==========================================

Contents:

1) Monarch Watch Online Forums

2) Illegal Logging in Mexico

3) Status of the Population

4) Western Monarch Population

5) Millkweed at Valley Forge

6) Vieques Monarchs

7) Fourth of July / Mid-Summer Monarch Counts

8) More Recoveries / Recovery Rates

9) Why We Still Tag Monarchs

10) Why Tagging Won't Lead to the Demise of the Monarchs

11) Tagging and Rearing Kits

12) Upcoming Monarch Events

13) About Our Update List

==========================================

Unless otherwise noted, all content was authored by Chip Taylor, edited by Jim Lovett and Sarah Schmidt, and published by Jim Lovett.

==========================================

1) Monarch Watch Online Forums

If you are interested in following the fall migration, discussing monarchs, finding out about monarch events, collaborating with other teachers, posting monarch sightings, and/or learning of the latest at Monarch Watch (and if you're subscribed to our email update list we know you are! ;-) you’ll want to check out the new Monarch Watch Forums on our website. They are designed to allow participants to discuss a wide range of topics by posting messages to a public forum. You can join in by registering or browsing the forums at

http://www.MonarchWatch.org/forums/

Please take a look around and then provide feedback, suggestions, etc. in the appropriate forum - we have big plans for this new mode of communicaion among Monarch Watchers and we can only accomplish our goals with your help. Let's talk about Monarchs!

==========================================

2) Illegal Logging in Mexico

The last two updates were dominated by reports from the Mexican press about the sudden surge in illegal logging throughout the country with particular outrage directed at the logging within the monarch reserves. Two more articles are included in this update, both nicely translated by Carol Cullar, Executive Director Rio Bravo Nature Center Foundation, Inc., Eagle Pass TX. We are still receiving conflicting reports as to whether the illegal logging has been stopped. Logging trucks were seen leaving Sierra Chincua as recently as last week. It isn’t certain whether these trucks were those of loggers or were retrieving logs for the city of Angangueo, which was given the rights to logs not removed by the loggers. One account we received suggested there was still too much activity in the area by loggers to safely conduct surveys of the extent of the deforestation. Aerial photos of the area are not yet available so it may be some time before the degree of deforestation can be evaluated.

[ Due to the length of the complete article it has been given its own page at http://www.MonarchWatch.org/update/2004/0723_logging.html ]

==========================================

3) Status of the Population

Although the number and distribution of monarchs in the northern breeding sites appeared to be normal in June, as I write this (17 July) the prospects for a large fall population appear slim. The best way to obtain an idea of the size of the fall population is to observe and systematically record the number of adult monarchs on the wing in critical breeding areas from the 20th of July to the 5th of August. It is during this interval most of the eggs are laid that give rise to the migratory generation at the end of the summer. Unfortunately, no survey of this sort exists but there is another survey underway and it just might be better. I’m referring to the Monarch Larva Monitoring Project run by Karen Oberhauser, with her associates and students at the University of Minnesota. Karen and her students have been monitoring monarch eggs and larvae at many sites for a number of years and more recently at numerous Nature Centers widely distributed across the country.

The numbers of immature monarch stages found at these sites through the years can be found at www.mlmp.org. The records posted so far this season suggest that the population this fall will be lower than last year. Just how low the population might be this fall is not clear. Karen told me that the best way of getting an idea of the size of the population would be to check the records for the numbers of immature monarchs recorded from the last week of July into August. Curiously, the larval counts in late summer are not well correlated with the size of the overwintering population as measured in hectares, nor do any of these predictions seems to be related to the success of individual taggers or tagging in general. Tagging success certainly is related to numbers but more often than not the number of monarchs one tags is related to the availability of good nectar sources, prior knowledge of where monarchs are likely to cluster, one’s persistence, good weather, and being in the right place at the right time. By the time of the next Update (mid-August), there should be enough information from the larval monitoring and reports of others to give a better assessment of the size of the fall population.

