Slashdot Mirror


Monarch Butterfly Numbers Plummet 86 Percent In California (usatoday.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: The number of monarch butterflies turning up at California's overwintering sites has dropped by about 86 percent compared to only a year ago, according to the Xerces Society, which organizes a yearly count of the iconic creatures. That's bad news for a species whose numbers have already declined an estimated 97 percent since the 1980s. Each year, monarchs in the western United States migrate from inland areas to California's coastline to spend the winter, usually between September and February. Results from the count so far show that the number of monarchs at 97 California overwintering sites has dropped from around 148,000 in 2017 to just over 20,400 this year. Counts for dozens of other sites are still being tabulated, but the outlook is troubling.

What's causing the dramatic drop-off is somewhat of a mystery. Experts believe the decline is spurred by a confluence of unfortunate factors, including late rainy-season storms across California last March, the effects of the state's yearslong drought and the seemingly relentless onslaught of wildfires that have burned acres upon acres of habitat and at times choked the air with toxic smoke. The Thomas Fire last year burned almost 300,000 acres, including areas important for monarch breeding and migration. More recently, the Woolsey Fire damaged at least four monarch butterfly overwintering sites in the Malibu area, according to Lara Drizd, a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Ventura.

148 comments

  1. monocrop annual ag destroys ecosystems by js290 · · Score: 2

    "Name one ecosystem that is better off for having agriculture moved into it?" Toby Hemenway http://bit.ly/1pnapoW

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    1. Re: monocrop annual ag destroys ecosystems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      97% gone. Amazingly scary

    2. Re:monocrop annual ag destroys ecosystems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... we're talking about California. It's not a monocrop situation. They grow fucking EVERYTHING there.

    3. Re:monocrop annual ag destroys ecosystems by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Banking.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:monocrop annual ag destroys ecosystems by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Rice fields are pretty great for ecosystems. They help migrating birds, for example, and walking through them you see all kinds of wildlife.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:monocrop annual ag destroys ecosystems by js290 · · Score: 1

      Abundance of Ohio River Valley during Jefferson administration http://bit.ly/1cbC2uU

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    6. Re:monocrop annual ag destroys ecosystems by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Every ecosystem that included humans.

      At least, it was better for the humans. Being a human, I find that to be an important concern.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    7. Re:monocrop annual ag destroys ecosystems by js290 · · Score: 1

      Every ecosystem that included humans.

      At least, it was better for the humans. Being a human, I find that to be an important concern.

      "Every culture that has depended on annual plants for their staple food crops has collapsed." http://bit.ly/1ck0tnM

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    8. Re:monocrop annual ag destroys ecosystems by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure what your point is.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:monocrop annual ag destroys ecosystems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Every culture that has depended on annual plants for their staple food crops has collapsed."

      That's a pretty silly thing to say. There are such cultures today that haven't collapsed. So, I guess it means that same as saying "every culture that doesn't exist today has collapsed."

    10. Re:monocrop annual ag destroys ecosystems by sexconker · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have one.

  2. Not too surprising by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They are cyclical and are related to milkweed availability. But given that milkweed is considered a noxious weed and often targeted for eradication, it damages the Monarch food cycle. Too bad that milkweed is on the weed management area list.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Not too surprising by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My mom raises bees on her farm, and has a half acre dedicated to wildflowers, buckwheat for the bees, and thousands of milkweed plants. If more people would do the same, the world would have more butterflies.

      If you have a backyard, you should consider scrapping your lawnmower, and getting some wildflower and milkweed seeds.

    2. Re:Not too surprising by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Spot on. Ontario did the same thing under the previous government and declared it a "noxious weed" in ~2002 or so and monarch numbers plummeted. This is and absolute man-made problem caused by removing a key plant, and in many cases like here in Ontario it was environmentalists and NIMBY's that pushed for it to be labeled as such. The factory farms then got on board because it then allowed them to use more aggressive herbicides to kill it back, especially where it liked to grow with soybeans. Further, the provincial government then pushed local(city/county) to pass bylaws with heavy financial penalties. Around here it was a fine of $500/plant, smoking in a non-smoking building is $2000 to put in perspective.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Not too surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in Ontario it was entirely the factory farms that lobbied for it, and the environmentalists who got milkweed removed from the list.

      That means you're even more inaccurate than usual, though confusing Canada and California is pretty bad on its own.

    4. Re:Not too surprising by hardihoot · · Score: 1

      Maybe we could genetically engineer the Monarch butterfly to feed on marijuana plants instead of milkweed.

      --
      A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver --Proverbs 25:11
    5. Re:Not too surprising by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Do you KNOW how many stoned butterflies would cover my windscreen?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Not too surprising by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Actually, in Ontario it was entirely the factory farms that lobbied for it

      Actually in Ontario, it was started by a bunch of city idiots in Toronto, because some kid decided to eat a bunch of the leaves and nearly died. Said kid, was the kid of a big donor the Liberal party of Ontario and the factory farms were all over it once the initial idea hit the OL pre-comittee to update the noxious weed act. Give you bonus points if you can figure out the child-rearing method that said ultra rich parents believed in. Double points if you can find their last name.

      and the environmentalists who got milkweed removed from the list.

      And it was the environmentalists who didn't. Rather it was the University of Guelph's Agricultural Research Farm. NIMBY's and their aligned environmentalist organizations directly opposed it. That would be like saying the several of the environmentalist groups who were protesting line 9, didn't have people try to damage pumping stations to "show how bad it could be."

      That means you're even more inaccurate than usual

      Boy it's like you don't even live here and have no idea what you're talking about.

      though confusing Canada and California is pretty bad on its own.

      And it takes a very special kind of stupid to fail to see repeatedly bad policies and laws, repeatedly put into action, over and over and over and over again. And by the exact same people who are politically aligned to boot. It's like you don't even know how much of a incestuous political camp existed between the democrat government of CA and Liberal Party in Ontario over the last 25 years.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:Not too surprising by dryeo · · Score: 1

      OTOH, from https://monarchjointventure.or...

      Is milkweed an invasive weed?

      There are many species of milkweed native to North America and while “weed” is part of their name, these milkweeds are native, beneficial wildflowers. In the U.S., neither the federal government nor any states list milkweeds as noxious weeds. In fact at least five species are listed as state or federal endangered species (Borders, LeeMäder 2014). According to the North American Invasive Species Network, an invasive species is “a non-native species...whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic harm, environmental harm, or harm to human health.” The invasiveness of any plant depends on the characteristics of the species and where it is planted. Some species of milkweed, like common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), have a tendency to be more aggressive in garden settings or disturbed areas, and thus have a reputation of being “weedy”. If you are concerned about milkweed spreading too much, choose species that are native to your area, and avoid species that are particularly good at vegetative, clonal reproduction or are prolific seed producers. Local garden centers, Master Gardeners or Master Naturalists, and other conservation authorities can help you choose the most appropriate native milkweed species to plant in your setting.

      Lots of other sites say much the same thing, though it is listed as a noxious weed in a few places such as parts of Minnesota and Ontario. Generally noxious weeds are not native, which is why they're a problem.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:Not too surprising by dryeo · · Score: 1

      https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada...

      The province once considered milkweed a noxious weed under the Weed Control Act. Nicoll says it was originally banned because milkweed eaten by dairy cows caused their milk to taste slightly sour.

      "It's actually a really pretty plant," she said.

      The province dropped milkweed from its noxious weed designation in 2014, Nicoll learned, but Burlington never followed suit. She even started hearing from friends and associates that they were allowed to have the plants in cities as nearby as neighbouring Oakville.

      "Then I found out that the city of Burlington gives the plants and the seeds away for free through the parks and rec," she said. "It was confusing they were giving it out for free and telling me to rip mine out."

      Where do you get your info? It seems consistently wrong to one degree or another and very slanted such as blaming environmentalists for the dairy farmers lobbying.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    9. Re:Not too surprising by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Where do you get your info? It seems consistently wrong to one degree or another and very slanted such as blaming environmentalists for the dairy farmers lobbying.

      Reality. "Nicoll says" this is incorrect, Nicoll is a city-idiot. I'm not faulting her for being an idiot, she just is. I do commend her for actually fixing a 4 year old problem however, because you can bet your ass people were still being fined or threatened by bylaw officers after it came off the NWA in 2014. The CBC like normal didn't even do the basic diligence of digging for the facts. It doesn't make the milk taste slightly sour. And even if it did, you wouldn't notice it because in Canada we use centralized depots for milk processing. Providing that the farmer doesn't start the process themselves, in which case they pick it up with a split tanker.

      Now to the rest, cows are more likely to empty all of their stomachs if they eat milkweed. This can actually cause serious problems because, if you don't know cows eat in phases, throwing up and rechewing the plant material before it's passed along to another stomach for digestion. This actually increases the toxicity in each phase. On top of that, since their normal digestion is thrown out of wack, it can cause a variety of other issues including twisting and tearing of the stomach.

