Please Help the World's Rarest Butterfly

Thu Jul 27 18:04:00 EDT 2000

--------------924015C61A9FB73CB69A456B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Paul Cherubini wrote:

> Neil Jones wrote:
>
> > Oh well, as I said Mr Cherubini's understanding of conservationists'
> > motives is not noted for its rational nature.
>
> The reason I drive radical conservationists up the wall is because I am always pointing
> out the ways butterflies can coexist with intense human activity such as real estate
> development and agriculture. Examples: Bt corn and black swallowtails, monarch
> overwintering sites in city parks near downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco.
> If coexistance is possible, millions of public dollars need not be spent purchasing
> butterfly sanctuaries in pricey areas like Palos Verdes where the land costs hundreds of
> thousands of dollars per acre. About the only way the radicals have of dealing with
> people like me is to call us "nature haters".

Paul, ignorance of how far your garage door is from the street may be totally irrelevant,
but the P V Blue is not one of those "irrelevant" details.  As for the human/wild species
relationships you mention, would you accept my adding a couple other "tidbits"?

There are several swallowtails that call Los Angeles home.  Some forty or fifty years ago,
one of this area's leading entomologists lived in a part of Los Angeles called Eagle Rock
(between Pasadena and Glendale, for those who are unfamiliar with local geography), where he
regularly saw several per day.  While there, he noticed that there was a large number of
species he could describe as "common" or "abundant"; some twenty or thirty years later,
having moved, he saw a difference and missed certain of the species he used to see as a
child.  He decided to do go back to his old haunts and do a comparison study to see which
ones were actually missing and which he just missed because he had moved.  His findings were
dramatic and startling: Several were indeed actually missing (including some that had been
quite common before.  Some were still present but in lesser numbers and a few had maintained
their position in relative numbers, but almost none (and I believe this last consideration
includes the ubiquitous European cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae or Artogeia rapae) had
actually made gains in percentages sufficient to make up for the drops in numbers of those
that had lost numbers.  Yet others had completely disappeared from the area.  Alarmed at
this, he decided to attempt to find the cause(s).  What he found is in absolutely total
contradiction to your assumption that butterflies can coexist to any real degree with
intense human activity.  He also found that the pollution levels from other sources had also
had an impact.

Just because I found a western tiger swallowtail caterpillar on the sycamore across the
street in West Los Angeles in 1956 does not mean that its numbers are maintaining
themselves.  Should the syamores fall victim to termites, do you think the owners of the
adhacent properties will want them replaced in knid?  No.  We also had fuchsias, large
weeping willows and Lombardy poplars in the neighborhood.  They fell victim to termites;
within a year, the numbers of mourning cloaks and white-lined sphinx moths went through the
floor.  Let's get real here: take out the larval hosts, and where do you think the
caterpillars are going to find what they need to develop into the adult forms we are
accustomed to seeing?  In fact, where will the adult go to lay their eggs -- assuming they
don't fall victim to someone with a  "shoot to kill then ask questions later" attitude and a
can of insecticide?

> Radical conservationists, on the other hand, try to convince the public coexistance
> is not possible or desirable even when they know otherwise. Keeping the
> public deeply worried seems to be their goal and the way to maximize the flow
> of grants, foundation money and donations coming their way, not to mention
> increasing the memberships of the organizations they lead.
>
> For example, your website about endangered California checkerspot butterflies
> blames their demise on development and global warming.You failed to point out the
> endangered Bay checkerspot butterfly actually dissappeared from sites that were fenced
> off from cattle grazing. I therefore assume you have a problem letting the public know
> this rare butterfly can not only coexist, but can even benefit from human activity.
> What is your motive for not wanting to let the public know about this fact that
> would, admittedly, probably defuse public interest in making grants, donations,
> writing Congressmen, joining the Xerces Society, etc?
>
> Paul Cherubini