==========================================

4) Western Monarch Population

This past month there were two articles announcing funding for Ellwood Mesa, a site of one of the largest overwintering monarch populations in California. The first article announces the award of a $4 million grant for the purchase of this property.

http://www.enn.com/direct/display-release.asp?objid=D1D1366D000000FD72209426D3860233

The second article contains a description of the funding history and emphasizes that the funds raised to date are only $1 million short of the final goal of $20.4 million needed to acquire the property.

http://www.enn.com/direct/display-release.asp?objid=D1D1366D000000FDBF8188DF29326950

Acquisition is intended to assure the continuation of the monarch overwintering site known as Ellwood Main. The campaign has until the end of November to raise the remaining funds. To make a tax-deductible contribution to the Campaign to Save Ellwood Mesa, the public may call Suzanne Moss at 415/495-5660 ext. 402 or Carla Frisk at 805/350-3811 or send donations to The Trust for Public Land - Ellwood Mesa Campaign, P.O. Box 1244, Goleta, CA 93116.

----------------------

As we announced last month, the Season Summaries have been discontinued. However, the articles previously destined for these publications are being incorporated into these Updates. One of these articles is a following report by Shawna Stevens and Denis Frey, which details the status of monarchs at California overwintering sites and describes some of the efforts to monitor these populations.

The full article is available as a PDF file:

Monarch Population Trends West of the Great Divide

==========================================

5) Milkweed at Valley Forge

I’m not a history buff, but once in a while I’m confronted with a bit of history that piques my interest. Such was the case when I visited Valley Forge on the 14th of June. In case you’ve forgotten your history, Valley Forge is where George Washington and the Continental Army encamped during the winter of 1777-78. This site is named for a forge that occurred along Valley Creek at the west side of a hill that rises from the surrounding plain. The encampment was bordered to the north by the Schuylkill River, making it unlikely the British would attack from that direction. Had the British attacked from any other direction they would have had to march up the hill (Mount Joy) into the well-fortified bunkers and gun emplacements of the colonials. Given the nature of warfare at that time, it appears to have been a defendable location. Fortunately, no battle occurred at the Valley Forge as the British chose to spend the winter in Philadelphia, some 19 miles to the southeast. George Washington broke camp and led his troops to Philadelphia in June 1778 with the first troops arriving a mere 15 minutes after the departure of the last of the British contingent. The British left Philadelphia fearing they would be trapped between the colonial forces and the French, with whom the colonials had formed an alliance.

If you visit Valley Forge, you will traverse several thousand acres of grassland and several groves of trees. Deer are abundant and you will notice a browse line on the trees throughout the park. Numerous signs and markers show where many of the regiments camped and there are numerous examples of the small bunkhouses that sheltered the men. At the visitor center you can learn of the harshness of the conditions and the loss of men, particularly late in the winter and early spring, due to various diseases. One is struck by harshness of life in those times and how easy life is for most of us in comparison. The following websites contain more information on the encampment at Valley Forge:

http://www.nps.gov/vafo/home.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/

Driving through Valley Forge, I was struck by the abundance of common milkweed in the grassy areas. There were hundreds of large clones in full flower with the flowers of each clone seeming to differ from the others in color. Late in the afternoon, I saw a single monarch drift over the grasses and the milkweeds. Was the common milkweed part of the vegetation at Valley Forge in 1777? I don’t know, but I doubt it. Most of the region had been covered by forest before settlers began to convert the landscape to small farms and it seems probable that the common milkweed was much less abundant at this site than it is today.

Milkweed Images from Valley Forge

==========================================

6) Vieques Monarchs

On a recent visit to the island of Vieques, about 9 miles to the NW of mainland Puerto Rico, I encountered a population of monarchs at Red Beach. The adult monarchs were abundant and I found a bounty of larvae feeding on the introduced West African milkweed, Calotropis procera. Vieques is an island of about 9,000 residents most of which inhabit about a third of the island. The remainder of the island was, until recently, used as a place to train military pilots to strafe and bomb targets. Most of the island is still off limits to civilians due to unexploded ordinance. One of the areas now open to the public is Red Beach, as beautiful as any beach I’ve seen. On the way to the beach, especially along an abandoned airstrip, I spotted lots of Calotropis procera and when we reached the beach I found a spot were the C. procera had been cut back earlier but had regrown to heights of up to 20 inches. I thought this new growth might be a good spot to find monarch larvae, so I checked out the plants. I have seldom found so many monarch larvae in such a small area. My 4 year old grandson had a great time finding the larvae.

