[leps-talk] Why aren't Mexico's overwintering monarchs in the news yet this winter?

[Johnson, Kurt]

Per the responses below.  I certainly welcome new data; as I said in my post
about the historical process here (and my example re permutations at the
Karner reserves) such new data should be presented to the scientific/
conservation community per the usual (albeit cumbersome) journal/peer review
method, enter the so-called mainstream of the scientific discussion and see
if it can capture the partership of the conservation players now involved
with the Mexican government or convince the Mexican government to get new
partners.  Another alternative, if the above process is considered tainted
(which is not impossible) is to form a powerful powerful organization (along
the lines of NABA, or "Who Needs to Save the Monarch" etc.) and "bulldoze"
(I don't necessarily mean that negatively) this new view through.  Those
seem to be the available arenas.  Of course, another is the public debunking
of the present science/protocols (validly or invalidly, e.g. by manipulation
of public opinion) and thus perhaps make the present
scientists/conservationists look like self-serving idiots.  The above seem
to be the way the game is played (and, again, I don't mean that necessarily
facetiously).  It would be happy news indeed if there as no threat,
actually, to the Monarchs in Mexico etc.

KURT
Dr. Kurt Johnson


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Cherubini [mailto:monarch at saber.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:01 PM
To: Johnson, Kurt
Cc: 'leps-l at lists.yale.edu'; 'TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com'
Subject: Re: [leps-talk] Why aren't Mexico's overwintering monarchs in
the news yet this winter?


Kurt Johnson wrote:

> still does not solve the problem of a circa 50% loss of 
> available forest land for overwintering in Mexico.
> Are you suggesting that the maps showing this historical 
> decline are ficticious?

Paul Cherubini responded:

> I don't understand your point. My point is that the census
> data indicates the size of the monarch overwintering 
> in Mexico has been stable from 1985-2001

Kurt Johnson follow up:

> I was referring to the demographic maps that showed 
> the shrinkage of Oyamel forest in the overwintering 
> areas over the years, long-term.  It would seem to me 
> that such a decrease is, itself, alarming... e.g. if it
> would continue, where would all those Monarchs go?

Cherubini follow up:

Since the monarch population has remained stable over the past
30 years while the forest has shrunk 50% I think a reasonable 
conclusion is that the 50% loss of forest was not harmful to the 
butterflies. 

Now if conservationists had stepped in 30 years ago to prevent
this 50% loss it would have deprived the 50,000 humans living 
in the immediate area from clearing the 50% to grow
their food, graze their farm animals, build their homes, schools, 
churches, roads, etc. yet would have done nothing to conserve 
monarch butterflies since the 50% forest portion removed was not 
really butterfly critical butterfly habitat to begin with.

Also, we should  consider if the patches of cleared forest could 
provide potential benefits to the butterflies. Like do the clearings 
provide a nearby source of drinking water and flower nectar?  Judge
for yourself:

http://www.saber.net/~monarch/meadow.JPG
http://www.saber.net/~monarch/child.JPG

> Are you suggesting that the maps showing this historical 
> decline are ficticious?

In my opinion, the satellite and ground photos of the overwintering 
sites taken over the past 25 - 30 years do not support your statement
that there has been a "50% loss of available forest land for 
overwintering in Mexico."

For example, here are the historical 1973 vs 2000 infared satellite 
photos of the two main overwintering colonies in Mexico where 70% of 
the monarchs overwinter. http://www.saber.net/~monarch/changes1.JPG

Red =            forest
Tan =            bare ground (farm land or meadows)
White dots = known colony locations over the years
White lines = butterfly reserve boundaries (the old ones)

Llittle change in the forest coverage is evident.

Paul Cherubini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20020213/e9cda5fc/attachment.html