Photos of urban monarch overwintering sites in California

Anne Kilmer viceroy at
Thu Jan 11 19:29:14 EST 2001

I find that a sweater helps, although not enough. And how do you get one
onto a butterfly?
Y'all can go on about anything as long as you like; that delete button
is just wonderful. ;-) (Actually I seldom use it; just kidding.)
I am myself both contentious and discursive, and have survived thus far.
The point I was attempting to make was that when you are administering a
scolding, your audience is very able to leave early, so it's best to get
in, get down and get out.
When berating my own young, I always tried to use very long words, thus
ensuring that at least they got *something* out of it. ;-)
Yes, when we see a need, and we feel we can fill it, by golly there we
are, painstakingly ungluing the butterfly from the windshield, where it
is pasted by its own guts, and wondering whether we can somehow nurse it
back to health.
I have no problem with that.
We are, in fact, playing God, taking over nature's "plan" and this might
be perfectly fine. We have hardly achieved a consensus on what we want,
though, and we get too soon old and too late wise.
I think it is important, on this list, to hear from the extremists as
well as the middle ground. I think we are enriched by Paul and Neil and
all the other opinionated, well-informed, cantankerous, cranky and
delightful leppers. And, as you suggest, many of us think winter should
hurry up and finish. But there are butterflies past, butterflies to
come, and gardens to plan and plant. perhaps now is the time to work out
big-picture stuff, like the significance of urban monarchs as acceptable
substitutes for the Xerces Blue, for instance.
Change happens and we're all cascading into oblivion anyway (or heaven
bound, or going around again ... inshallah) but, where we can choose the
change, isn't it well to discuss it?
Had you all been consulted, would there now be Cabbage Whites in
For my part, I am concerned that we are making the planet into a bad
place for *people* to live.
I find that people who are unconcerned by the effect of pesticides on
their own health are immediately involved when you mention that
butterflies are killed by Dursban or whatever ... and will make the
sacrifice for the butterflies that they will not make for their own
It's a flawed approach, of course, but, like leaping from ice floe to
ice floe, each one only has to float until you leap to the next one, and
we are supported by our own impetus.
The real problem is overpopulation ... until a plague or war or meteor
solves it. Or until it turns out that we have achieved critical mass and
are received into our place among the gods.
so ... learning to negotiate, to consider other people's views ... not a
bad way to amuse oneself on a winter's day.
Seems to me the question we're tapdancing around here is, is the Monarch
an indicator species, or is it replacing a wide variety of other species
as habitats are degraded or eliminated.
It's important because Paul's argument seems to be: of course
butterflies aren't in trouble; there are plenty of Monarchs. If it's an
indicator species, that's fine and
of course he's right. If it's replacing all the other little guys,
that's appalling.
I shall now raise my umbrella and hunker down.
Anne Kilmer
south Florida
Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> I disagree with myself - that is I have inner turmoil on these subjects.
> We can't do anything about lots of stuff in life. However, because we are
> caring creatures and observe lots of crap, and worse, that we as a species
> have done to ourselves, other people, and nature we want to "make it
> right." Then, we go too far and try to become "mother nature" or "God".
> Which of course leads to irrational views, self-right-ness, mean diatribes
> and on and on. Anne. If I don't go to another paragraph, can 235 pages
> count as a paragraph?
> Perhaps when the weather warms up a lot of us will chill out. I am
> definitely not as happy indoors. I am however a very happy northern (native
> Iowan) transplant to the South -- it was about 65 here today, which is
> still too cold.
> Ron
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anne Kilmer" <viceroy at>
> To: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at>
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 4:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Photos of urban monarch overwintering sites in California
> > no, it's all right; I agree with you; I'm still with you. ;-)
> >
> > I think it's rather sweet that we think that what we do matters. After
> > all, we're just killing time until the next ice age.
> > anne
> > Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> > >
> > >  Amen to Chuck's post below. There is also a difference between being a
> > > preservationist and a restorationist -- with the latter wanting to
> actually
> > > role back the hands of time. Somehow I don't think any of us want to
> return
> > > so far back that we are only at the point of primeval ooze? It is very
> sad
> > > that so many only see the future as environmentally dead. (Spring is
> still
> > > far from silent.)
> > >
> > > Many, many, many events in celestial time and space have affected our
> > > little rock much more than man ever has or ever will. Evolution is an
> > > awesomely violent, totally emotionless, blindly agendaless thing. OOPS,
> > > Anne, I'm in the second paragraph! So let's not let me get to the
> third.
> > >  Ron
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Chuck Vaughn" <aa6g at>
> > > To: <LEPS-L at>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 2:12 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Photos of urban monarch overwintering sites in California
> > >
> > > > One of the interesting viewpoints I see on this list is the one that
> > > seems
> > > > to be expressed here: Environmental change = Environmental
> degradation,
> > > > especially if humans had anything to do with it.
> > > >
> > > > I think of this viewpoint as that of preservationists, those that
> view
> > > > change as mostly bad. I'm not a preservationist. I see all change as
> > > > having positive and negative aspects and that it's inevitable.
> > > >
> > > > As a kid in San Lorenzo in the 60's Sky West Golf Course was open
> land
> > > > where wild wheat(?) was harvested each Spring and the land was then
> > > > plowed.....certainly not a natural state even then. We collected
> Monarch
> > > > caterpillars on Milkweed patches in the Summer along with various
> > > butterflies.
> > > > Now the same land is a Winter sanctuary for Monarchs. Is this a good
> > > > or a bad change? Some would say bad simply because it's a change. One
> > > > could come up with all sorts of pluses and minuses. I see it simply
> as
> > > > a change.
> > > >
> > > > Chuck Vaughn <aa6g at>
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

More information about the Leps-l mailing list