--------------924015C61A9FB73CB69A456B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Paul Cherubini wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Neil Jones wrote:
> Oh well, as I said Mr Cherubini's understanding of conservationists'
 > motives is not noted for its rational nature.
The reason I drive radical conservationists up the wall is because I
am always pointing
 out the ways butterflies can coexist with intense human activity such
as real estate
 development and agriculture. Examples: Bt corn and black swallowtails,
monarch
 overwintering sites in city parks near downtown Los Angeles and San
Francisco.
 If coexistance is possible, millions of public dollars need not be
spent purchasing
 butterfly sanctuaries in pricey areas like Palos Verdes where the land
costs hundreds of
 thousands of dollars per acre. About the only way the radicals have
of dealing with
 people like me is to call us "nature haters".</blockquote>
Paul, ignorance of how far your garage door is from the street may be totally
irrelevant, but the P V Blue is not one of those "irrelevant" details.&nbsp;
As for the human/wild species relationships you mention, would you accept
my adding a couple other "tidbits"?
There are several swallowtails that call Los Angeles home.&nbsp; Some
forty or fifty years ago, one of this area's leading entomologists lived
in a part of Los Angeles called Eagle Rock (between Pasadena and Glendale,
for those who are unfamiliar with local geography), where he regularly
saw several per day.&nbsp; While there, he noticed that there was a large
number of species he could describe as "common" or "abundant"; some twenty
or thirty years later, having moved, he saw a difference and missed certain
of the species he used to see as a child.&nbsp; He decided to do go back
to his old haunts and do a comparison study to see which ones were actually
missing and which he just missed because he had moved.&nbsp; His findings
were dramatic and startling: Several were indeed actually missing (including
some that had been quite common before.&nbsp; Some were still present but
in lesser numbers and a few had maintained their position in relative numbers,
but almost none (and I believe this last consideration includes the ubiquitous
European cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae or Artogeia rapae)
had actually made gains in percentages sufficient to make up for the drops
in numbers of those that had lost numbers.&nbsp; Yet others had completely
disappeared from the area.&nbsp; Alarmed at this, he decided to attempt
to find the cause(s).&nbsp; What he found is in absolutely total contradiction
to your assumption that butterflies can coexist to any real degree with
intense human activity.&nbsp; He also found that the pollution levels from
other sources had also had an impact.
Just because I found a western tiger swallowtail caterpillar on the
sycamore across the street in West Los Angeles in 1956 does not mean that
its numbers are maintaining themselves.&nbsp; Should the syamores fall
victim to termites, do you think the owners of the adhacent properties
will want them replaced in knid?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; We also had fuchsias,
large weeping willows and Lombardy poplars in the neighborhood.&nbsp; They
fell victim to termites; within a year, the numbers of mourning cloaks
and white-lined sphinx moths went through the floor.&nbsp; Let's get real
here: take out the larval hosts, and where do you think the caterpillars
are going to find what they need to develop into the adult forms we are
accustomed to seeing?&nbsp; In fact, where will the adult go to lay their
eggs -- assuming they don't fall victim to someone with a&nbsp; "shoot
to kill then ask questions later" attitude and a can of insecticide?
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Radical conservationists, on the other hand, try
to convince the public coexistance
 is not possible or desirable even when they know otherwise. Keeping
the
 public deeply worried seems to be their goal and the way to maximize
the flow
 of grants, foundation money and donations coming their way, not to
mention
 increasing the memberships of the organizations they lead.
For example, your website about endangered California checkerspot butterflies
 blames their demise on development and global warming.You failed to
point out the
 endangered Bay checkerspot butterfly actually dissappeared from sites
that were fenced
 off from cattle grazing. I therefore assume you have a problem letting
the public know
 this rare butterfly can not only coexist, but can even benefit from
human activity.
 What is your motive for not wanting to let the public know about this
fact that
 would, admittedly, probably defuse public interest in making grants,
donations,
 writing Congressmen, joining the Xerces Society, etc?
Paul Cherubini</blockquote>
</html>

--------------924015C61A9FB73CB69A456B--