Do Monarchs need Paul Cherubini?

[Patrick Foley]

Paul,

You are being evasive about each of the questions I raised.

1) Can you not see that Ehrlich's scientific, peer-reviewed research
inevitably has a different level of accuracy than his predictions about
the future of human resource exploitation? If you can see this, why do
you continue to confuse the issues? And don't you think that
overpopulation, habitat degradation, resource over-exploitation and
biodiversity loss are serious problems? If you think they are problems,
why do you attack the people who are trying to find solutions to the
problems?

2) Have you not accepted money from butterfly breeders (or other
commercial interests) to do public relations, "education" or the
equivalent in their interest? I don't care that you have, but I want to
know whether I am wasting my "breath" arguing with you?

3) Have you sent out emails to this or other lists under pseudonyms?

If you want people on this list to give your statements credibility,
non-evasive answers to these questions are needed. I am sure I do not
speak for everyone on the list, but I am equally sure that I speak for
many.

As for your comments about land-use in Latin America, I presume that you
are arguing a point rather than seeing the reality that shrinking forest
and forest habitat degradation (including ranching and milpa-planting)
has gone farther than is economically good for the people.

I have no problem with milpas, ranching, pesticides, public relations or
skepticism in their appropriate places. I do have a problem with the
lack of balance to which you are contributing. Is this the cultural
heritage you will be proud of? Is honesty something you only pretend to
respect? If Ehrlich and others gave up the struggle to preserve the
earth, what would you do? Cheer or do something yourself? If you don't
want to help fix things, get out of the way and let others do it.

Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu

Paul Cherubini wrote:

> Pat Foley wrote:
>
> > Are you a paid lobbyist (or equivalent), and for whom?
>
> No, I barely know what a lobbyist really is or what they do
> since I'm not politically active.  For 20 years I havn't even
> registered to vote.
>
> > If you actually go the Sierra Nevada Occidental or to the
> > hillls of Chiapas, you realize how badly tree cutting has
> > damaged the livelihood of the people of the area, since
> > people have from time immemorial foraged for many food,
> > fuel and spiritual resources in the forests.
>
> Tree cutting just below the altitude of the monarch reserves
> in Mexico has clearly benefitted the standard of living of the
> indigenous people of the area. In this picture
> http://www.saber.net/~monarch/fields.JPG you can
> see how the local people make their living growing corn
> (the picture was taken in Feb. so corn had not yet been planted)
> and tending farm animals on land that was once forested.
> The nearby forests still do provide the wood needed to
> build and heat their homes.
>
> In hot, dry weather the thirsty monarchs come down to these
> same exact cultivated fields to obtain their drinking water.
> http://www.saber.net/~monarch/kurt2.JPG
> http://www.saber.net/~monarch/child.JPG  Whereas I
> consider this a win-win situation in that both the butterflies
> and human activity can coexist with a moderate level
> of deforestation, the American monarch scientific &
> conservation establishment is not happy to see these
> people making a living off the land even though it does not
> harm the monarchs.  Example: Kurt Johnson
> published photos of this same area of land in the News of the
> Leps Society last year and lamented over the fact that it had
> been converted to agricultural use: (many decades ago by
> the way) http://www.saber.net/~monarch/kurt1.JPG
>
> And in the NY Times Lincoln Brower wrote Sept.12, 2000:
> "development has encroached to the point where once remote
> roosts of monarchs are now dangling in trees right next to farm
> fields."
>
> You said:
>
> > Conservationists are not the enemy of people, they are the
> > enemy of stupid greed.
>
> I would say conservationists can be greedy too when they insist
> on separating monarchs from people for cosmetic reasons
> rather than scientifically legitimate reasons
> (i.e. farm fields in Mexico are ugly compared to a landscape
> untouched by the hand of man.)
>
> Paul Cherubini
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    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