Curiously, both the larvae and the adults are phenotypically different from the monarchs most of you are familiar with. First of all, they are conspicuously smaller, with forewings typically measuring 46-50mm from base to tip of the wing. In contrast, the mean wing lengths for migratory monarchs usually range from 51-53mm. If you look at the photos, you will notice that the marginal band on the hindwing, instead of being peppered with white spots, as in typical monarchs, is nearly entirely black. This is true of both males and females and is characteristic of all specimens I’ve examined. In general, the melanization along the veins (black pigment) appears more intense on both sexes, but especially males, giving the overall impression that the butterflies are darker than normal. The undersides of the wings are similar to normal monarchs. The larvae are even more distinctive and all those I’ve seen have broad black bands. These bands, while they show some variation, first appear in the third instar and intensify in the 4th and 5th stages. Why these larvae are so dark is a bit of a mystery. The larvae of the monarchs we all know vary in the intensity of the melanic pigment expression partly (but not entirely) as a function of temperature; melanization declines when larvae are reared at high temperatures in the sun and increases as temperatures decline. Vieques is hot and humid which would seem to favor lighter rather than darker pigmentation, another curious monarch puzzle.

Samples from this population have been preserved to ascertain how this non-migratory population differs genetically from the monarchs found on the mainland.

Photos of Vieques Monarch Larvae

Photos of Vieques Monarch Adults

==========================================

7) Fourth of July / Mid-Summer Monarch Counts

Each summer, the North American Butterfly Association (NABA) sponsors butterfly counts across the country. The objectives of this program are similar to those of the Christmas bird counts promoted by the Audubon Society. Parties of butterfly watchers, each with one or more experts, visit high quality butterfly habitats and record the presence and abundance of every butterfly species. The counts are usually made from the last week of June through the third or fourth week of July. So, strictly speaking, the counts are not necessarily made on or close to the 4th of July. Abundance is measured as the number observed per species divided by the number of search hours per party. Ann Swengel has summarized the data on monarchs in two technical articles and three articles published in American Butterflies (references listed below). The abundance of monarchs recorded in these counts is given for both Pacific and Eastern populations from 1979-1998. The data summarizes only the counts during which monarchs were seen. The effect of excluding counts with zero monarchs and the impact of the proportion of counts from different regions (e.g., California versus the rest of the Pacific region) on the differences between the Pacific and Eastern populations is not clear. A map showing the distribution of count locations can be found at http://www.naba.org/counts/maps01.html. Most of the counts over this 20-year period record 1-2 monarchs per hour for both Pacific and Eastern populations. There are exceptions, a few lower counts in the west and a few higher counts in the east, but, on first inspection, the data seem to suggest that monarchs are similar in abundance in both regions of the country. This may be the case for many of the sites in which counts were made, but is somewhat misleading since the monarch population east of the Rockies is 100-300 times larger than that in the west due to the much larger breeding area. The yearly fluctuations in the counts show different patterns in the west and east, suggesting that in a given year the populations are influenced by different factors in each region. Maps showing the abundance of monarchs per count from 1991-1997 can be found at http://www.naba.org/counts/monarch.html.

