Monarch Extinction (substantial evidence?)

[Stanley A. Gorodenski]

Paul Cherubini wrote:

>It has now been 13 years since Dr. Brower made those extinction
>predictions, yet neither the annual Cape May migration census results:
>http://www.saber.net/~monarch/extinction.jpg nor the  Mexican
>overwintering population census results
>http://www.saber.net/~monarch/mexicopop.jpg suggests the migratory
>phenomenon is in decline.
>

Patrick has already answered this argument, what was it, a month ago? In 
fact, Doug, in the message you are responding to made the same point. I 
feel we are going in circles. I guess this is one of those issues where 
where politicians, individuals with a political agenda, and advocates 
can have a field day with. Patrick can point out that the prophesy 
probably wasn't  fulfilled precisely because of the efforts of Taylor, 
Brower, Oberhauser, etc.,  and Doug, who is eminently qualified because 
of his experience with Mexico, can point out the following:

"And who's to say that if not for the efforts of the top-tier Monarch conservationists, there would be any forest at all left. It is a tribute to to folks like Conabio, Brower, Taylor and Oberhauser and all the rest that those trees are there today.  Because, if not, I could have snuck there this weekend and cut down as many trees as I wanted without any problem.  Paul never addresses this reality.  I guess he thinks it is like California's Mendocino National Forest before all this attention.  It's not.  This is not Paul's country and he is unfortunately way out of touch with certain critical factors we Mexicans face with natural resources.  Chiapas Rainforests are basically lost except for Lacandon Reserve.  The issue is not a snapshot for those conserving the forest. It is what happens to the forest if the police look the other way for just one season."

but because it is difficult to _prove_ these things, politicians, 
advocates, and others of like mind can have a field day. It might very 
well be that the Monarch is not worse off than it could be precisely 
because of the efforts by all the individuals who have devoted their 
time and effort. But how do you prove a negative? I'm am guessing a 
compelling case can be made if needed, but it would take a lot of work, 
probably. Because we are not in a situation of recovering a Monarch 
disaster, but instead preventing one, someone can always say, "There 
never was any danger to begin with and all your efforts actually had no 
effect - prove I'm wrong". Arrgghh!!
Stan


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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