      There's your basic lesson on "cow stuff." Next time if I'm feeling ambitious I'll explain why it was put on the list itself.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Not too surprising by dryeo · · Score: 1

      We're still left with your claim that environmentalists put it on the list. Anyways looking more at the Ontario's government sites, it seems it was actually considered poisonous to livestock, especially sheep.
      I must say that having been a pesticide applicator when young, including getting a (BC) ticket in forestry, Ontario does seem to go crazy with their noxious weeds. Here they're pretty well invasive weeds rather then ones that upset farmers

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    11. Re:Not too surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure thing - if only more people were rich enough to have a huge farm!

    12. Re:Not too surprising by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      We're still left with your claim that environmentalists put it on the list.

      Sure, just dust off the government regulation hearings back in 2002ish and you'll find it quickly.

      I must say that having been a pesticide applicator when young, including getting a (BC) ticket in forestry, Ontario does seem to go crazy with their noxious weeds. Here they're pretty well invasive weeds rather then ones that upset farmers

      Milkweed aka A.Syriaca is the type we're talking about here, and is a primary plant for monarch butterflies that range from Canada in the east. But Ontario listed ALL Asclepais varieties as a noxious weed. The type mainly in BC is Asclepias Speciosa, and was also under the restriction of the noxious weed and invasive plants act.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:Not too surprising by dryeo · · Score: 1

      We're still left with your claim that environmentalists put it on the list.

      Sure, just dust off the government regulation hearings back in 2002ish and you'll find it quickly.

      Well I can't find any info on the hearings. Did find info on it being removed about 1990. Seemed to be a lot of confusion on actual species with the regulation being too broad and a mixup with Vincetoxicum, which are also called milkweeds in some circles. This did seem to be pushed by environmentalists trying to help the Monarch.
      https://www.ontariocanada.com/...

      I must say that having been a pesticide applicator when young, including getting a (BC) ticket in forestry, Ontario does seem to go crazy with their noxious weeds. Here they're pretty well invasive weeds rather then ones that upset farmers

      Milkweed aka A.Syriaca is the type we're talking about here, and is a primary plant for monarch butterflies that range from Canada in the east. But Ontario listed ALL Asclepais varieties as a noxious weed. The type mainly in BC is Asclepias Speciosa, and was also under the restriction of the noxious weed and invasive plants act.

      I can't find any noxious weed list from BC that includes any species of Asclepias. Even checked my literature from about 1980. It seems fairly rare in BC, I've never seen it, even when I lived in the interior for a bit. I did find a reference that claimed it was on the noxious weed list, perhaps that is what you saw. This seems as good of a source as any, https://bcinvasives.ca/documen...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    14. Re:Not too surprising by Agripa · · Score: 1

      If you have a backyard, you should consider scrapping your lawnmower, and getting some wildflower and milkweed seeds.

      The local government would fine me for doing that.

  3. Where are the Ayn Rand cultists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to say this is just the latent greed of humans surpassing any "need" or freemarket advantage of having butterflies, stupid little things who cares right? Drink more RoundUp, Monsantoids.

    1. Re: Where are the Ayn Rand cultists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you wear a sombrero to a party?
      You might be a tru ptard
      Do you put the little toys in the toy box before the big toys?
      You might be a trunptard

    2. Re: Where are the Ayn Rand cultists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glug glug glug

    3. Re: Where are the Ayn Rand cultists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they are in your pockets. Cause socialism won right? Maybe ask Venezuela. Or all those dead people in Russia, China. Vietnam. North Korea. Cuba, etc. They won big time.

    4. Re: Where are the Ayn Rand cultists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cuba is the last remaining socialist state. Helps a bit that they're on an island so it's a bit easier to stop people from seeing what capitalism is and/or taking about how much socialism sucks.

    5. Re: Where are the Ayn Rand cultists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why could the egyptians paint the pyramids but Havana hasn't seen a coat of paint in almost seventy years? Socialism.

    6. Re: Where are the Ayn Rand cultists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Havana has more documented American citizens doing skilled maintenance on its buildings than Trump's entire slumlord empire in the last 3 decades. Go fuck Putin on a golf course, call it Presidential. Mueller knows your handicap.

    7. Re: Where are the Ayn Rand cultists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The states you list are dictatorships more than they are socialist. Democratic socialist states, where the government stands up for its citizens, do rather well from a quality of life perspective.

    8. Re: Where are the Ayn Rand cultists by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Democratic socialist states, where the government stands up for its citizens, do rather well from a quality of life perspective.

      Do you mean states like Sweden, where the government let in thousands of muslim immigrants creating zones where even the police say they have difficulty operating. Or maybe you mean Germany where they let muslim men get away with rape on new year 2016, simply because they didn't want to seem racially insensitive.

