Government views Monarch Butterfly Releases as a threat to Western Milkweeds

[Patrick Foley]

Mark,

We focus best on things we know and care about. In the face of massive
world-wide biodiversity and human problems, Monarch releases are, admittedly,
small potatoes. But we care about them.

I have no cash or career on the line in this argument about Monarch releases.
But I do know something about related issues that have been treated rather
optimistically by Bruce and Paul, such as the risks of disease (and various
forms of selfish DNA) and the effects of migration on genetic structure. I
would also like to see the already substantial research on Monarchs proceed
without the background noise of commercial releases. On the other hand I would
like people to do what they please. But not with the constant bad-mouthing of
serious researchers and the environmental movement who are at bottom right on
this small issue.

Obviously, the Monarch release debate is a microcosm for the debate the whole
world is having about what we value and about which forms of denial we can
tolerate. Which features of our culture should we grow and which should we
shrink. Like many silly sentimentalists, and like many informed and rigorously
honest ecologists, I think humans have messed around too much with a beautiful
and fragile world. While I do not enjoy sloppy thinking in the environmental
movement, those sloppy thinkers are fundamentally right. Hopefully, you and
Paul and Norbert and others will nudge the sloppy thinkers towards a more
careful understanding of the world.

I think many people on this list are in denial about the causes of
environmental problems. The problem is not tree huggers, binoculars or the
National Forest Service. The problem is overpopulation, bad community planning,
unnecessary waste of resources and energy, unnecessary overfertilization,
chemical pest control and other pollutants.The problem is poor education and
misinformation. In many cases, the problem is that society as a whole is
confused because spokespersons for the status quo are paid to stand up and
claim there are no real problems that cannot be solved by the free market or
faith in God. My guess is that financial and religious commitments make it hard
for people to choose wiser paths, and unwilling to blame their own choices,
people blame the people that make them feel guilty. There is much to be said
for God and the free market, but little for faith and denial.

Sincerely,

Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu

Mark Walker wrote:

> Patrick,
>
> Why should the Monarch and it's weakly supported threats get more attention
> than those species that are indeed on the verge of extinction?  Wouldn't
> precious federal regulation monies be better spent on problems we KNOW to
> exist?
>
> I know this wasn't your argument, but I was interested in your reply.
>
> Mark Walker.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Foley [mailto:patfoley at csus.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 8:45 AM
> > To: Mark Walker
> > Cc: monarch at saber.net; LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu
> > Subject: Re: Government views Monarch Butterfly Releases as a
> > threat to
> > Western Milkweeds
> >
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > The best source I know is the edited volume Extinction Rates,
> > Lawton, J. H.
> > and R. M May 1995, Oxford University Press.
> >
> > Extinction rates vary taxonomically and regionally. Moreover
> > estimates can
> > be made in several very different ways. To get an overview,
> > see Table 1.2
> > in May, Lawton and Stork from this volume. Since 1600, based
> > on "certified"
> > extinctions and IUCN listings of threatened, vulnerable and
> > endangered,
> > they estimate (sorry about the formatting):
> >
> >                                 % extinct        % IUCN threatened
> > Molluscs                        0.2                    0.4
> > Crustaceans                    0.01                0.3
> > Insects                            0.006            0.09
> > Fishes                            0.1                2
> > Amphibians                    0.1                2
> > Reptiles                            0.4               3
> > Birds                                1                   11
> > Mammals                        1                     11
> >
> > Total animals                0.04                0.3
> >
> > Total Plants                0.2                    9
> >
> > To translate these per 400 year rates a into annual rates b set
> >
> >     1 - a = exp(-400 b) and solve for b
> >
> > To get rates for 1000 years c set
> >
> >     1 - c = exp(-1000 b) and solve for c
> >
> > A short table (note a, b and c are fractions not per cents;
> > you must add 2
> > zeros to the numbers above to get a rates)
> > a                b                c
> > 0.0001    0.000000025    0.000025
> > 0.0001    0.00000025      0.00025
> > 0.001     0.0000025        0.0025
> > 0.01       0.000025          0.025
> > 0.1        0.00026            0.23
> >
> > In other words, if a taxon loses 0.01 (that is 1%) of its
> > species in 400
> > years, it can expect to lose 0.000025 (0.0025 %) per year and
> > 0.025 (2.5%)
> > per one thousand years.
> >
> > The actual extinctions and IUCN threatened numbers are
> > appalling, but they
> > probably represent the vulnerable tip of the iceberg. The
> > most vulnerable
> > large bird and mammal species have already gone extinct or
> > are likely to do
> > so soon. The vast iceberg of extinctions to emerge are the
> > "walking dead",
> > the species doomed to extinction by the anthropogenic deterioration of
> > their habitat. Given species area curves that are rather
> > consistent, we can
> > predict the number but not the identity of species that will
> > go exinct when
> > local extinction vs speciation and colonization dynamics have
> > settled down
> > to new, less generous equilibria. This will take thousands of
> > years, but it
> > will involve hundreds of thousands of species.
> >
> > Patrick Foley
> > patfoley at csus.edu
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark Walker wrote:
> >
> > > What has the (estimated) extinction rate been over the past
> > 1000 years?
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Patrick Foley [mailto:patfoley at csus.edu]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 7:00 PM
> > > > To: monarch at saber.net
> > > > Cc: LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu
> > > > Subject: Re: Government views Monarch Butterfly Releases as a
> > > > threat to
> > > > Western Milkweeds
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > As often happens in environmentalist-development debates, one
> > > > side is not worried
> > > > about cumulative impacts, because the immediate effects seem
> > > > so small. Lomborg, in
> > > > his recent book the Skeptical Environmentalist, argues that
> > > > an extinction rate of
> > > > 0.7% per 50 years is manageable and hardly worthy of
> > > > hysteria. To me, this
> > > > extinction rate will lead to 13% of the species on earth
> > > > going extinct over the
> > > > next 1000 years. (exp(-0.007*20 half-centuries)= 0.87). If
> > > > this doesn't trouble
> > > > you, consider the results of another 6000 years of human
> > > > history. You should only
> > > > worry about the environment if you are rooting, as I am, for
> > > > human civilization to
> > > > last ... or at least start.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Patrick Foley
> > > > patfoley at csus.edu
> > > >
> > > >
> >


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl