gene pool and releases

[Patrick Foley]

Randy and others who think that butterfly releases have been scientifically
validated,

We have been over this ground a lot in this list. There has been virtually no
research done on disease transmission, or breakdowns in coadapted gene complexes
and such in butterflies. There has been such research done in other organisms
(including humans!) and the threat of disease transmission is real in many
cases. It is much harder to study the long-term evolutionary effects of lost
geographical reproductive isolation though they are likely to be profound.

You may want to examine earlier posts in the lep list archives. While Bruce is a
fine researcher, he certainly has not proven what you claim, nor would he claim
that. Bruce and I are in disagreement on this issue, as are many population
biologists. It would be good to get more research done on disease transmission
in butterflies, but who would fund it? None of the commercial butterfly
releasers have stepped forward, and it seems largely their responsibility.

Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu


Randy Minnehan wrote:

> Michael Gochfeld wrote:
>
> > Actually it's up to those who are commercially invested in
> > butterfly release to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that there
> > is no disruption to the gene pool nor harm to anyone at any time.
> >
> > Those who oppose it have NO OBLIGATION (in my not very humble view) to
> > demonstrate that it is harmful.
>
>  Excuse me, but exactly how do you prove something that does not exist?  I
> asked a trick question earlier when I asked for proof that releases effect
> local populations, because that are NO scientific studies or research that
> have ever shown that butterfly releases have any effect on gene pools or
> local populations in ANY way! It's easy to turn the tables such as you have
> when you have nothing to back you up!  Since you want scientific proof that
> no harm is done from releases, I can cite:  Dr. Bruce Walsh, associate
> professor, University of Arizona, a well known population specialist has
> proven that the fitness of local butterfly populations is not decreased by
> interbreeding with released individuals.
>
>      Norbert Kondla, a practicing conservation biologist, co-Author of
> "Alberta Butterflies", and a professor at the University of Calgary has
> stated, "It may be that releasing extra butterflies does not help the web of
> life but at this point in my life I see no reason to believe that this would
> be unhelpful or harmful (the fact that some people hold such an opinion does
> not make it so)", and "Some people will chose to criticize on the basis of
> emotional values and beliefs which are not shared by those who chose to make
> decisions through rational thought. I see no reason to act on such alarmist
> imaginings. Considered and regulated use of natural resources should be
> encouraged and supported. It is in the public interest to do so.  It is not
> in the public interest to ban a particular commercial activity on the basis
> of fanciful imaginings."
>
>        The USDA/APHIS regulates the distribution of butterflies through a
> permit process and allows butterfly releases of approved species.  Even
> APHIS has stated that opinions against butterfly releases are insufficiently
> supported by scientific evidence, therefore lacking in evidence to prove
> releases are harmful.
>
>       Glassberg's writings have been proven time and again to be nothing but
> hot air.  Show us some scientific proof of ANY harm being done by butterfly
> releases.  You cannot.
>
>       Randy Minnehan
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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