Photos of urban monarch overwintering sites in California

Stanley A. Gorodenski stanlep at
Wed Jan 10 21:27:27 EST 2001

> Isn't the point that, despite all the spraying, growth-inhibiting, watering
> and typical golf-course activities, the butterflies survive (or thrive)?
Maybe the Monarchs really do "... survive (or thrive)..." but these
photographs do not prove it.  Man (in the sense of the species, not a
gender) bulldozes, cuts, burns, scapes, applies various chemicals, and
destroys habitat and environment for his/her own interests.  There is no
guaranteed safe haven (outside of conservation areas) for the Monarch,
in this example.  The Eucalyptus trees may exist now, but 10 years from
now a business complex may take their place.
I am only keeping an open mind, and merely questioning whether this is
really solid evidence that the Monarch's future survival is insured and
that we have nothing to worry about.  I am not outright debunking Paul's
claims, or implied claims, or bashing Paul (I am quite impressed with
the amount of information he brings to this forum).  I am just asking
for more evidence to prove it in a scientific sense (perhaps I am
reading more into Paul's message than is there, in which case I withdraw
this message).  For all I know, these photographs may be the Monarch
equivalent of a tree squirrel frantically hanging onto a floating branch
as it cascades over a waterfall to its death on the rocks below - there
is only the "appearance" of survival at this point in time.  Others more
expert (my knowledge on the subject is very little) on the Monarch can
perhaps give their opinion on the significance of the documentation
provided by Paul.
On the surface I agree that the documentation provided by Paul gives the
strong appearance of the Monarch doing well and thriving, but is that
the real case?  I hope I am not too far off base on my reading of this
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

More information about the Leps-l mailing list