      You may like their health care system, but to insinuate that democratic socialist states stand up for their citizens is a bit naive.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    9. Re: Where are the Ayn Rand cultists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you still believe those stories? Funny how it turns out they're all exaggerations and misrepresentations where you take the police saying they have to make an effort to get the trust of the community to be a no-go zone of lawlessness and actually, in Germany, it was the Right-wing Neo-Nazi groups who originated the idea of having their own dominions where they threw out the state back in the 1980s.

    10. Re: Where are the Ayn Rand cultists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny but the Nordic countries object to being called socialists.

    11. Re: Where are the Ayn Rand cultists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny most US citizens object to being called socialists too yet we both live in socialized democracies and have small sub-populations who don't understand what kind of country they live in and are fooled into loathing and disparaging themselves and what is best for them unwittingly like useful idiots do.

  4. Are they gone or just vacationing elsewhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It matters if they are just dead and gone, but are they? Are they just not going to CA for some reason?

    1. Re:Are they gone or just vacationing elsewhere? by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

      they're old. they went to florida.

    2. Re:Are they gone or just vacationing elsewhere? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the price of real estate in California? They're probably going to Arizona or New Mexico.

  5. Well we still have some eastern monarchs left by bobstreo · · Score: 2

    https://blog.nwf.org/2018/03/m...

    I've been allowing milkweeds to grow on my property since I bought it. I mow around them...

  6. Leaving with the rest of the middle class by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    Maybe California should slow the human encroachment into their habitats. With people comes noise, pollution, abnormal lighting and invasive species.

    And California should stop encouraging building in fire zones.

    1. Re:Leaving with the rest of the middle class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's ironic you mention, they specifically saved Monarch butterfly (top dollar view!) habitat on an entire mountain range making up their prime migration area, go figure, people put the butterfly and open space first specifically for that reason.

      Not in your Trump administration, of course. They would be making all kinds of facts up right now about "criminal butterflies, who needs them trespassing anyway?"

      Fire zones are fine to build in if you mandate appropriate materials and construction for that purpose. But that's like telling Florida to stop building cheap shackdominium resort property right on hurricane beach, right?

      Or telling West Virginia not to put giant coal ash or mining tailing pools RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR ENTIRE WATER SUPPLY. Like RIGHT next to it.

      But this was about Monarch butterflies, right you dishonest little AM radio talking point incarnate lol? Get lost bitch.

    2. Re:Leaving with the rest of the middle class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don’t know. I thought he had a valid point, except I blame agriculture more than where people are putting their homes. I’m sure if that mountain had commercial value they would have found a cheaper habitat to save.

    3. Re:Leaving with the rest of the middle class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The zoning laws and economic reasons for over development are not a California problem.
      They are an American problem.

      Building in fire zones?
      Again, this is an American problem.
      It isn't just California that has idiotic development in western forests that naturally burn every so often.

  7. LyingwoodCuckster here to obfuscate again, joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    You just break out the same bullshit for climate change and anything else, "oh it's cyclical" - and then you leave off the critical factor that isn't cyclical, but in fact systemic over decades and entirely NOT cyclical nor linked to milkweed closely.

    You're a known empty barrel.

    1. Re:LyingwoodCuckster here to obfuscate again, joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But he said more than “it’s cyclical”

    2. Re:LyingwoodCuckster here to obfuscate again, joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you didn't.

    3. Re:LyingwoodCuckster here to obfuscate again, joy by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      No you didn't.

      He clearly did. I have no idea if it's correct or not but he clearly goes on to mention milkweed availability as a root cause. Again, no clue if that's right or wrong but it was said.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    4. Re:LyingwoodCuckster here to obfuscate again, joy by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      I have my own little group of trolls who love to lie about anything I write. Of course they are AC, as they are too cowardly to associate their real screen names with their statements. I think facts that run counter to their world-view make them cry inside... Milkweed availability is the big issue. It's not fires, it's not climate change - it's our eradication of the "noxious weed" milkweed, which is a food source for the larvae.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re: LyingwoodCuckster here to obfuscate again, joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh silly LynnwoodRooster, nobody needs to help you lie, you do it on your own.

      It is kinda your own fault, you keep doing it.

    6. Re:LyingwoodCuckster here to obfuscate again, joy by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I have my own little group of trolls who love to lie about anything I write.