The impact of El Niño events (a periodic heating of the mid Pacific which can radically change weather patterns) on the numbers of monarchs in the midsummer counts is addressed in Swengel 1999. The data indicate that monarchs declined in these surveys in the strong El Niños of 1983, 1992 and 1998. Moderate El Niños in 1987 and 1995 did not seem to have an impact. However, drought can also influence the population as shown by 1988, a year in which both Pacific and Eastern populations were near all time lows in these counts. (No counts were available for 2000 but extreme spring and summer droughts may account for the decline in overwintering monarchs from 9.05 hectares in 1999 to 2.83 in 2000.) How an El Niño influences the size of the overwintering population in Mexico is not yet clear. Complete records for the number of hectares of trees occupied by monarchs at the overwintering sites only date from 1995. In the El Niño winter of 1997-1998, there were 5.77 hectares of overwintering monarchs. Water was scarce at the overwintering sites and the monarchs moved down the mountain into unusual areas in an apparent search for water. There were no quantitative data but it is possible that overwintering mortality was higher than normal.

The most important question from my perspective is whether the monarch counts in midsummer can be used to predict the size of the overwintering populations. At this time, the answer appears to be no. These counts do not correlate well with the overwintering population. The years, approximate summer counts (means) and sizes of the overwintering populations from 1993- 1998 are summarized in Table 1. In 1996, the year with the largest known overwintering population, the midsummer counts were moderate (1.25/person hour). In the following year, the midsummer counts were extremely high (2.5/person hour) yet the overwintering population was only a fourth the size of that of the previous winter.

Table. The total areas (H, in hectares) and trees (T) with monarchs and trees per hectare (T/H) at the overwintering sites compared to the mean numbers of monarchs in 4th of July butterfly counts for the region east of the Rockies (Sw1) and in the midwest (Sw2).

* Total population of monarchs by area (H = hectares) and number of trees occupied trees (T) as measured by Eligio Garcia.

** Some smaller sites outside the reserve were not measured. The sites outside the reserve measured 10-34% of the total for the 6 years from '96-'01 with a mean of 20%.

Adding 20% to the populations for '93, '94, and '95 yields the following estimates for the total population: '93/'94 = 7.75, '94/'95 = 9.75. '95/'96 = 15.64

Sw1 interpolation of means in graph in Swengel part 1

Sw2 interpolation of means for midwest in Swengel part 2

An analysis of these data shows that the summer counts do not explain the variance in the overwintering population (r squared = 0.11). Similarly, the winter populations do not explain the variance in the midsummer populations (r squared = 0.006).

There could be many reasons for the lack of correspondence of the summer counts with the overwintering populations. The counts are made over a month and if these surveys are made in northern states from late June to mid July they would occur between monarch generations. Monarchs begin arriving in the northern states in mid May and continue to arrive for another 4-5 weeks. New monarchs, progeny of the earliest arrivals, generally do not appear in good numbers in these areas until the second week in July. Therefore, counts made in June and early July would record the last of the butterflies arriving from the south and the first progeny from the earliest eggs laid in the region. Counts later in July could record much higher numbers of adults. The surveys are also only conduced in a small portion of the total breeding range and therefore only represent sub-samples of the larger population. It is also possible that midsummer numbers are simply not well correlated with reproductive success of the last generation of the season. It is this generation of butterflies that migrates and makes up the overwintering population. Variation in mortality during the migration from year to year could also limit the predictability of these surveys.

The NABA butterfly counts are primarily designed to establish presence, absence and relative abundance and not to address the predictability question I’ve posed for monarchs. These surveys have value, but it appears that more standardization, particularly with respect to the time frame of the counts, will be necessary before the counts can be used to address these kinds of questions.

Another issue that emerges from Ann Swengel’s analysis is the difference between presence and abundance. Although Florida had the lowest abundance of midsummer monarchs in the continental United States (0.004), they were recorded in 50% of the July counts. The reasons for the low abundance may be due to the lack of milkweed in natural areas and high midsummer temperature, but the fact that they are present in so many of the counts is a caution against statements claiming that monarchs are absent from Florida during the summer.

References
Swengel, A. B. 1990. Monitoring butterfly populations using the Fourth of July butterfly count. Amer. Midl. Nat. 124:395- 406.

Swengel, A. B. 1995. Population fluctuations of the Monarch (Danaus plexippus) in the 4th of July butterfly count 1977-1994. Amer. Midl. Nat. 134:205-214.

