Monarchs: Eucalyptus globulus introductions versus preserving natural communities

Chuck Vaughn aa6g at
Sat Jan 26 16:44:22 EST 2002

> Is it so terrible to spend a small fraction of our
> public
> money and charitable contributions to preserve habitat that is likely to help
> Monarchs and many other species?

I'll probably regret opening this can of worms because it will be
misinterpreted but....

If by "public money" you mean money from the federal government then it _is_
terrible. The federal government has no constitutional authority to spend
tax money on habitat restoration and likewise for the thousands of other
things it spends tax money on. Charitible contributions are quite another
story and should not be lumped together with public money. People are
free to give money to any cause they choose and should do so.
> Planting large numbers of Blue Gum Eucalyptus on what might be oak woodland,
> or
> some other natural California community in order to help one Australian
> species
> invade shows the kind of singleminded, unecological, nonevolutionary thinking
> we
> enjoy so much on this list.

I'm constantly astonished how people read things into the posts of others
on this list. The only thing I remember reading in Paul's last post was that
a Monarch overwintering site could be created inexpensively by planting Blue
Gum Eucalyptus along the Califronia coast. Where did "planting large
numbers" of them in "oak woodlands" come from? Am I the only non-mind reader
here? Is that what Paul was really thinking but I couldn't read his mind?

(No, I'm not uninitiated, I've read lep-l since 1995.)

> Sometimes I suspect Paul Cherubini is winning an irony
> contest that most of us didn't know we were in.

I think he knows exactly how to push many of your collective buttons.<g>

Chuck <aa6g at>


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list