Texas Monarch Watch - October 12, 2006 - Update

[Carol Cullar]

(1) Monarchs are on the Move Down the Central Flyway!

> Randy Davis, a long time monarch watcher in the Abilene area called to
> report monarchs "filing the sky for miles" on October 9.
____________________________________________

Mike,

Eagle Pass is almost due south of Abilene and almost exactly
300 miles down the Flyway. By my calculations (limited though
they might be!) I would think this bunch might arrive down here
about 6 days later.

In recent years, we've had huge influxes of monarchs on the 15th.

Despite 1-a-minute yesterday morning, that flow tapered off just
after 10 a.m., and last night/this morning saw only 1 monarch in the
trees out back.

I'll do another timed count after the sun warms things up to see
how many were scattered through the "monte" (Spanish for
outback/wild brush country).

Carol Cullar, Executive Director
Rio Bravo Nature Center Foundation, Inc.
Offices: RR 2 4915 Columbine Curve
Eagle Pass TX 78852-9605
ph: 1.830.773.1836
http://www.riobravonaturecenter.org
nature...@wcsonline.net

[Paul Cherubini]

From 1964-1994 Dr. Fred Urquhart's taggers used a type of tag
that generated a much higher percentage of recoveries
than Chip Taylor's tags.

Here are summaries of the Urquhart tag recovery data:

http://www.monarchwatch.org/grafx/tagmig/u71map.gif
http://www.monarchwatch.org/grafx/tagmig/u81map.gif
http://www.monarchwatch.org/grafx/tagmig/u88map.gif
http://www.monarchwatch.org/grafx/tagmig/u94map.gif

As you can see, there were lots of recoveries along the
south Atlantic and Gulf coasts and in Florida. So I don't
completely agree with the notion that there aren't alot of
monarchs along the south Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

I'm also suspicious of the notion that the east-central
portion of Texas is some type of "non-flyway" zone,
because the Urquhart recovery data shows lots and lots
of recoveries within this "non-flyway" zone and,
ironically, almost no recoveries in the main
west-central Texas "flyway".

I think a huge problem with Chip's "coast/toast" theory
is that for 13 years, Chip has failed to ever tell us the dates
his taggers did their tagging and the numbers they tagged
at any given location. So none of us has been
allowed to independently analyze Monarch Watch tagging
data.

So for example, the Atlantic coast monarchs that have been
tagged in late August or early or mid-Sept. might have
had a pretty good track record of reaching Mexico and that
its mainly the butterflies that are tagged near the end of
September and in October that have a poor record of
reaching Mexico (just like the butterflies that are tagged
in northern Minnesota and northern Wisconsin near the
end of September and in October that have a relatively poor
record of reaching Mexico). But I can only speculate
in this regard because Chip has not been willing to
tell the public the dates his taggers did their tagging and the
numbers they tagged at specific locations.

Paul Cherubini

[Paul Cherubini]

This observation, of course, is someone's fantasy.
because Monarchs are functionally incapable of oriented
flight approx. 30-40 minutes after sunset even on
a warm, full moonlit night.

Example: Disturb a cluster tree at night on a warm,
full moonlit night in Eagle Pass or Del Rio and
the monarchs will go spiralling into the ground
like airplanes out of control, although some
may briefly gain altitude before ultimately
crashing into the ground.
Once on the ground they will crawl up on
any available vegetation and remain there
for the night rather than attempt flight.

Paul Cherubini

[Paul Cherubini]

From: Randall/Ona Bentley
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:38 AM
To: Mike Quinn
Subject: Monarch

Mike...Up here in the eastern Texas Panhandle I have
watched an awesome Monarch migration...have just
been gobs of them this year...it started the last week
in August and is still going on...saw many out at the
ranch yesterday...RB1
_________________________________________
I believe this facinating report, since it's consistent with
other major sightings in the region, this fall (e.g. western
Kansas and far western Oklahoma), plus I personally
witnessed sizable a sizable monarch migration in the
panhandle (Amarillo, TX) region back in 1989 on
Oct. 11-12. However, I think it's important to realize
that sometimes we get bogus monarch reports because
the observers confuse monarchs for other types of
orange and black butterflies.

Recent case in point: In late Sept. Chip Taylor received the
following report of "flocks" of 30+ monarchs from a high
elevation city in south-central Idaho (where milkweed
is absent and monarchs are always very rare)
and as you can see from his response, Chip appears to
have believed the bogus report!
______________________________________
From: "Margaret Dawn Springer" <JLsmagi...@msn.com>
Sent: Mon, 9 Oct 2006
To: Chip Taylor <ch...@ku.edu>

Hello,

I am hoping to verify the migration pattern of Monarch butterflies
through the Hailey, Idaho region this time of year. Starting last
night, Wed. Sept. 28 I began seeing an increase in the number of
orange and black Monarchs. Tonight, Thurs. Sept. 29, I came
across "flocks" of thirty or more butterflies in my front and back
yards. It truly is spectacular. Would this be the right pattern
for their migration?

