A solution to all problems associated with captive-rearing monarchs!
- Andy Davis
- 2 hours ago
- 6 min read
Hello blog readers - thanks for tuning in to another article about the bug that everyone loves, and the science around it!
Today's post is a combination of science, politics, and opinion, all centered around the practice of raising monarchs in captivity for release into the wild. This is always a contentious issue, because there are many people, groups, and sectors of society where this practice is going on. These include everyday people who do this in their kitchens, thinking they are helping the population, as well as the dozens of commercial butterfly farms in the U.S. that sell captive-bred monarchs, and who make a living doing this. These outfits also sell lots of "monarch-raising kits" to teachers who use these in their classrooms, i.e. to teach their students about insect live cycles. Finally, there are even scientists who do this in their labs, and who use the caterpillars for research purposes. All told, there are a lot of monarchs being raised in captivity in the U.S. and throughout N. America, for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons are laudable, and some are not, but either way, there is a lot of contention about this practice, and whether or not it should be allowed.
This contention is getting more intense now, thanks to the USFWS who have recently proposed that monarchs should be listed as "Threatened" in the U.S., which would put them under government protection, and create some new regulations over the way people interact with them. I've blogged before about how this proposal is unwarranted, since the monarch population in the U.S. is doing well (link here), though here we are anyway with this new ruling.
One of the sticking points with the new ruling is that it will "allow" citizens and groups to raise up to 250 monarchs in captivity per year. I've heard lots of comments about this proposed number, with some saying it is too low (i.e. people who sell monarchs), and some saying it is too high (i.e. people who understand the science on the issue). Surprisingly, there is another sector that will be negatively impacted by this number too - the very scientists who study monarchs. That includes me! As mentioned earlier, when scientists want to study something like say, milkweed preferences of monarchs, this requires first rearing a whole lot of monarchs in captivity (in their sterile labs), so that all of the caterpillars would be similar in age, health, region of origin, etc. This is also the case for other studies of monarchs, such as experiments involving the OE parasite, or perhaps even tests of the effects of indoor-rearing itself! Whatever the topic of the research, it often requires rearing many hundreds, sometimes thousands of monarchs, in a given year, which is way more than the USFWS limit.
Basically, if this ruling remains in place, it would severely impact the very research we need to have on monarchs to understand their biology better or to understand how we humans are, or are not, influencing them. I know that a lot of scientists are very worried about this right now, and are urging one another to speak up against it.
Now, here's the thing about rearing monarchs for research purposes: those hundreds or thousands of monarchs that are studied are NEVER released to the wild. That's right, they are usually humanely euthanized at the end of the experiment, or sometimes, the adult monarchs live out their lives in captivity. In most cases, this is already required by law! The United States has a branch of the USDA called APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) that research labs have to be permitted with, in order to study monarchs in the first place. This permit requires that no reared monarchs will be allowed to leave the lab facility - ever. The labs must be sealed shut at all times, and there even needs to be screens over the vents to ensure there are no escapees. And, there is an annual inspection to ensure compliance with these rules. From my understanding, this is to ensure that the captive-reared monarchs don't influence the wild population in any way.
This is the way it has always been with monarch research, and so this got me thinking - why can't the new USFWS ruling use this same approach? Hear me out here - what if there was NO limit to how many monarchs could be raised by one person or group, BUT, that those raised monarchs are not to be released! This would apply to any sector of society, whether they be a private citizen raising monarchs in their kitchen, or even monarch breeders, who sell monarchs to teachers. Think about this - all rearing would still take place, but none of these monarchs would ever influence the wild population. For the kids watching the caterpillars develop in their classrooms, they could still be educated about insect life cycles, but instead of releasing those monarchs at the end of the metamorphosis, they could house them in a cage and let them live out their lives in captivity (about a month). For the breeder, they could still sell as many monarchs as they want, only they would come with instructions that they not be released outside. For the people in nature centers using monarchs as educational tools, they could also keep the monarchs in captivity to use as "ambassadors." And for the people who are simply addicted to rearing monarchs in their kitchens or garages, they could still do this, but just keep them as "pets" for the duration of their lives. I know this last part will draw skepticism, since this is often frowned upon in facebook groups, but if it means keeping those reared monarchs out of the wild population, then I'm all for it.
This approach would indeed solve one of the big biological problems with releasing raised monarchs right now, which is that these captive monarchs are less fit than their wild counterparts. This has been shown over and over again in research studies, and the worry is that the annual release of hundreds of thousands of these weaker individuals is gradually "watering down" the wild gene pool, and making the entire population weaker. In fact, my last research project showed that this very thing has been happening for the last 2 decades, as the survival during the fall migration has been diminishing at a catastrophic rate (that blog is here). This is the exact timeframe that captive-rearing and butterfly breeding has been operating too.
So, if NONE of the reared monarchs, from either private or commercial operations, were ever released, then this would eliminate that growing problem completely!
This approach could also solve the worries of monarch scientists. If the new USFWS ruling were to simply indicate that US-based scientists could indeed rear as many monarchs as were needed, as long as they would not be released, then this would allow their important research to continue. Really, this is essentially what goes on now anyway, so in this way the ruling wouldn't really affect scientists at all.
When you really think it through, this idea would solve a lot of problems, yet still allow for much of the current human activities (scientific, educational, and even commercial) to continue.
Now, for those that are clutching their pearls over not being allowed to ever release "their" raised monarchs, think about this - when you buy goldfish from the petstore, you would never think about releasing them to the local stream once they "grew up" in your aquarium. Nor would you release even a pet tarantula into the woods (really, people keep these as pets). Or how about a baby orphaned raccoon that you raised in your house, and that became your pet - would that animal ever be able to return to the wild? What I'm getting at is the difference between "domesticated" animals, and "wild" animals. When we use these terms, it seems to make it easier to judge whether an animal "should" be in the wild or not. I would argue that rearing monarchs in captivity produces "domesticated" versions of the species, which should not be allowed in the wild.
I challenge to USFWS to consider this idea, and I challenge my readers to discuss it openly in their respective circles of monarch-lovers, educators and scientists.
That's all for now.
*********************************************************************************************************
Direct link to this blog entry:
*********************************************************************************************************