Swengel, A. 1999. Monarch abundance, Part I: Change is normal. American Butterflies 7(2)

Swengel, A. 1999. Monarch abundance, Part II: El Niño American Butterflies 7(3)

Swengel, A. 2001. Summer Monarchs American Butterflies 9(2)

==========================================

8) More Recoveries / Recovery Rates

As anticipated, we received another batch of tags from Mexico. These tags were purchased on our behalf by Jose Luis Alvarez on a visit to Cerro Pelon. All the tags are from a colony site known as Capulin.

During the early years of monarch tagging by Fred and Nora Urquhart, recovery/recapture rates were low. Using alar tags, which were folded over the leading edge of the forewing, after the forefinger and thumb were used to remove scales from a patch of the wing membrane, Urquhart taggers typically had recovery rates of 1/1000 for tags recovered within the United States or Canada and 1/5000 for tags recovered in Mexico. The recoveries in Mexico were about 1/50th of what they are today. In recent years, the recovery rate for Monarch Watch tags in the winter following the tagging season has varied from an inexplicable low of .003 (382 tagged per recovery) for the 2002-2003 winter -season to approximately 1.8% of the tags applied in 2001 and 1.4% for tags issued for the fall 2003 tagging season. Because we did not have sufficient time or funds to buy all the tags recovered by the residents last year, we expect the number of tags recovered during the winter of 2003-2004 will eventually approach 4% of the total tagged during the 2003 season. The massive kills due to winter storms occurred at the overwintering sites in the winters of 2002 and 2004. We are still buying tags from the winter of 2002, to date we have obtained 3564 tags (3.4% or 29.5 tagged per recovery) from butterflies tagged in the fall of 2001. We expect this number to increase as we continue to encounter guides and residents who have saved tags found after the January 2002 storm. Below are recoveries for select locations for tags issued in 2003. Note that there is a general increase in the percentage of recoveries with decreasing distance to Mexico. (The above figures are preliminary estimates. A more refined analysis is underway at this time).

Table. Recoveries from select locations of tags issued for the 2003 tagging season.

==========================================

9) Why We Still Tag Monarchs

Given the obvious success of the tag recovery program, one might ask: why do we continue with the tagging program? Don’t we have enough recoveries to learn all there is to learn about the migration? The simple answer to the questions is that we learn something new each year. When we started this program in 1992, only 99 monarchs tagged by Fred and Nora Urquhart and their associates had been recovered in Mexico. The number of recoveries from Mexico now exceeds 6800 with approximately 75% of those coming from the winters of 2002 and 2004 when severe January storms killed an estimated 75% and 70% of the population respectively. Yes, in general terms, we know where the monarchs come from that overwinter in Mexico but there are many details that are still not clear. One of the puzzles is why the recoveries are not a linear function of distance. In other words, given that the distance from St. Paul, MN to El Rosario (1791 miles) why does Don Davis have to tag more than 2.5 times as many butterflies for each recovery when the distance from Toronto, Canada to El Rosario (2053 miles) is only 1.1 times greater?

We have learned a great deal about the migration to date from all of your tagging efforts. The tagging data have revealed that there is a pattern to the timing and pace of the migration. When we initiated this program there were no data on the time course of the migration. It appeared to be primarily driven by the weather. We now know that the migration is intrinsically driven by an interaction of the monarchs with the changing celestial conditions in the fall such that the pace of the migration across the latitudes is remarkably predictable. This pattern is so robust that it allows us to anticipate the arrival of the wave of southerly moving monarchs at each latitude. We are presently engaged in an extensive study of all the tagging data to date and anticipate that additional insights concerning the migration will result from this analysis.