      Pretty sure it's just one person, and since their writing style is so similar across their trolling to multiple people. It's likely someone who's either very lonely, or has a mental illness.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:LyingwoodCuckster here to obfuscate again, joy by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Can you actually use Google or DDG to find areas where native Milkweed is a noxious weed?
      Noxious weed has a legal meaning, basically that there is a requirement to control them.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:LyingwoodCuckster here to obfuscate again, joy by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      Law requiring noxious weed control. Milkweed is a noxious weed. In this case, the Government requires elimination or at least strict control of milkweed, then decries the loss of Monarchs due to the control.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    9. Re:LyingwoodCuckster here to obfuscate again, joy by dryeo · · Score: 1

      So Aslepias sp. is considered a restricted (can't sell seed or other seed contaminated with it) toxic weed in Hawaii. Perhaps you're confusing Cynanchum which is sometimes called climbing milkweed, with the true milkweeds that Monarch's feed on?
      This is why it is important to use scientific names rather then common names.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    10. Re:LyingwoodCuckster here to obfuscate again, joy by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You might want to save yourself the trouble and look by state, because A.Syriaca is considered a noxious weed as well. Along with other varieties again varying by state. NY, MI, MA, W.DC, MI, IN and so on. They've only been rolled back in the last few years, the fundamental point that put them on the list was mentioned before.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  8. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now the people can cross off a worthless species that has been preventing valuble development of infrastructure across the countrys.

  9. So just doing some math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    97% + 86% = more than decimated.

    Drive slow when driving through milkweed fields.

    Buy cats to eat the birds, who eat the butterflies.

  10. Fucking liberals... by bblb · · Score: 0, Troll

    Liberals fucking this state up so bad that even the butterflies don't want to live here anymore...

    1. Re:Fucking liberals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should literally be tortured to death for your lack of joke ability.

    2. Re:Fucking liberals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're nuts Ivan. That was hilarious.

    3. Re: Fucking liberals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the nice bennies from the state, the dumbass lobs handing you cash for booze, and the conveniently placed shitters - why, you don't even have to run to a BART station any more! That's real progress.

    4. Re: Fucking liberals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they are mobile enough. All they have to do is hop aboard a freight train and they can go anywhere. And Arizona isn't a hot state, that's just Phoenix, where there are homeless standing at the side of the road all the time.

      California is way more attractive for the government freebies, where it's much easier to make a living without needing to work.

    5. Re: Fucking liberals... by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      So then why is it that California is 12% of the population of the whole US, and yet 25% of the homeless population lives there?

      Because the weather is nice?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    6. Re: Fucking liberals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that was the case, they'd cluster in all of the coastal cities with good weather. Instead they just cluster to the states with the most benefits, New York and Washington being other major clusters, and those places are cold as fuck in winter.

      Besides, even within California, they go places that any sane person would avoid, like Los Angeles, which is where they're clustered the most.

  11. They had wildfires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Remember?

  12. Luckily we still got the bees by thesjaakspoiler · · Score: 2

    .. ow ... wait ...

  13. Well just click his name and find out he's a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a known entity. On the very first page of his comments at the bottom (maybe 2nd now, who knows) you can see him making an objectively shitty joke attempt about CA... He's just one of the Fox News faggots.

    The actual point is where his head was conically squeezed during his formative years by his mother's oppressively tight conservative vagina, which always cried out for big black cock as he grew into a bitter racist faggot of no value.

    His entire "point" if you can call it that is to make a shitty one-line dig at CA as if that furthers the cause of treasonous faggot nazi conservatism. There's no 'there' there.

  14. Re:Maybe they are allergic to poop in streets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Keep doing that great Trump advertising. Every single slashdot article. You know the saying - no such thing as bad publicity! For free, too. You're gonna help us come 2020. Terrific job, terrific. I'm sure he thanks you bigly.

  15. Extinction Level Event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coming soon to a theater near you

    1. Re: Extinction Level Event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope so. That would really anger the libs!

  16. http://www.mountainwatch.org/butterflies-and-wildl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ". I’m sure if that mountain had commercial value they would have found a cheaper habitat to save." = you mean South San Francisco. It's the #1 most expensive peninsula on the planet barring man-made islands in Dubai.

    So no, wrong, they couldn't have picked a more desirable residential sprawl area than San Bruno mountain, midway between unaffordable Silicon Valley and skyrocketing SF proper. http://www.mountainwatch.org/butterflies-and-wildlife/

  17. Forest fires / smoke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not as if butterflies must travel through the air or rest in trees or anything obvious like that.

  18. I thought you all knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The cartel in Mexico is destroying the butterflies environment with the production of heroin, meth and other drug processing without regard to the damages to the local areas. Not to mention their allergy and suffering debilitating effects of marijuana smoke.

  19. Perfectly normal by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Massive fluctuations in the butterfly population are perfectly normal.

