Government views Monarch Butterfly Releases as a threat to Western Milkweeds

Paul Cherubini cherubini at mindspring.com
Wed Dec 12 16:02:22 EST 2001


Pat wrote:

> Most scientists recognize the limitations of their knowledge and imaginations.
> This makes them wary of claims that disturbing ecosystems is safe.

Yes, but some scientists such as Dr's Norbert Klonda and Bruce Walsh have
also pointed out how fanciful imagining can be pursued to an extreme.
For example on Jan. 12, 2000 Bruce wrote on dplex-l:

"Suppose I were to argue that there is a slight cost due to tagging -- very
small, say a 0.5% reduction in fitness. This would be very hard to measure,
yet its impact would be at least as great as any suggested genetic impact due
to transfers.  I could then argue that since taggers have not shown that
tagging has no effect, we need to play it safe and stop tagging."

And on March 14, 1997 Bruce wrote on leps-l:

"....as in most problems in conservation biology,  it comes often
down responding to a list of potential problems, most of which are
hypothesized without evidence (and likewise without evidence to show
they ARE NOT present).  As each item is removed from the list, several
others are always added.   Hence, one can always use "science" to make
the decision driven by very nonscientific issues (i.e., gee, all these factors
could occur,but may not, so what should we do?)"
 
"The bottom line here is common sense.  If one releases a small fraction of
the total native population using stock from very similar native populations,
the biological consequences are expected to be trivial.  This does not mean
that one should not be diligent, but lets not get overly carried away either."

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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


More information about the Leps-l mailing list