interesting article on releasing butterflies

[felisdomesticus]

Butterfly Kiss-Off
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Save

By JEFFREY A. LOCKWOOD
Published: August 24, 2006
Laramie, Wyo.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge this Image

Michael Kupperman
AS schools reopen, teachers around the country are planning a child-pleasing science activity: raising butterflies. Butterfly kits let teachers demonstrate a basic biological phenomenon as caterpillars transform themselves into painted lady butterflies that can be freed to complete their lives in a nearby field. The students learn that metamorphosis is marvelous, insects are engaging and releasing living things is virtuous. Wonder, beauty and goodness — who could object?

Yet among entomologists and butterfly conservation groups, the painted lady, along with a handful of relatives, has provoked a controversy — a microcosm of contemporary conservation-versus-corporation conflicts.

Butterflies are big business. Although nobody knows exactly how many have been commercially produced, extrapolating from one company’s figures suggests that the 45 or so butterfly farms in the United States ship out 11 million butterflies a year.

They’re not all destined for the classroom. At weddings, butterflies provide a festive, and pricey, backdrop. Charging $95 for a dozen butterflies, suppliers provide testimonials and invent traditions to entice buyers. Teachers, meanwhile, purchase kits with their own impressive profit margin ($34 for instructions, a mesh container to house the insects, caterpillar food and three to six larvae.)

The North American Butterfly Association is as unhappy as a butterfly in a Buffalo blizzard (the association points out that these fragile creatures could suffer such a fate). Their primary concern is the release of butterflies from one locale into a different region. Federal regulations prohibit the shipments to states where a species doesn’t naturally occur, as if Long Island was the same ecological system as Albany.

The butterfly association also raises the concern that interbreeding of otherwise separate populations could cause genetic deterioration of endemic varieties that have adapted to local conditions and warp migratory behaviors. In principle, the farm-raised butterflies may also carry unfamiliar strains of pathogens, although diseased larvae rarely survive to adulthood.

A less plausible concern is that the released individuals will compete with the natives for food; nectar is rarely in short supply. But the feeding of the subsequent generation is a more complicated issue: painted ladies larvae eat thistles, which include both nasty, invasive weeds and endangered species.

Painted ladies aren’t the only issue; at $10 a pop for monarch butterflies, the butterfly association claims that commercializing these creatures generates another business: poaching. And in general, the butterfly folks have a deep, moral concern: they are appalled by having butterflies turned into fluttering playthings.

Are mail-order butterflies worth the costs? Certainly, they are beautiful, but so are flowers and most brides. Butterflies do stimulate students’ curiosity, but so do ant farms (and the insects can be collected locally).

As for the excitement of releasing butterflies, this is precisely the wrong lesson. Turning loose mail-order organisms is a recipe for disaster, given that billions of dollars are spent controlling invasive species that originated from heedless releases. So far, ecological harm by schoolroom butterflies to native fauna and flora is unproven. But the potential severity is sobering — as is the absence of any plan by industry or government for remediating damage.

So we have a classic industry-conservation conflict: the North American Butterfly Association versus the International Butterfly Breeders Association. The conservation group advocates banning the release of commercial butterflies (an unlikely development) while the breeders deny that there’s a problem (a risky wager). So what’s the answer?

There are reasonable compromises that address the most serious concerns, which, it is fair to say, are more educational and ethical than environmental. For weddings, butterfly farms could be required to ship only sterile adults. Of course, research would be needed to find the right dose of radiation or chemosterilant for a butterfly species, but the breeders claim to be concerned about wild butterflies and the butterfly association could “walk the walk” of conservation by offering some money for studies. The neutered butterflies might be a bit more expensive, but cost can’t be a big issue for a father of the bride who’s already plunking down $300 for the “Fill the Sky” package.

But what about the eager students and future (might we say, larval) entomologists?

Kill them. Not the students, the butterflies. If the point of the educational venture is to teach important lessons, then here’s one: We are responsible for the harm that we may cause in the world. So once the butterflies have emerged, pop them in the freezer. Tell the children that protecting our environment is not always easy, that we must accept the responsibility that comes with bringing a life into the world, and that like other animals produced for our needs and wants (the industry refers to the butterflies as “livestock”) we owe the butterflies a quick and painless death.

If this is too harsh a lesson to teach in a culture that assiduously avoids confronting death, then a savvy teacher could work with students to collect local caterpillars, raise them and release the butterflies whence they came. That’s a real lesson in science — and ethics.

Jeffrey A. Lockwood, a professor of natural sciences and humanities at the University of Wyoming, is the author of “Locust.’’
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/op...=1&oref=slogin

[Irish]

Interesting article. I must say I don't agree with the concept of killing creatures, especially in a classroom setting. It's as bad as disecting (or however it's spelled) frogs and worms, imho. I would raise holy hell with the school board (who, after all, are the ones with the REAL power) until that option was nipped in the bud!

As for the rest--there are pros and cons, for sure. What's best? I dunno. As long as extremist views on either end are forced to compromise, some good might come from either side of the debate.

[felisdomesticus]

Originally Posted by Irish

Interesting article. I must say I don't agree with the concept of killing creatures, especially in a classroom setting.

problem is that releasing an alien species into the environment can create major problems in an ecosystem.

I liked the idea of collecting caterpillars from the local area and then observing them.

[Irish]

I understand the potential problems in an ecosystem :-). I agree, collecting local species is preferable. I just don't agree with killing. Especially killing in front of children (most of whom are 1st and 2nd graders around here, in the classes that raise butterflies). Who needs that "lesson" in cruelty, and the trauma to young things who will learn just how cruel our world is soon enough? Not my kiddos, that's for sure!

[Tiki]

I definitely don't like encouraging kids to kill anything even humanely. Today butterflies, tomorrow birds............what next-humans? They get desensitized enough with all the killing on tv.

Go with the local species!

[Mammabird]

I have to agree, my children would be completely traumatized by something like that. Disney movies are bad enough, we don't need things like that in the classroom. I'm sure it's a simple enough matter for breeders to provide an appropriate species or refer people to a local breeder.