorizing technology a moral calling <BR>rather than utilizing
systematic approaches to optimizing what we <BR>have...and going back to the
basics of the 1960's ZPG population growth <BR>models. The current
national model of the USA is growth, growth, <BR>growth - for everything from
collecting taxes, to growing business and <BR>government, increasing
infrastructure, and just about everything else. <BR>I would expect to
lose niches along the way since these political <BR>pressures for growth
require that agriculture becomes more efficient as <BR>the industry is asked
to grow more food with less acreage and manpower. <BR>The fact that the
corn-belt is looking more like a factory is one <BR>visible manifestation of
this. If the glass is half empty, I'd just <BR>say, let’s all move to
the Sierra foothills of California and Oregon, <BR>and then north to
Alaska. But if it is half full, just involve the <BR>community and share
the beauty of nature in a positive manner to <BR>support a culture of
appreciation instead of finger pointing which will <BR>only turn people off
from scientists and the scientific method in <BR>general. Provide
unbiased statistics and have people miss nature <BR>instead of run away from
the scientific alarmists, infidels and <BR>priests. Since this thread
began a week ago, US population has <BR>increased by 60,000. That is 1.2
million more acres (1,800 square <BR>miles) of habitat disruption: 500,000
acres in the US and 700,000 acres <BR>outsourced. The total area mentioned is
double the area of Champaign <BR>County, Illinois. Crap. Now, to
till my first vegetable garden and <BR>identify which politicians are ZPG
friendly....<BR><BR>Best<BR>Doug<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
Jim Wiker <papaipema@aol.com><BR>To: dws1108 <dws1108@msn.com>;
leps-l <leps-l@mailman.yale.edu><BR>Sent: Sat, Feb 16, 2013 10:37
pm<BR>Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch
Armageddon<BR><BR>Doug,<BR>Same thing A. arogos, H. ottoe, H. metea and
H. leonardus here in <BR>Illinois. Most where common to abundant (where they
occurred) into the <BR>mid 1990's. At that point they began a rather rapid
decline and now <BR>haven't been seen for a number of years. Ottoe in
particular, well into <BR>the 90's could be found by the hundreds in
several sites, I saw the <BR>last one in Illinois with Bob Pyle in 2008. It,
nor the others have <BR>been seen since.<BR>Jim Wiker<BR>Greenview,
IL<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Dennis Schlicht
&lt;dws1108@msn.com&gt;<BR>To: MexicoDoug
&lt;mexicodoug@aol.com&gt;<BR>Cc: leps-l
&lt;leps-l@mailman.yale.edu&gt;<BR>Sent: Sat, Feb 16, 2013 9:11
pm<BR>Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch
Armageddon<BR><BR>Doug,<BR>They were doing Ok through the 80's and most of the
90's but then were <BR>wiped out by the late 2000's. Poweshiek numbers went
from around 100 on <BR>one site to none by 2010. These species were on
preserves, not farm <BR>land, but were surrounded by row crops. Gone or nearly
so are O. <BR>poweshiek, A. arogos, H. dacotae, H. ottoe and C. inornata. A
few <BR>others are not far behind.<BR>Dennis Schlicht<BR>Iowa Lepidoptera
Project<BR> ----- Original Message -----<BR> From:
MexicoDoug<BR> To: dws1108@msn.com<BR> Cc:
leps-l@mailman.yale.edu<BR> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013
11:54 AM<BR> Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk]
Monarch Armageddon<BR><BR><BR>Dennis,<BR><BR>It would be helpful
to know whether these species' disappearances in<BR>your area were
doing well before the Bt corn, or already on the brink<BR>of loss
due to the farming practices. Also, whether this loss
you've<BR>documented is due to the larva of the respective species
ingesting<BR>amounts toxic to them and dying due to it as was
proposed by the<BR>Cornell group. If it wasn't, I'd argue the
unfortunate situation was,<BR>at best, not helped by a raging
controversy which IMO served to <BR>divert<BR>and divide attention
from these issues, and not present work in<BR>alternate peer
reviewed journals - which could be as simple as
<BR>computer<BR>models to maintain a greater degree of
biodiversity.<BR><BR>Could a more collaborative environment have
come up with real <BR>solutions<BR>and perhaps a coordinated crop
rotation scheme which maintained some<BR>useful wild area
interspersed intelligently (where students at local
<BR>ag<BR>colleges in a supportive roll could participate in the
design as part<BR>of their curriculum)? Perhaps not.