    The link goes to a paper from 1974, and looks at data back into the 1950s. For example: "A population peak occurred in 1950 and 1951 followed by a marked reduction in numbers in 1952; by 1953 the populations had been reduced to such an extent that no over-night roosting colonies could be found in areas where they had previously occurred in thousands and only seven field specimens were collected throughout the entire summer period. "

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  20. Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As an old fart who remembers when monarchs were commonplace, I can't help but feel sad for future generations who will never see their beauty. Young people now grow up in a world where NOT seeing monarchs is normal. That's part of the problem, right? The baseline for how the world is is shifting so it's hard for new generations to appreciate the effect human activity has had on the planet.

    Our planetwide ecosystem is collapsing. It requires dramatic changes to how to handle ourselves. The current human population is simply too large and places too big a demand on our environment. It must be curbed, even if by drastic means such as forced sterilization. But people won't accept that because they don't realize how bad the current situation is. We are driving full speed into a brick wall and instead of applying the brakes, we are speeding up. We are doomed. Do what you like.

    1. Re:Sad by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      Our planetwide ecosystem is collapsing

      In America it's improved dramatically. Remember when rivers actually used to catch fire? Our air quality is so much better than it used to be, we used to pump so much lead into the air that it caused mental problems.

      There are some issues in the developing world, but overall they've learned to move through the developing phase much more cleanly than we did (of course, they learned lessons from our mistakes, which is a good thing).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it caused mental problems.

      Those improvements don't seem to be working in California.

    3. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Air quality is just one factor. It's great that you can breath better and that the air doesn't drive you mad. However, there are other factors here and those are clearly relevant to the health of Monarchs.

    4. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our planetwide ecosystem is collapsing

      In America it's improved dramatically. Remember when rivers actually used to catch fire? Our air quality is so much better than it used to be, we used to pump so much lead into the air that it caused mental problems.

      Replacing lead with soy and Ritalin isn't exactly making a marked improvement on mental health. We were doing better before we infected our food supply and allowed Big Pharma to paint the illusion that ADHD, depression, or autism are completely normal and expected in every fucking household. How many kids grow up today with a lifetime subscription to a pill bottle? If you have to ask, it's too damn many.

  21. Re:I'm surprised ANY remain by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Seems the wall is working already.

  22. Understandable by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, come on. They’re Monarchs, most are going to be very conservative. You think they’re gonna feel welcome in California?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  23. Perfectly Appropriate by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Funny

    Indeed. So it's just a case that the monarch's late reign was caused by late rain.

  24. Re:Maybe they are allergic to poop in streets by Freischutz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Keep doing that great Trump advertising. Every single slashdot article. You know the saying - no such thing as bad publicity! For free, too. You're gonna help us come 2020. Terrific job, terrific. I'm sure he thanks you bigly.

    Will it even come to an election in 2020? Trump is already behaving like a Monarch so it should not become as a surprise if he dispenses with such tiresome theatre as elections and crowns himself on the White House lawn?

    100% Offtopic? ... after I cleverly worked the word 'monarch' into the post, UNFAIR!!!! :-(

  25. No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Rice fields are pretty great for ecosystems. They help migrating birds, for example, and walking through them you see all kinds of wildlife.

    I don't think you understand the question or the meaning of the term ecosystem. Rice fields REPLACE a diverse and complicated ecosystem with a monoculture one. While that might benefit a few species, it's a net loss to the environment for the benefit of feeding humans. In most cases it doesn't matter too much until you get to the point where too much land has been purposed for farming and there is no food or other vital resources available to species that need that sort of ecosystem to survive. Monarch caterpillars depend on some rather specific plants to survive (namely milkweed) which humans treat as a pest and remove from farmland. So they get sprayed with insecticides and a critical food supply gets removed from the ecosystem.

    Just because some species can coexist compatibly with human agriculture doesn't mean that it's "great for ecosystems". Quite the opposite in most cases.

    1. Re:No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

      Just because some species can coexist compatibly with human agriculture doesn't mean that it's "great for ecosystems". Quite the opposite in most cases.

      The beautiful thing about nature; that which does survive the change in ecosystems, becomes the new ecosystem. Good, Bad, indifferent... doesn't really matter.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    2. Re:No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by js290 · · Score: 1

      Just because some species can coexist compatibly with human agriculture doesn't mean that it's "great for ecosystems". Quite the opposite in most cases.

      The beautiful thing about nature; that which does survive the change in ecosystems, becomes the new ecosystem. Good, Bad, indifferent... doesn't really matter.

      A few ways to think about that statement...

      "Annual agriculture is all about living through our concepts... our idea we've imposed on reality & when reality doesn't behave according to our idea, what do we do? We input... we can never input enough to make our false concept correct." http://bit.ly/1GnbtAA

      "The middle east today is what annual ag does." http://bit.ly/1K3otw2

      "Ecology... Nature is only model we have that has survived climate change with sheer, total, utter neglect..." http://bit.ly/1ohVqpE

      http://fooledbyrandomness.com/...