One of our goals for the tagging program was to use this mark and recapture effort to derive estimates for the size of the fall migratory population, the amount of mortality during the migration and the size of the overwintering population. To be able to arrive at such estimates, traditional mark and recapture methods require that the number recaptured or viewed (in the case of dead butterflies on a forest floor) is known. In other words, we need specific measures of the number of untagged to tagged butterflies for each population estimate. Because the ratio of untagged to tagged may be 10s of thousands to one, establishing a true measure of the population using this method has eluded us. We’ve tried to estimate the number “viewed” in the winter population for each recovery and to use the total hectares occupied by overwintering monarchs, and the various estimates of the number of butterflies per hectare suggested by various studies, but none of these methods has yielded a satisfactory estimate of the total population. Estimates of the number of monarchs per hectare varies from 10 to over 50 million - too broad to be of much use particularly since the measurements of hectares varies (usually declining by 30% or more) from December to January at the same site. It remains that we are going to have to devise a way to establish the ratio of untagged to tagged monarchs to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the number of overwintering monarchs. This is doable but it will take some technological innovations to accomplish this objective. At present, we are limited to collecting thousands of dead monarchs from the overwintering sites and scanning them visually for tags. This is too time consuming as we discovered last winter since it took 4 of us many hours over 4 days to scan 40,000 dead monarchs for tags. We are confident that once we have developed and perfected the technique we have in mind, we will be able to arrive at consistent estimates of the number of untagged to tagged monarchs that can be used to arrive at more accurate population estimates.

There are two other reasons for continuing the tagging program. The involvement of thousands of taggers has created a veritable army of observers in the field. The reports from this large cohort of collaborators provide us with insights on the dynamics of the migration and the size and quality of the population each season. Perhaps of even greater importance is the fact that this program brings at least 100,000 people into intimate contact with one of the worlds most remarkable natural events each fall. Once people become familiar with monarchs, the value of preserving the monarch migration in eastern North America becomes apparent. Saving the monarch migration is possible but the threats to the migration posed by a variety of human activities, e.g., illegal logging at the overwintering sites in Mexico, are such that the public in Canada, the United States and Mexico will have to lobby their politicians to enact and fund measures that assure the preservation of the migration.

==========================================

10) Why Tagging Won’t Lead to the Demise of the Monarchs

Some of our correspondents have been concerned that offering a reward for recovered tags in Mexico would lead to activities by local residents that would result in damage to the monarch population. Actually, I was reluctant to initiate payment for tags for similar reasons and didn’t do so during the early years of the tagging program. However, the number of recovered tags was low as there was no incentive for the guides and local ejido members to look for and save tags. The number of recoveries jumped dramatically once we began offering compensation to those who saved tags for us. Over the years we have monitored the tag recovery program to be sure that no damage is done to the clustered butterflies. Most of the tags are found on dead butterflies along trails and under trees festooned with monarchs. A few people capture tagged butterflies as they take up water at seeps along small streams. In these cases, the tags are removed and the butterflies are released.

The rate of tag recovery is related to the mortality at the overwintering sites. In the winters of 2002 and 2004, years of massive mortality due to winter storms, the recovered tags numbered in the thousands. During years in which the mortality of the clustered butterflies is low, such as 2003, the number of recoveries was minimal being only 125. Clearly, the number of recoveries is related to the mortality experienced by the monarch population at the overwintering sites and not the activities of people who harvest the tags from clustered butterflies. The latter is virtually impossible because the ratio of untagged to tagged monarchs is quite high. Last winter we made our first attempt to define this ratio by counting the number of tagged monarchs among thousands of dead monarchs collected from one of the sites at Sierra Chincua where most of the monarchs had been killed by a winter storm. It took 4 of us much of our spare time over 4 days to examine 40,000 monarchs for tags and we found only one tagged butterfly and one from which the tag had fallen off. Given a ratio of 10,000-30,000 to one, it just isn’t feasible for the residents to knock down clusters of living butterflies, many of which would take flight, to recover a tag or two. We remain quite confident that the practice of paying for recovered tags is not contributing to the mortality of the overwintering monarchs.