But it's not too late to find <BR>out<BR>- I hope.<BR><BR>I'm not
trying to be a Monday morning quarterback; and my post was
<BR>not<BR>in support of Bt-corn. I'm glad it's not in my backyard,
and how<BR>boring it must be to try to go Lepping in such an
area. It's seeing<BR>the tactics used by scientists we
trust. My favorite butterfly<BR>observing grounds was a
unique mountain foothill habitat on disturbed<BR>ground which had
become overgrown and basically wild and teaming with<BR>over 100
species of butterflies, and at any given time at least 1/3<BR>that
amount. Now, the many hectares, without exception, are parking<BR>lots
and malls and shopping areas in a series of new sprawled out<BR>commercial
centers - and at the boundaries are residential areas with<BR>manicured lawns
and the like. The development wiped out everything<BR>except the
cockroaches and people and occasional vagrant that ends up<BR>plastered to a
radiator grill.<BR><BR>I am sure we all are sensitive to the
overpopulation problem. Every<BR>year the US adds 3,000,000
people. In 1965 it was 194 million; <BR>today,<BR>over 315
million. It is difficult for me to fathom how much
<BR>equivalent<BR>habit is destroyed for each person for their
activities (imagine<BR>3,000,000 dumped concentrated into your
state - that is approximately<BR>the average amount by state since
1965, btw) , "infrastructure<BR>development", and of course the
food they require. For some reason <BR>no<BR>one is having any success
in controlling this and we are stuck with<BR>these
consequences everywhere. We could outsource farming,
by<BR>importing more food from Canada, etc., but then we'd only be
<BR>exporting<BR>the environmental drain with it to other
places...<BR><BR>Very sorry to hear what you
reported,<BR>Doug<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: Dennis Schlicht
&lt;dws1108@msn.com&gt;<BR>To: leps-l
&lt;leps-l@mailman.yale.edu&gt;; MexicoDoug
<BR>&lt;mexicodoug@aol.com&gt;<BR>Sent: Sat, Feb 16, 2013
9:48 am<BR>Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch
Armageddon<BR><BR>Doug,<BR>The article below says Bt corn was 19% of the
crop then. It's 80-90%<BR>now. While all of this Monarch concern
has been going on, we have <BR>lost<BR>5 prairie obligate
butterflies in the tall-grass prairie/ Bt corn<BR>region (my data
in Iowa). Our prairies are surrounded by corn.<BR>Dennis
Schlicht<BR> ----- Original Message -----<BR> From:
MexicoDoug<BR> To: monarch@saber.net ;
leps-l@mailman.yale.edu<BR> Sent: Saturday, February 16,
2013 2:35 AM<BR> Subject: Re: [Leps-l]
[leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon<BR><BR><BR>"Doug, it
was Lincoln Brower who first set the precedent<BR>for
using the word "Armageddon" in this article and others
like <BR>it:"<BR><BR>Paul,<BR><BR>Huh ;-0 ??? I
honestly didn't know and wouldn't expect he was
the<BR>source.<BR><BR>I wonder what the majority of
unbiased scientists think of someone <BR>of<BR>Lincoln
Brower's repute throwing out words such as
"Armageddon" to<BR>describe the evolving sciences in
agro-biotechnology. This is really<BR>an insult to
science; 'Armageddon' has deeply religious
connotations<BR>and is from the New Testament Bible
the destruction of the Devil an<BR>epic battle when God
comes down and unleashes his fury. What
place<BR>do<BR>such religious overtone-statements have
in science other than to<BR>polarize/bias, divert and
offend researchers and constructive<BR>discussion?<BR><BR>I just
Googled, and sadly it seems you are right. I found
this<BR>article<BR>in Mother Jones that Brower had
written in 2001, which was a result<BR>of<BR>the GMO
scandal that developed at that
time:<BR><BR>http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/85<BR><BR>It
gives me insight, to say the least.<BR><BR>It seems that Brower
for some reason couldn't participate in the
<BR>USDA<BR>grant for the research into the GMO-larva
