Ironic indeed

[Paul Cherubini]

Paulette Haywood wrote:
> 
> I have found the 4th of July Count data very helpful for locating
> several butterfly species (as well as the people who know where they
> are). By comparing information from specific counts across several
> years, I can get a pretty good idea whether the species regularly occurs
> at that site or was just "flying by" one year.

Good points and I agree. Another example: Ann Swengle's annual organized
summer counts have provided good data suggesting monarch populations
have been stable in eastern North America for the past 20+ years.

I believe what Rick Mikula was suggesting is that misidentifications on
NABA counts are fairly common rather than rare. With this degree of
background noise, there isn't any scientific basis behind the claim made
by some NABA scientists that the 60,000 butterflies, bred and released
gradually by butterfly breeders scattered throughout the hundreds of
thousands of square miles of central North America over a 9 month period
could interfere with those counts. The common sense mathmatics of the
situation (e.g. one extra butterfly raised and released per dozens of
square miles of land) simply don't support that claim.

The irony is that the concerned Ph.D scientists in question are not
taking an objective, quantitative approach to evaluating the situation
and in presenting their case to the public as one might expect from such
highly qualified individuals. Instead, we see Ph.D authors like Paul
Opler, Jeff Glassberg and Bob Pyle making emotional, frightening
statements to the public (see www.naba.org web site) like: "Imagine tens
of thousands of monarchs unable to find their way to the overwintering
sites". 

Paul Cherubini, El Dorado, California