Brower replies- The most recent ranting about monarch butterfly conservation

[Charles Bordelon]

Guys- look out! this guy is near graduating from a 200-level rhetoric
course.  What is the freakin' point you keep alluding to?  Ultimate
destruction?  Where did you go to school?  St. Copious of what?    God, I
wash my hands of this crap.  Don't tell me... R.J. Reynolds is behind all of
this fantasy crap.  Make me a believer.  Tell me you know the scientific
name of the Monarch,  or better yet, is there any other species that you are
aware that exists?  Guessing; forecasting?  Tell us, oh great suave, what is
this ultimate point you profess in such a dismal fart of a mystery, that we
all have to wait for your ultimate judgement???   You pontificate a whole
bunch o' nothin' that down here in Texas we call, "shit."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanley A. Gorodenski" <stan_gorodenski at asualumni.org>
To: <monarch at saber.net>
Cc: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: Brower replies- The most recent ranting about monarch butterfly
conservation


> Paul, you, like Mr. Bordelon, are also missing the point. You may be
> able to make a good _guess_, or even a good _forecast_, based on the
> information you provided that the Monarch will prove to be a successful
> species (measured by its ability to adapt to what will be the greatest
> extent of the destruction of its habitat) with respect to the Mexico
> migration, but you cannot say it is a successful species before the
> event has occurred, i.e., before the ultimate destruction of its habitat
> has occurred.Your points of contention are nothing more than forecasts
> at this point.You, or I, cannot forecast the economy of Mexico with 100%
> accuracy and so you cannot forecast the direction of logging and other
> destructive activities decades or a hundred or more years in the future
> with 100% accuracy no matter what your photographs may show. I am not
> taking sides on this issue, although it may appear that way. What I am
> objecting to are certain conceptual approaches to the problem that I
> think are wrong. The ability to recognize the distinction between a
> forecast and an event is necessary to research the problem and discuss
> it and so it is necessary to recognize that some of  your points of
> contention are forecasts, not fact. Also, when Mr. Bordelon produces
> absurd arguments that because the Sparrow has adapted to human
> habitation, then so will the Monarch, I will object to them as I have. I
> also will object to purposeful misinterpretations and misquotes of
> researchers like Mr. Brower because this creates an environment that
> makes it more difficult to get at the heart of an issue.
>
> It may be that, per Woody's gut feeling, the Monarch is a successful
> weedy species, and perhaps sometime in the future after more discussions
> and research the general consensus will be that it is. Then all current
> points of disagreement will be a moot point because no one will listen
> and Brower will not be able to get 100 mil grants. Until then, there is
> still considerable disagreement among researchers, and while there is I
> will object to things I do not consider to be conducive to resolving the
> issue, again in the context of not taking sides, as well as questioning
> certain things as I have done in the past. But ultimately, I am engaged
> in these discussions because it is fun and there is no reason to become
> enemies over them or start flaming as some have done.
> Stan
>
> Paul Cherubini wrote:
>
> >Stanley A. Gorodenski wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>You cannot say the Monarch will
> >>be a successful species with regard to the Mexico migration until it has
> >>passed its test, which in this case will be adapting to the human
> >>destruction of the habitat it is now using or may use in lieu of its
> >>current overwintering habitat. This may take many years to be realized.
> >>Stan
> >>
> >>
> >

> >Each year, 60-70% of all the monarchs overwintering in Mexico use
> >these two habitats:
> >http://www.saber.net/~monarch/chincuadis.JPG
> >http://www.saber.net/~monarch/elrosariodis.jpg
> >Do you see any substantial and worrisome forest "destruction" or
> >"degradation" in the photos?  I don't.
> >The other mountains in Mexico where the other 30-40% of monarchs
> >overwinter look the same except on the Chivati-Huacal mountain
> >and Cerro San Andres mountains where forest fires burnt part of
> >the forest http://www.saber.net/~monarch/hchivati.JPG
> >
> >It takes only 30-40 years for the forest to regenerate and return
> >to its former stature in this region of Mexico which gets 50-70
> >inches of rain a year (the area looks like the forests of Oregon).
> >
> >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
>
>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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