Bob Parcelles,Jr. rjparcelles at
Sun Mar 10 17:11:23 EST 2002

--- Paul Cherubini <monarch at> wrote:
> Do monarchs need help to rebound?
> In Dec. 2000 the overwintering population in Mexico was
> measured at at 28 million . This is way below the long term average
> of 76 million. Even worse, in early March 2001 a severe storm hit
> the overwintering area, killing even more monarchs. Media stories
> circulated around the world last winter of the devastating plight
> of
> the monarchs. Dr. Orley (Chip) Taylor estimated only 10 million
> monarchs survived to remigrate back to Texas in March/April 2001.
> Nine months later, in Dec. 2001, the overwintering population in
> Mexico
> was at 110 million  = 46% above the long term average of 76
> million.
> Did any articles appear in the national media reporting this great
> recovery? Nope, so the public was not made aware their had been
> a recovery.
> Likewise in the winter of 1991-92 there was a big scare that turned
> out to be nothing.   A very severe freeze and snow storm hit the
> Mexico
> overwintering area in Jan. 1992 and a second storm hit in Feb.
> 1992.
> In a Science magazine article titled "The Case of the Missing
> Monarchs"
> Lincoln Brower stated that "4 out of 5 colonies I visited were
> practically
> wiped out". Media stories reporting an 80% monarch kill were widely
> circulated around the world.  In the same Science article, Dr.
> Orley
> (Chip) Taylor reported only a handful of spring migrants were
> sighted
> in northern Mexico in April in areas where millions had been seen
> in prior years. A very worrisome situation indeed.
> So what happened just 9 months later after the devastating mass
> monarch kill in Jan / Feb. 1992? Well, in Dec. 1992 the
> overwintering
> population in Mexico was measured at 85-93 million butterflies -
> slightly
> above normal!  Once again, no articles appeared in the world press
> reporting this great recovery, so the public was not made aware of
> it.
> So this begs the question: Why would conservationists go out of
> their
> way to make the world press aware of monarch population declines,
> but not also want the world know about the monarch population
> recoveries?
> Seems obvious to me that keeping the public frightened and worried
> about the monarch maximizes the grant / donation income monarch
> convservation organizations receive.
> Two years ago, Prof. Bruce Walsh expressed a similar view:
> "Remember, just like big corn gets their money by being able
> to produce their product as cheaply as possible, many
> environmental groups get their money by convincing the public
> that there is some dire threat that they need to fight
> (read support [= send money] to groups claiming the threat)."
> Practical example: Dozens of people on this list serve recently
> received 
> the following email from Pat Durkin of the Washington Area
> Butterfly 
> Club:
> As result of the big freeze in Mexico this past January, which you
> may have seen reported in the New York Times and other newspapers,
> it is exceedingly important to keep up our East Coast monitoring
> projects at Cape May, NJ and Chincoteague, VA. Donations of any
> size would be most appreciated. Please make checks payable to 
> "Sweet Briar College, Monarch Fund" and send c/o Lincoln Brower 
> to the address below.
> Many thanks,
> Pat Durkin, WABC
> Lincoln Brower, Research Professor of Biology
> Sweet Briar College
> Sweet Briar VA 24595

Hi Paul,

Of course it was obvious that youm would reply thusly. As has been
said many times to you (hundreds?) The monarch's research is not
being done by anyone without the sincerest of convictions and sound
data. to impune my friend, Dr. Brower again is certainly in poor
taste. This noted scientist first among many who are devoted to this
research, monitoring and yes, promotion of the Monarch is not in a
fraudulent, grant seeking position. 

Now lets for the 400th time (Leps-List archives is overwhelmed with
this subject and Paul's "data") cover just a few points. scince be
darned. The monarch's winterroosts are fragile as you well know. If
the density of trees change the, the temp changes and so on...the
monarch's freeze. Well i ythink the Mexicans do not need to cut the
timber. The poor farmers looking for land to cultivate are not being
'helped by this clearing and the forest industry in mexico is just as
greedy and corrupt as in this country. However, the old USA has a
wealthfare economy in place and the forest industry is quite well
taken care of by your and my (and Lincoln Brower's) taxes. they have
a profit from government subsidies,Forest service dedicated
activities and all R & D financed before their day begins. Therefore
let's have so many Monarchs that we break the darn trees down, for
that matter, lets have so many in California that you can't see and
it and its nuts as we have discussed for a week all break off into
the Pacific from the weight. Mark Walker is excepted...all of the
good nuts come to florida and we can see butteflys fly 359 days of
the year, for Peace, goodwill lots of grants and the American way! 

We need HR 1494 to get out of Committee! Wow! 

Paul, I hope you can swim!

Best,  you really are a lot of fun..;)


Bob Parcelles, Jr
Pinellas Park, FL
RJP Associates, C2M-BWPTi
rjparcelles at
"Change your thoughts and you change your world."
- Norman Vincent Peale

Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list