[leps-talk] Re: Validity of Monarch Sanctuary Deforestation Claims

[Stan Gorodenski]

Paul,
I am not questioning whether the deforestation that has occurred since 
1971 has harmed the Monarch or not. My only purpose is to better 
understand your claims regarding deforestation. I do not know whether 
the deforestation that has occurred is harmful or not. However, Mexico 
owns this land and so there is very little we can do, except to try and 
enlighten them to the dangers, if there are any, of deforestation and 
influence their management of the forest in that manner. My questions 
follow:

Paul Cherubini wrote:

>Stan Gorodenski wrote:
>  
>
>>The deforestation maps from 1971 to 1999 show quite a
>>different picture than Paul's photographs... it
>>appears there really has been extensive derforestation in
>>prior years, much more than I would have guessed
>>based on statements about the current health of the Oyamel
>>forest.
>>    
>>
>
>Those "maps" are electronic animations of alledged
>deforestation, not real photographs, hence not real
>reliable
>
>  For example,. the animations show
>substantial deforestation at the El Rosario Reserve between
>1986 and 1999, but real photographs such as mine below
>show next to none:
>
>http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mastertech/1990.jpg
>http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mastertech/2005.jpg
>  
>

The animations you reference go from 1984 to 1999, not 1986 to 1999. 
Also, your 1990 photo is not a photo of 1986 or 1984, at least I do not 
think so because you have it labeled 1990. If it really is a photo taken 
in 1990, then it cannot be equated to the degree of deforestation that 
existed in 1984 (or 1986). It is possible that a large amount of 
deforestation had occurred between 1984 and 1990, but very little after 
1990. Hence, you could be making a false claim that very little 
deforestation occurred between 1986 and 1999.

Your photographs look across the landscape. I have difficulty 
translating them into an arial view and so I cannot see how they support 
your claims. Because they look across the trees instead of down on them 
(like in an arial photo), the existing trees could easily hide 
deforested patches. In fact, there are a couple areas where it appears 
this might be the case. Is it? Also, there does appear to be a 
substantial amount of bare areas in the foreground. Is this the result 
of deforestation that occurred since 1971 (the first year of the 
animation maps), or since 1984?

However, to me the amount of deforestation since 1990 or 1999 is much 
less telling than the amount that has occurred since 1971. A substantial 
amount of deforestation (and fragmentation or thinning(?)) appears to 
have occurred since 1971, according to the 1971 animation map.

>Why didn't the authors of the animation study show the public
>many of the actual aerial photos upon which the animations were
>based?  To find out, last winter I visited the Geography Dept.
>at the University of Mexico in Mexico City and viewed
>the aerial photos in person. I found the actual aerial photos were
>just black and while photos taken at such high altitudes
>that individual trees could not hardly be clearly resolved.
>  
>

You may be correct that they (the real photographs) cannot be used as 
useful evidence for or against deforestation. Even if I saw them myself 
I may not be able to see what they say because of my lack of experience 
in this area. However, is it necessary to be able to see individual 
trees to know that one is seeing a forest? When the 1999 photograph was 
taken, if the researchers who studied them could definitely equate dark 
areas to forests and ligher areas to grassland (or whatever the 
non-forest areas are) then they could pretty safely assume that the dark 
and light areas in the 1984 and 1971 areas represent forests and 
non-forests, respectfully. It seems their animation maps would be fairly 
accurate even though they may contain some mis-codings. Are dark and 
light areas what the researchers used to code forest and non-forest 
areas to create the animation maps? If not, what did they use?
 
One thing that would put your photographs in better perspective is if 
you could show where the mountain range in them occur in the animation 
maps. It appears there are three elevated areas in the maps (if that is 
what the rectangles are). Is the mountain in your photos one of them, or 
do your photos cover the entire area of the maps?
Stan

>I was dissappointed the aerial photos were not clear enough 
>to be useful as evidence either for or against alledged
>

>deforestation.
>
>Paul Cherubini
>El Dorado, Calif.
>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------ 
>
>   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