Celebrity Death Match

[Bruce Walsh]

"The reason that the battles in academia are so vicious is that the
stakes are so small"  -----  Henry Kissinger

Damn, I'm glad I'm off to Australia in two weeks!

Actually, Patrick and I agree on a number of points, so let me state
those first

(1)  I fully agree with Patrick that just because someone states that
they are an expert in the particular area under discussion, you should only
given them consideration of their viewpoint if they fully describe how they
arrived at their view  (and even better if they describe their
limitations).  Given their arguments, you can then factor these in your decision. 
Science is full of histories of fields being subverted by one or a few
individuals of strong personalities and often requiring their deaths to move
forward!

(2)  There are certainly situations where releases are not appropriate.  

(3)  Patrick is a smart and great guy (just as Pat was written that I am
a smart and great guy)

(4)  Smart and great guys can certainly disagree!

(5)  One can clearly imagine situations were releases are appropriate.

So, it comes down to resolving (2) vs. (5) given (4).

I have absolutely no problems with releasing Cabbage Butterflies in any
of the lower 48 states.  All cabbages in the states stem from a single
introduction, and they are a pest in most areas.  Introducing a few more
individuals by a release certainly will cause no harm to the local population
(and are unlikely to significantly increase the local numbers of Cabbages).

Likewise, I also have no problems with the present US Federal policy of
allowing releases of The Monarch, Painted Lady, Red Admiral, Buckeye, Giant
 Swallowtail, Black Swallowtail, Gulf Fritillary, Zebra, and Mourning
Cloak   in any of  the 48 states where these species naturally range.  Many
of these species undergo extremely long-range migrations (clouds of Painted
Ladies often swarm out of Mexico to flood the entire west, and Mourning
Cloaks have made their way across the pond over to the UK).   In states
where they occur, this is the list of butterflies one would find on just
about any vacant (and slightly overgrown) lot in any major city.  There is no
evidence from either the distribution or natural history of these species
to suggest they have any metapopulation structure.  There is a big whoop
about western vs. eastern monarchs, but no one has every informed me if
Arizona monarchs go to California or Mexico.  If some small fraction can go
to either, no more metapopulation.  Certainly, there is no intrinsic
genetic tendency to go to the Mexico vs. California sites.

So, the issue is whether there are reasonable concerns with the Federal
Policy of releasing these species in locations where they locally occur.

Time for an aside.  Science is always driven by human prejudices and
politics.  This colors the types of questions we ask and our starting
assumptions.  All human endeavors are this way, and Science does the best job of
trying to somewhat distance itself from these.  There may be some who wish
to release any and all species (i.e., no restraints), although no one has
(yet) articulate this viewpoint on the list serve.  At the other extreme
are those who wish no releases under any conditions.  Keeping this in mind,
Michael Gochfeld  chimes in with "The burden of proof falls on those who
believe there is NO danger or  environmental risk from the butterfly
releases."  This is a two-way street, as an individual from the no releases
mindset will always suggest yet another study that needs to be done (this is
iterated to infinity).  Hence, there has to be a reasonable expectation
that a particular issue is of concern.  With the Federal species, I have yet
to see a reasonable concern.  They may be with other species, but I
focusing on the Federal list.

As for Patrick's comment that "I rejected Bruce Walsh's claim that his
view was "science". "  Let me clarify.  I have yet to see a reasonable
argument  that has any biological support against small scale releases of the
above species.  Hence,  I feel that the view that there is the reasonable
potential for harm by releases of these species is NOT scientifically
supported.   

Patrick also comments (to another writer) that  "Your dismissal of Brower
and others is wrong. They bring a lot of background and experience to the
table, and if not geneticists themselves, they are in communication with
lots of them."   I have enormous respect for the outstanding work that
Brower and his students have done on the natural history of the monarch. 
They have left a rich legacy of important scientific work.  They also had
terminal cranial-rectal insertion in their claims in the BioScience paper
about the genetic dangers of releases. As an editor,  I would have rejected
that paper immediately.  Remember, Einstein has dead wrong about quantum
mechanics, so even the greats can have blind spots in their own fields.

Finally, as to Patrick's comments about the low power of using
microsatellites to track migrations, one simply has to increase the density and
number of markers to crank up the power (and reduce the confidence intervals).
 However, even if the microsatellite approach is not used, all one has to
do is to collect a series of material and place it in alcohol.  DNA can
then be extracted at any point in the future.  Hence, if workers are
worried about local releases, a single season of field work can do the job. 
Start saving that material in alcohol today!

The above points are simply for general discussion, and not met in anyway
of being disrespectful to Patrick (who, as my elder, deserves such
respect).  Pat and I are simply engaged in a scientific discussion for the
readers consideration.  We can certainyl disagree and yet remain on excellent
terms.
Its not (I hope!) Neil vs. Paul.  Speaking of which, now there's a
contest for a future MVT Celebrity Death Match.  

Peace and g'day

Bruce