topic program and $200,000<BR>grant (which he considered
a pittance). Another diverse team of<BR>experts with
some of the finest academic credentials in this
country<BR>was selected and a paper resulted published in the
most prestigious<BR>peer reviewed journal in the
United States - The Proceedings of the<BR>National
Academy of
Sciences:<BR><BR>http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937.abstract?sid=e059121b-ade8-4518-895c-2c10e4c5b113<BR><BR>Brower's
political statement printed in Mother Jones strikes me as
<BR>a<BR>scathing, rambling condemnation and conspiracy theory
- political<BR>mobilization strategy. Is that an
appropriate place to refute a<BR>publication by
trashing everyone in government and industry? Or<BR>would<BR>it be
better to respond in the same peer review journal
which <BR>accepts<BR><BR>contrary/disagreement submissions in a
specific format for this <BR>purpose<BR><BR>called "Letters to the PNAS".
I couldn't find any retort. Maybe<BR>you'll have
better
luck:<BR><BR>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/collection/letters<BR><BR>In
the 1960's time frame Lincoln had the honor to be published
in<BR>thwe<BR>PNAS himself, at least 4 times. He is also
an excellent speaker.<BR><BR>Is the "Bt-corn killing
monarch larvae" in the field still<BR>objectionable by
ecologists anymore, on a scientific basis? Now I<BR>think<BR>it
finally hit me why the monarch topic is avoided by
some
list<BR>members.<BR><BR>Best<BR>Doug<BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: Paul Cherubini
&lt;monarch@saber.net&gt;<BR>To: Leps List
&lt;leps-l@mailman.yale.edu&gt;<BR>Sent: Fri, Feb 15,
2013 4:46 pm<BR>Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk]
Monarch Armageddon<BR><BR>On Feb 15, 2013, at 1:00 PM,
MexicoDoug wrote:<BR><BR>&gt; I added the search
term "Armageddon" for fun.<BR><BR>Doug, it was Lincoln
Brower who first set the precedent<BR>for using the
word "Armageddon" in this article and others like
it:<BR>http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/july2011/GMcropsmonarchbutterflieshabitat.php<BR><BR>In
the article Lincoln said this about Roundup herbicide use<BR>in the
GMO crops of the upper Midwest:<BR><BR>“It kills
everything. It’s biodiversity Armageddon,"<BR><BR>And
Lincoln and Chip Taylor collaborated on a paper<BR>and
wrote: "We conclude that, because of the extensive<BR>use of
glyphosate herbicide on crops that are
genetically<BR>modified to resist the herbicide, milkweeds
will disappear<BR>almost completely from croplands."<BR><BR>But
the critically important information they don't
mention<BR>in their paper is that the field margins of
these Roundup<BR>treated GMO crops are teaming with
bumblebees, honeybees,<BR>monarchs and butterflies like
this:<BR>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZCOJnJU1UE<BR><BR>So
those GMO croplands are not hardly a legitimate<BR>example of
"Biodiversity Armageddon"<BR><BR>Paul Cherubini<BR>El
Dorado,
Calif.<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Leps-l
mailing
list<BR>Leps-l@mailman.yale.edu<BR>http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l<BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Leps-l
mailing
list<BR>Leps-l@mailman.yale.edu<BR>http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
_______________________________________________Leps-l mailing
<BR>listLeps-l@mailman.yale.eduhttp://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-<BR>l<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Leps-l
mailing
list<BR>Leps-l@mailman.yale.edu<BR>http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l<BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Leps-l
mailing
list<BR>Leps-l@mailman.yale.edu<BR>http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></U></FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>