      We have only one planet. This fact radically constrains the kinds of risks that are appropriate to take at a large scale. Even a risk with a very low probability becomes unacceptable when it affects all of us – there is no reversing mistakes of that magnitude. Without any precise models, we can still reason that polluting or altering our environment significantly could put us in uncharted territory, with no statistical track- record and potentially large consequences. It is at the core of both scientific decision making and ancestral wisdom to take seriously absence of evidence when the consequences of an action can be large. And it is standard textbook decision theory that a policy should depend at least as much on uncertainty concerning the adverse consequences as it does on the known effects. http://fooledbyrandomness.com/...

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    3. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      To know if a rice field increases diversity or decreases diversity, you need to know what was there before. To say that it can only decrease diversity is unscientific.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by js290 · · Score: 1

      To know if a rice field increases diversity or decreases diversity, you need to know what was there before. To say that it can only decrease diversity is unscientific.

      Monocropping by definition decreases diversity.

      I'm not really sure what your point is.

      Abundance of Ohio River Valley during Jefferson administration http://bit.ly/1cbC2uU

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    5. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Abundance of Ohio River Valley during Jefferson administration

      Is cool but kind of irrelevant

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by js290 · · Score: 1

      Abundance of Ohio River Valley during Jefferson administration

      Is cool but kind of irrelevant

      If you don't understand how monocropping affects ecosystems, then you may want to be careful about using the word "irrelevant."

      "Every culture that has depended on annual plants for their staple food crops has collapsed." http://bit.ly/1ck0tnM

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    7. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      "Every culture that has depended on annual plants for their staple food crops has collapsed."

      Oh come on, now that's just a huge non sequitur, and you know it. There are plenty of reasons cultures collapse, and most of them it's not because of their dependence on annual plants for food.

      Furthermore it's completely false. There are plenty of cultures around right now that depend on annual plants as a staple food crop. America as one example.

      I seriously recommend you stop listening to that guy because he just spews nonsense.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by js290 · · Score: 1

      Furthermore it's completely false. There are plenty of cultures around right now that depend on annual plants as a staple food crop. America as one example. I seriously recommend you stop listening to that guy because he just spews nonsense.

      Ah yes, American exceptionalism... "irrelevant", "spews nonsense"...

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    9. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      There's nothing exceptional about America, other than America is still here. We could say the same about many other plant-based cultures that are still here. Eventually America will collapse, if history is a guide, but it will not be because they depended on annual plants as a staple food crop.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by js290 · · Score: 1

      Right because food & resources are "irrelevant"

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    11. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Which culture are you thinking of that failed because it depended on annual plants?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by js290 · · Score: 1

      Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Chinese, Ancient Greeks, Ancient Romans, Mayans, Incans, Colonial European countries.

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    13. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? The ancient Roman civilization collapsed because of dependence on grains? It didn't just evolve into what we now know as Italy? That is what you think?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by js290 · · Score: 1

      "Massive structures in middle of wasteland??" http://bit.ly/1c30qiw

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    15. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It was totally fine until foreign invaders entered in.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by js290 · · Score: 1

      It was totally fine until foreign invaders entered in.

      I think there's a famous wall in China that tried to keep invaders out. You may want to study up on that. Ag societies are always worried about invasions. Then one day we find out the bees & butterflies are dying out.

      Observation vs Concept @RestorationAgD http://bit.ly/1lM3PFS

      Transition from HG to agriculture... human domestication... http://bit.ly/1wiHQqE

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    17. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oh, so now agriculture is responsible for the Mongol invasion? And hunting nomads never need to worry about invaders?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by js290 · · Score: 1

      We're either working with Nature or we're fighting her... HG are in the biz of surviving; they may not have the concept of "invaders" like agriculturalists. http://bit.ly/2vBecTZ

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    19. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      We're either listening to podcasts from morons, or we're reading books from scientists and becoming wise. You're obviously doing the former.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by js290 · · Score: 1
      The links I've shared are from practitioners, not academics.

      Academic discoveries are actually made by practitioners. via @nntaleb #antifragile pic.twitter.com/mpL8hNvsbt

      — Praveen Vaidyanathan (@v_praveen) November 28, 2017

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    21. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The links I've shared are from practitioners

      I'm a practitioner, too. I've worked for over 10 years on a farm, living there. Don't tell me what is right and wrong.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re: No rice fields are not "great for ecosystems" by js290 · · Score: 1
      Since you're a practitioner, I don't think you're becoming more wise deferring to "scientists"

      We're either listening to podcasts from morons, or we're reading books from scientists and becoming wise. You're obviously doing the former.

