Monarchs and Monoculture in southern Michigan

[Ed Reinertsen]

Neil
You are smarter than this. You are grasping at straws. You need to go back 
and review
history as to know what is happening now. I expected a different answer from 
you, but this is
what you have to offer?

Ed Reinertsen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Neil Jones" <neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk>
To: <LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: Monarchs and Monoculture in southern Michigan


> On Friday 26 August 2005 20:45, Kenelm W Philip wrote:
>> > The major and overwhelming factor in determining tag recovery
>> > numbers in Mexico is the weather there.
>>
>> Can Neil explain to us how the weather at the overwintering
>> sites affects the _ratio_ between recovered tagged Monarchs
>> from the east and from the midwest? I fail to see the connection
>> here...
>>
>> Ken Philip
>
> I am very surprised that you are asking this question.
> To me it is absolutely obvious. The data cannot be relied upon to provide 
> the
> results you are looking for because there aren't enough of them.
> Some of the figures we are looking at are in single figures. A 10 or 20%
> change could easily be masked by chance  alone.
>
> It is also obvious for the reason that we don't know the starting figures
> because we don't know what the initial numbers of tagged monarchs were in
> each area.  From what I am seeing on the net there has been quite a change 
> in
> the number of people involved.
>
> Thirdly, as ever, Paul Cherubini, has failed to qualify his data properly. 
> For
> example he knows quite well that the 2004 figures cannot be used to form a
> conclusion for the following reasons.
> 1. The 70 to 1 ratio is reliant on the fact that only a single record 
> makes
> the 1 figure. chance could easily change it.
> 2. Not all the tags will have been handed in yet. Anyone who has read 
> Dplex-l
> and he still is obviously reading it despite being banned would know this. 
> It
> takes several years to get all the tags handed in.
>
> Of course as we know he will never let bad data get in the way of a good 
> piece
> of fake science.
>
> Even if these figures were to be found to be representative and accurate 
> and
> there is no effect on Monarchs. His major premise about GM crops being
> harmless (which he has been claiming for years) still falls on simple 
> obvious
> ecology. Other species are bound to fe affected if their foodplants are
> killed off by weedkiller.
>
> More industrialised agriculture =less habitat.
> Less habitat = fewer animals.
>
> You know Ken up there in Alaska you don't seem to understand what modern
> agriculture is doing to butterfly populations. Over here in the UK recent
> research, including the world's largest ever butterfly survey, shows that
> over 70% of our butterfly species have delined over the last 20 years and
> they were declining long before that. We have also lost around 98% of the
> flower rich meadows.
>
> Again Ecology 101 less habitat = fewer animals.
>
> --
> Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
> "
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ 
>
>   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