==========================================

11) Tagging and Rearing Kits

In case you missed our reminder last month, it's time to place your orders for Monarch Watch Tagging Kits and Rearing Kits for the upcoming fall season! Please submit your orders as soon as possible to ensure that you receive your kits in a timely manner. The tags for the 2004 season have arrived and we will begin shipping them out by August 1st, in plenty of time for the fall migration. Each year we run out of tags so be sure not to miss out!

The Monarch Watch Fall 2004 Tagging Kit includes 25 tags and instructions for $25; additional 25-tag sheets are available for $4 each.

At long last we now have insect nets available! They have a 3-foot hardwood handle and a 12" diameter (28" depth) white aerial net bag - perfect for carefully catching monarchs. A complete description including a photo should be available in the Monarch Watch Shop starting next Friday (and maybe sooner).

As you probably know, Monarch Rearing Kits are available for those of you that want to raise monarchs at home or in the classroom. Each kit contains 14-16 young larvae and rearing instructions. Effective July 1, 2004 the pricing structure for Rearing Kits changed somewhat to more accurately reflect the costs involved - individual Rearing Kits are available for $16 each with a shipping and handling charge of $23 for up to four kits. While the cost of individual kits increased slightly, new shipping methods allow us to send up to four kits in a single box, thereby reducing the cost of multiple kits considerably:

1 Kit: was $34; now $39
2 Kits: were $68; now $55
3 Kits: were $102; now $71
4 Kits: were $136; now $87

Visit the Monarch Watch Shop at

http://shop.monarchwatch.org

or download a condensed order form at http://www.monarchwatch.org/order

==========================================

12) Upcoming Monarch Events

AUGUST
13-15 August 9am-6pm daily - Powell Gardens Festival of Butterflies - Kingsville, MO - Monarch Watch will provide hands on programs - Festival admission applies: $7 adults; $6 seniors; $2.50 children ages 5-12. More info: http://www.powellgardens.org

20-22 August 9am-6pm daily - Powell Gardens Festival of Butterflies - Kingsville, MO - Monarch Watch will provide hands on programs - Festival admission applies: $7 adults; $6 seniors; $2.50 children ages 5-12. More info: http://www.powellgardens.org

SEPTEMBER
4-5 September 2004
Ontario Provincial Parks - http://www.ontarioparks.com/
Monarchs and Migrants Weekend
Celebrate fall migration with bird banding, Monarch tagging and guided nature walks throughout this weekend. Call (613) 475-4324.

19 September 2004
Ontario Provincial Parks - http://www.ontarioparks.com/
Annual Monarch Butterfly Migration Festival
Meet at the Visitor Centre for butterfly hikes, children’s crafts, an art fair, a barbecue lunch, and Monarch Tagging. Call (519) 674-1768.

==========================================

13) About Our Update List

You are receiving this email because you have provided Monarch Watch with your email address at some point and expressed interest in receiving updates from us. If you do not wish to receive these periodic (probably monthly) email updates or feel that you were subscribed in error, please see the unsubscribe information at the end of this message.

Have you somehow missed (or misplaced ;-) an update? Now you can find all of the updates archived online at

http://www.MonarchWatch.org/update

If you know someone that you think might be interested in receiving these email updates from Monarch Watch with monarch news, special announcements, tips on raising monarchs in your classroom, monarch tagging information and a whole lot more, please send them on over to

http://www.MonarchWatch.org/signup

to join our new Monarch-Watch-Update email list - it's easy!

Monarch Watch (http://www.MonarchWatch.org) is a not-for-profit educational outreach program based at the University of Kansas. We run a Monarch tagging program and offer Monarch Rearing Kits, Monarch Tagging Kits, and other educational/promotional materials that allow you to actively experience the monarch life cycle and its spectacular fall migration.If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us anytime!

If you would like to be removed from this Monarch Watch Update mailing list, please send an email message to

Listproc@ku.edu

and include in the body of the message (no other text):

UNSUBSCRIBE MONARCH-WATCH-UPDATE

If you have any questions about this, please feel free to contact us anytime.

Thanks!

Monarch Watch
http://www.MonarchWatch.org
monarch@ku.edu