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
  26. VENTURE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'll get you for this Doctor Venture if it's the last thing I do!"

  27. More great results by sproketboy · · Score: 0

    from leftists fucktards. Good job.

  28. "Monarch butterflies stop elsewhere due to fires" by raymorris · · Score: 2

    It's not even that they aren't in California; they aren't in the usual spot, which might be because the usual spot was burned in a wildfire. As far as we know, they are three miles from their usual spot.

  29. Re: Maybe they are allergic to poop in streets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually a study in 2015 correlated the decline of milkweed due to use of pesticides across the states. Milkweed is the only food source for the caterpillars of these butterflies. By the time of the study the population has already dropped 90 percent in 20 years and the species was considered to be put on the list of endangered animals. What this has to do with trump, I have no idea.

  30. Insightful joke by f3rret · · Score: 1

    Something something The Venture Bros

    --
    Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  31. Re: Maybe they are allergic to poop in streets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blah blah trump blah blah
    You are the problem. If you are unhappy, go do something in the real life about it, venting your shit over here will achieve absolutely nothing, just fills the comment section with uninformative and unrelated barfs

  32. Pesticides. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pesticides.

  33. Obvious by Red_Forman · · Score: 1

    It's probably Neonicotinoids. It's a poison that kills everything.

  34. Dinner time by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    Get planting milkweed folks. The butterflies have had a rough time this past year in Cali, and the best way to help them is feeding them.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  35. Re: Maybe they are allergic to poop in streets by dj245 · · Score: 1

    Actually a study in 2015 correlated the decline of milkweed due to use of pesticides across the states. Milkweed is the only food source for the caterpillars of these butterflies. By the time of the study the population has already dropped 90 percent in 20 years and the species was considered to be put on the list of endangered animals. What this has to do with trump, I have no idea.

    I planted some milkweed in our garden. It isn't a particularly attractive plant but it does attract monarch butterflies, which are very cool to have around. I don't think knowledge of monarchs loving milkweed is common enough, I had never heard of this until I was 32 years old.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  36. Equity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They probably got caught up in some Californian Equity Equation and were asked to leave in order to give opportunities to other butterflies.

  37. Butterflys are Flamable. by Zorro · · Score: 1

    What else is new?

  38. Re: Maybe they are allergic to poop in streets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish we could blame Trump for the sad state of education, but of course it is more the other way around...

    I grew up in the S.F. Bay Area (East Bay) and remember those swarms of monarchs in the oak trees and hillsides in the 1980s. We also learned about milkweed in elementary school. Not only that it fed the butterflies, but that it was toxic and we should avoid ingesting it when playing around outdoors.

  39. Butterflies love lantanna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got some lantanna in a flowerbed. It is swarming with butterflies when they bloom. I burn off the old growth each spring and it come right back.

  40. Man.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CA is so messed up even the butterflies are leaving

  41. Monarchs are no dummies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're just moving to a less consumer-adverse regions with lower tax rates in neighboring states like the rest of the enlightened former-Californians.

  42. California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even insects don't want to live in California.

  43. Was just at the Monarch Butterfly preserve by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I literally just went with my son to the Butterfly Preserve that's located in Goleta, near Isla Vista (think UCSB). No butterfly sightings. The flowers were not in bloom.

    Let's hope people realize milkweed has a purpose, just as mixed crops in farms and hedgerows are what sustain bees.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  44. self evident that this is all around by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I used to see loads of monarch around in northern illinois and later in Northern Colorado. Over the last decade, I have noticed that they are no longer showing up.
    In addition, here in Colorado, we have what are called Miller moths. 10 years ago, we would have 100s outside and 10s inside. Now, I hardly see any Millers.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  45. Reproduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are Caliphornia butterflies. The majority of them probably have gender dysphoria and are transitioning - which may result in a population decline.

  46. Re:Maybe they are allergic to poop in streets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    California carries everyone in the US. Maybe it's about time for the utterly worthless states, like Vermont, to start pulling their own weight.

  47. Doug Tallamy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look up Doug Tallamy on youtube. He is an entomologist. He speaks about caterpillars and birds but his observations include monarchs as well. Just a bit of effort on the part of individuals can make a significant difference for wildlife.

    Basically, roadside swaths of minimally managed ground are a thing of the past. The weed kill goes to the edge of the road. This results in the elimination of green bands of wild plants that used to stretch across all rural areas. So wildlife no longer has the ability to easily diffuse from one area to another. there is also just the gross loss of habitat from this change in farming. If individuals would plant a few select items in their yards and eliminate certain invasive exotic plants, then we can reestablish some habitat and more importantly allow breeding populations to easily migrate to different areas.