Thank you,
Maggie Springer
Hailey, Idaho
Blaine County, Idaho
____________________________________________
Subject: Re: Monarch Migration
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:42:46 -0500
From: Chip Taylor <ch...@ku.edu>
To: "Margaret Dawn Springer" <JLsmagi...@msn.com>

Yes, migratory monarchs assemble in the evenings at your
latitude and progressively move to the SW with many
reaching the overwintering sites at various points along the
California coast. There are some old tagging records from
Idaho that established this pattern.

Chip

[Mike Quinn]

Paul,

 

I don't have time to do a lot of back and forth on this, but wanted to touch on a few points.

 

The differential recovery rates between Dr. Urquhart's and Dr. Taylor's tags had nothing to do with the tags and everything to do with the adhesive. Unbenownst to Urquhart's taggers, such as yourself, his adhesive was ever so slightly toxic to the butterflies, which caused a higher mortality rate of the butterflies before they migrated south of the Rio Grande, thus the higher recovery rate in the U.S.

 

Dr. Taylor actually has a *much* higher recovery rate over all due to the 50 peso (~$5) reward he has been offering for tag recoveries in Mexico. This reward has nearly bankrupted Monarch Watch, so I don't think anyone could rightly blame him for guarding his well earned data, especially from those who would attack him.

Urquhart's data aren't the best for analysing monarch migration patterns through Texas because 1) most of the monarchs with his tags died before they got to Texas and 2) relatively few were tagged in the upper Midwest, where a high percentage of all the monarchs that reach the over-wintering grounds in Mexico originate. Thus, rather than being ironic, I find it quite logical that relatively few Urquhart monarchs were recovered in Texas' Centtral Flyway.

 

http://texasento.net/MonarchMigration.htm

 

Since you are monitoring the posts sent to Dplex (from which you were banned), you obviously saw my post of all the Journey North fall roost maps which I posted. They clearly show large numbers monarchs pouring down the central flyway and mostly (but certainly not entirely) avoiding East Texas. Yet you still cling to Urquhart's data of sickly monarchs (that were incidentally graciously posted by Taylor).

 

You write that Urquhart's recovery data show "lots and lots" of monarchs recovered in Texas Texas. I counted about five (potentially ill) monarchs that were actually recovered in east Texas and a few more that might have passed through e. TX between 1964 and 1994.

 

One Texas Monarch Watch volunteer, Dr. Gary Van Gelder, regularly reports monarch migrations (occasionally significant by e. TX standards) from his fishing trips to Sam Rayburn Reservoir north of Jasper:

"During the 3 days of Oct 15-17 [2002] from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm (CDT) we saw 1 monarch/minute out over the water. Our counting method was to count monarchs for a set time. We did not count all the time!!! had some fishing to do!!"

So this is not a dead zone but I receive almost no reports from this region while I can't even keep up with the near constant *flood* of reports from throughout the Central Flyway. You'll recall Carole Jordan's recent post of an estimated 500 per minute at Eagle Pass. Van Gelder's count this fall was "20-25 Monarchs/day on Oct 6-9 and Oct 11."

HTH, Mike Quinn, Austin

[Paul Cherubini]

Mike Quinn wrote:

> The differential recovery rates between Dr. Urquhart's and Dr. Taylor's tags
> had nothing to do with the tags and everything to do with the adhesive.
> Unbenownst to Urquhart's taggers, such as yourself, his adhesive was ever so
> slightly toxic to the butterflies, which caused a higher mortality rate of
> the butterflies before they migrated south of the Rio Grande, thus the
> higher recovery rate in the U.S.

Dr. Urquhart's tags also generated subtantially higher tag recovery rates
in the Spring months than Dr. Taylor's tags; i.e. recoveries of butterflies
within the USA in the Spring that had successfully overwintered in Mexico.
The more conspicuous (easily noticed) nature of the Urquhart tag in
combination with its Canadian return address (which fools the excited
captor into thinking the butterfly they found probably came from Canada)
may account for the much higher tag recovery rates of the Urquhart tags.

> Dr. Taylor actually has a *much* higher recovery rate over all due to the 50
> peso (~$5) reward he has been offering for tag recoveries in Mexico. This
> reward has nearly bankrupted Monarch Watch, so I don't think anyone could
> rightly blame him for guarding his well earned data, especially from those
> who would attack him.

Monarch Watch, like Urquhart's tagging program, is financed mostly with
public funds, not Dr. Taylor's personal funds. Alot of people have
rightfully criticized Dr. Urquhart for withholding the same details of his
tagging data (dates his taggers did their tagging and the numbers they tagged
at any given location). that Dr. Taylor is withholding. This critical
Urquhart data ended up being lost forever, because Urquhart never
released it and he has sinced passed away.

> Urquhart's data aren't the best for analysing monarch migration patterns
> through Texas because 1) most of the monarchs with his tags died before they
> got to Texas

I never heard of the Urquhart tags being toxic. The overwintering monarchs
I and others tagged in California with Urquhart tags in the 70's and 80's
generated dozens and dozens of April and sometimes May recoveries.
Thousands of Urquhart style tags are still being used in Santa Barbara,
California every year because the relatively high recovery rate enables
researchers to effectively study the spring migration.

Paul Cherubini