Mexican Monarchs

[Neil Jones]

In article <3AA7AB84.42C2 at saber.net> monarch at saber.net "Paul Cherubini" writes:

> Neil Jones wrote:
> 
> > I have taken the HIGH RESOLUTION photographs and placed them on the
> > web at http://www.wildlifewebsite.com/monarch/
> > I have presented them in a different and slightly easier format.
> > They clearly show the loss of forest over time.
> 
> At Campanario, virtually no change can be seen in the forest cover
> between 1973 and 2000 from the photos you posted. This continues 
> to be the largest monarch site/colony in Mexico. 

Here we go again. It is simply what you are NOT saying.
Quoting from the website which you must have seen in order to get the
photos you posted.

"It should be remembered that even the higher-resolution images from 2000
 can really only show patches of clearing, not forest thinning by removal 
of single trees. Because this kind of selective logging is common here, 
aerial images with even-higher resolution are very helpful in studying
 the forest. 
One recent study, which used aerial photographs to estimate forest
 canopy cover, suggested bad news for the Monarchs. 
Its findings for the northern reserves are shown on this map (link was here)
. You can see intact forest in 1971 giving way to thinned and
 largely-cleared forest by 1999. A forest "blanket" looking solidly red in
 the Landsat images may on closer inspection have some holes in it."

I have placed a copy of the animation at 
http://www.wildlifewebsite.com/monarch/forestloss.html


> At Huacal there definately is some forest fire damage visible which 
> occurred mainly back in the early 90's. Tree regeneration is rapidly
> taking place without human assistance and the fire scars are already
> fading in the 2000 photo compared to what they looked like 4-5 years 
> ago from a space shot. Despite the fire damage, monarchs have 
> continued using this site/mountain for clustering in fairly small 
> numbers like they did before the fires. Here is a photo of how
> natural oyamel fir tree generation takes place in the region following
> clear cutting (in this case to provide clearance for power lines):
> http://www.saber.net/~monarch/oyamelclearcut.jpeg

It is really hard not to get sarcastic when confronted by this kind
of pretty picture argument. What does it establish? Something we all
know, that trees CAN grow in clearings. The published survey shows that
the the forest cover is declining. Now I know that the survey was published
by Professor Brower who you hate, loath and detest. I am sure
many people will remember you accusing him of fraud just like you seem to
accuse every conservationist .  The fact remains that Professor Brower
has the intellect to have become a respected leading world authority
on his subject. I can see no justification for all your conspiracy theorising.

> None of these photos documents anything even remotely close to the
> 44% loss in forest cover claimed in the sensational news story. Also,
> the news story fails to tell the public ALL the trees on these
> mountains are only 60-80 years old or less because these forests
> have been selectively logged for centuries. Nothing is pristine
> and virgin.

The animation in the survey DOES justify this. There is no failure at
all. So what if the trees whave been harvested at a low levels in the past.
The story is that the density of the forests is declining rapidly because of
unsustainable practices and what is more in areas where it should be forbidden.

Now I guess we'll get more pretty pictures. 

-- 
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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