Please Help the World's Rarest Butterfly

[Neil Jones]

In article <3983C2E9.1DE6 at mindspring.com>
           cherubini at mindspring.com "Paul Cherubini" writes:

Before responding to this I would like to explain my motives.
It is not to get at Mr Cherubini. It is to explain to people 
with less knowledge than I why he should not be believed.
I do not claim to know everything but I have studied butterflies
carefully for many years.
Those who have followed my postings will know I don't like people who 
are not truthful. A year or so ago we had a chinese dealer selling
protected species, whilst hiding his identity in a number of
devious ways that were not apparent to everyone. I know a lot about
the workings of the internet so I responded. It was not an "ad hominem
attack" but a warning to my fellow citizens that they should not be deceived.
I consider it only an act of good citizenship to do so.
 Had this chinese dealer taken exception to this we could have had a
"flame war" over it.
It is the same motivation that makes me respond to Mr Cherubini.

My clear perception is that he is not honest. It is a perception shared
with a number of eminent experts who have encountered him in person.

I am going to take Mr Cherubini's posting point by point and explain:


1. What an ordinary citizen would draw in conclusion. i.e The man in the
street, like many ordinary people here, who has not studied the mathematics
of butterfly population dynamics.

2. What the science or the facts actually say.

3. Why I think what he is saying is dishonest.

> The following April, 2000 Los Angles Times article
> http://csf.colorado.edu/lists/deep-ecology/2000/msg00177.html
> gives a good overview of the situation with the Palos Verdes Blue
> including these points:
> 
>
MR CHERUBINI SAYS:-
 
>   -  there is already a 10-acre Navy preserve in place
>      for the butterfly. 

WHAT THE ORDINARY PERSON WOULD THINK.

Gee. The butterfly is OK it has a reserve that is protected so we don't
need to worry. All these conservationists are making a fuss over nothing.

WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS.

There is a huge amount of work that has been done on the amount of land
needed to support a population of a given animal. There are books full
of complicated equations as scientists have worked out the tiny intricacies
of "habitat patch size", "metapopulations" and "island biogeography" just
to name a few terms. The one thing that is FUNDAMENTAL to all this is the 
general rule.

The Larger the Habitat Area the Less the Possibility the Population Will Become
Extinct.

Any animal population will fluctuate for many reasons which can be difficult
to work out. Very often this causes a population to become extinct. The fewer
animals there are the more likely this will happen and a smaller
area of habitat supports fewer animals. There is ONLY ONE population of
the Palos Verdes Blue left. There were nine others a few years ago but this
process and habitat destruction wiped them out.

Science tells us IT NEEDS ALL THE HABITAT IT CAN GET.
   
WHY I THINK MR CHERUBINI IS BEING DISHONEST.

The question that needs to be asked here is "Does he know that the
perception he is creating is an incorrect one?
The answer has to be a resounding  "YES OF COURSE HE DOES."

The science above is pretty basic. In the course of his job selling 
pesticides he has to use things like this to know how much pesticide
should be used etc. He has also repeatedly shown ample knowledge of
population dynamics. He has even postulated his own mathematical models.

MR CHERUBINI SAYS.
>   -  there are two nearby 60 acre parcels where the
>      butterfly is now found on property that is already
>       developed.  The butterfly on this property breeds on 
>      "locoweed and deer weed growing wild on the
>       site among the 545 houses formerly used by Navy
>       families" according to the article.

WHAT THE ORDINARY PERSON WOULD THINK.

Gee. This critter can live in people's yards. It isn't threatened by any 
development. It can survive anywhere. There should be no problem with
the new development.

WHAT THE SCIENCE AND FACTS SAY.

First of all it is  incorrect to say "nearby parcels". To quote
Professor Travis Longcore in the article concerned
" If I were going to look into
re-using a parcel that was next to the only known habitat of the rarest
butterfly in the world, I might look into the possibility that there might be habitat on it that couldn't
be developed,"  Butterflies cannot see human dividing lines this
is all part of the same overall land parcel.

Secondly and importantly, not all of this land is built on.

The housing is ABANDONED so weeds have come in. Now the
foodplants of the Palos Verdes Blue have an ability to synthesize 
an important nutrient, nitrate, from the air. This can give them an advantage
in colonising sites that have been abandoned. In the longer term they may 
disappear as stronger plants take hold.
It does NOT mean that the plants and the butterfly will survive amongst
occupied buildings full of people.

I am not saying that habitat cannot be created for this creature.
It obviously can. Of course the people doing it might expect to 
get paid some money so that they can live. 

WHY I THINK MR CHERUBINI IS BEING DISHONEST.

It is patently obvious that if this creature could survive in the long
term as a weedy creature in people's backyards it would not be on the verge
of extinction.

Mr Cherubini is, as I have said, a knowledgable entomologist. He knows
this. So yet again the only conclusion is that Mr Cherubini is deliberately
trying to deceive.


MR CHERUBINI SAYS:-
>  -   Fish and Wildlife biologists believe there
>       are ways of developing areas to accomodate a new school
>       and research park while still protecting the butterfly
>       habitat. 

WHAT THE ORDINARY PERSON WOULD THINK.

Gee. The Feds have got it worked out. The bug isn't threatened at all.

WHAT ARE THE FACTS.

The article doesn't say this at all. To quote Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman
 Jane Hendren "The Fish and Wildlife Service has a very good record of
allowing economic development to continue," she said. "It's not
always easy, and it does take effort from everyone involved. There
are ways of developing areas while still protecting the native species."

She doesn't mention any SPECIFIC development being possible as 
Mr Cherubini claims.

Right through the article there is opposition and unwillingness from
the developers.

Now I have spoken with many people about this and there is a plan being
developed, which even given the reluctance of the LA City Council, 
could be worked out in such a way as to make the survival of the butterfly
possible. All habitat like this needs management so a plan is obviously needed.

It is important that the Council realises the significance
of the butterfly which it has not done to date. The butterfly must be
given the best chance if it is to survive.


WHY I THINK MR CHERUBINI IS BEING DISHONEST.

He can read. He has read the article. He has presented the facts in
a manner that is not truthful knowing that many people will just
read his posting and not the article itself.

Remember folks 
The web site is at
http://www.wildlifewebsite.com/pvblue/


-- 
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve