That Article About Raising Monarchs

Here we go again. Another sensationalist headline of sorts has the monarch world in an uproar.  There's a study - a very limited study - that says that raising monarchs in captivity is detrimental to their navigational abilities. Because of this news release, I've been bombarded with questions as to what I think about it.

First of all, let me state my personal disclaimer. Though I try to keep up on the latest research and am constantly learning, I am not a biologist, entomologist, etc. I have a Science degree, but it's in Dental Hygiene. Do I use some of what I learned in my microbiology, anatomy, chemistry, and other related classes when it comes to my experience with monarchs? Certainly. Do I use principles from studies I was a part of when I worked for a dental research company? Of course. But I come at this issue from a limited perspective with respect to my focused formal secondary education.

Now, to the issue. Here is one version of the article that's causing so much buzz:

Here's a link to the study:  https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/06/18/1904690116

And here are some of my thoughts on the information in the articles being circulated in mainstream media:

A spined soldier bug takes a monarch
caterpillar as its lunch in my garden.

We know that in the wild, less than 5% of monarchs will survive from egg to adult. (This is fairly typical in the insect world.) Logic tells me that saving just one female saves not just her, but the 400+ eggs she will lay. Play that out exponentially and it's definitely worth considering that the population will increase, given the number of people who now raise them.

I have never advocated the mass raising of monarchs, for a number of reasons, but what do botanists do when they're trying to bring back a plant that's in danger of extinction? They enlist the help of others in growing it in various hospitable locations. Case in point: Solidago shortii. I personally took part in this effort through the Cincinnati Zoo's CREW program. (http://cincinnatizoo.org/conservation/crew/what-is-crew)

Solidago shortii 'Solar Cascade' was once endangered, but thanks to the CREW
program at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens, it is now available commercially.

I'm not saying that because it worked in the plant world, it will work in the insect world, but there is food for thought there.

I have several issues with the study as well as the article itself (including the headlines that the media puts out there with it), not all of which I'm willing to state publicly. If we were having this discussion in person, I would be more inclined to say them. But one of my reservations with it is already proving to be true. People are reading the widely spread articles, coming to their own conclusions, and spreading those conclusions, even if they aren't necessarily true.  

Another thought I had - and at this point, it's just a thought - how does this study affect all the studies of monarchs being raised in captivity in universities for research? Does this mean that the results there are not entirely valid because the monarchs aren't being raised in their natural environment? (Some are, but some are not, even though they try to mimic it.)

People are reading the widely spread articles, coming to their own conclusions from them, and spreading those conclusions, even if they aren't necessarily true. 

The article has some good information and raises some questions, mostly about commercial breeding, but it's premature to be putting it out there in the media as if it were absolutely proven. The article states that the limited study isn't conclusive, but that fact will get lost in the noise and won't always be included in the message that will be the takeaway. *sigh*

I think two important points need to be made:

• If raising monarchs is how we have to "save" them, we aren't really saving them. This model isn't sustainable. However, it may help get them over the hump until such a time that their population has increased enough that their numbers are plentiful and self-sustaining.
   
• Just as their lower numbers are a result of numerous factors that have caused it, a number of things can be done to reverse it. This is a good thing, since not everyone can do everything, but everyone can do something. The results are cumulative.

Personally, I think the most important things we can do is to increase habitat and reduce the use of chemicals. And just as important is increasing awareness by speaking up about the problems that pollinators face and how we can help them. 

"Each one teach one" can be our mantra. We all have a mouth, so let's put it to good use by spreading the word about strategies we know that help and not harm. 

EDITED TO ADD THIS COMMENTARY ON THE ARTICLE AND THE STUDY:

Later today, after I published this blog post, Angie Babbit, of Monarch Watch, so beautifully said what many of us feel in regard to rearing monarchs at home:

We need to focus on keeping people connected to the monarchs in a positive way that lends itself toward conservation. I got a letter from a woman today that said she has been rearing fewer than 100 monarchs a year for a while, and her entire neighborhood has started turning green spaces into habitat because she announces how many she's successfully released each year. Now she's read this news and wants to know if she's doing more harm than good.

Are we really going to tell her that her efforts to rally her neighborhood are misguided? Are we really going to tell people to stop bringing in caterpillars to show their grandchildren the miracle of metamorphosis? This is a sociological phenomenon that's tied to a biological phenomenon that's tied to conservation. A hands-off approach to conservation is going to kill conservation and send thousands of school kids into programs of virtual dissection kits and online atrophy-based education.

“In the end, we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand and we will understand only what we are taught.” ― Baba Dioum

Sincerely,

Angie Babbit
Communications Coordinator
Monarch Watch
The University of Kansas

AND

In reponse to an organization writing to Dr. Karen Oberhauser, who was quoted in the news article:

I talked to the reporter about the inside rearing a fair amount, but he didn’t include that information in the article. It is important to note that the inside rearing in the experiment was done in incubators in which the experimenters could control temperature and light exactly. As a result, the monarchs were not exposed to any natural light or temperature fluctuations; the lights went on and off, and they were kept at a constant temperature. In your exhibit hall, there are windows and diurnal temperature fluctuations which provide exposure to more environmental cues. I’m actually not surprised that they didn’t migrate after being in an incubator. There are plenty of examples of monarchs collected at different stages of development, being reared inside, and successfully migrating.

While I think that the study was really interesting, I’m sorry that this feature of the rearing conditions was not included in the paper itself or in the media reviews.

In my opinion, what you are doing is great. We’re doing the same thing at the UW-Madison Arboretum.

All my best,
Karen

AND

From Dr. Orley "Chip" Taylor of Monarch Watch:

A response to the PNAS paper regarding captive-reared monarchs, by Dr. Chip Taylor

Monarch Watch·Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Yes, induction of a non-reproductive condition and migration is fragile. That is known. No one to my knowledge has been able to completely replicate the conditions that result in reproductive diapause and migration in the laboratory.

The system is resilient, complicated and still full of unexplained attributes – as well as unexplainable outcomes – e.g. indoor raised monarchs in FL that were tagged and released in San Antonio with 9 (not 5 as stated in the paper) recovered at the overwintering sites in Mexico. Those rearing conditions (12h day/night, 80F constant temps, with dim light through a small window in the door of the rearing room) fit none of the parameters suggested by experimentation or observation that are thought to lead to either diapause induction or migration.

One might get the impression from the paper that few reared, tagged and released monarchs reach the overwintering sites in Mexico. That is not the case, 33.5% of the recoveries in Mexico from 2004-2015 were of reared, tagged and released monarchs. Wild caught and tagged monarchs have a higher recovery rate 0.9% - vs – 0.5%. There are probably many reasons for this difference.

1. Reared butterflies tend to average smaller – putting them at a glide ratio disadvantage, etc.

2. Taggers tend to tag all monarchs they rear including some that obviously have a low probability of reaching Mexico due to size or condition.

3. The reared monarchs experience a wide range of conditions prior to maturity that may determine whether they are able to become non-reproductive or migrate.

4. Reared monarchs are often released late in the season which reduces the chance of reaching MX [Mexico] and many are reared in the east at latitudes and longitudes with low recovery rates by virtue of distance alone.

5. On the other hand wild caught individuals are in effect a pre-selected group having been on the wing for days or weeks before they were caught and tagged.

The bottom line here is that wild caught and reared monarchs are populations with different morphological and physiological characteristics and therefore different outcomes.

Some who rear/tag and release have figured this out and have increased their recovery rates by rearing monarchs outdoors on living plants with the intention of tagging only the largest and earliest of the monarchs to emerge in late August and early September.

The article gives the impression that many of those who rear, tag and release get their stock from breeders. That’s not the case.

A lot of the rearing appears to be inspired by what could be called “monarch rescue”. It is known and widely reported that 98-99% of all monarch eggs and larvae fail to become adults due to predation, parasitism and other causes. This observation has led many to “save” monarchs by collecting eggs and larvae and rearing them indoors, etc. Aside from enjoying the experience of rearing these interesting butterflies, many justify the practice with the supposition that their efforts are contributing to the population. While there is evidence that some of their efforts result in monarchs reaching MX, the idea that rearing, tagging and releasing monarch will lead to a significant increase in monarch numbers is misguided.

This paper will likely be used to denigrate commercial breeders, However, only one breeder is represented in this study – one who evidently maintains a continuous stock that is quite unique due to origins or inbreeding. There are only a few breeders who maintain monarchs throughout the year. Most start new stocks as early as possible each spring.

Monarch Watch Speaks Out About Raising Monarchs at Home

The discussion regarding raising monarchs in the home continues, with Monarch Watch weighing in today about their position on the practice. Dr. Orley "Chip" Taylor, founder of Monarch Watch, and one of the most knowledgeable people on the planet in regard to monarchs, felt compelled to release this statement, which should be of comfort to those who choose to raise monarchs:


Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:51:02
From: "Taylor Jr, Orley R"
Subject: Rethinking captive rearing

Greetings: I wasn't going to comment publicly on the captive rearing issue. However, since some of you rear monarchs, and Emma Pelton has chosen to post the Xerces [Society] position on our Monarch Watch discussion list, I feel compelled to articulate our position at Monarch Watch along with the reasoning we use to justify our position. For those of you that don't know, the position adopted by Xerces and MJV [Monarch Joint Venture] has created quite a stir on various Facebook sites and more than one Blog.

Our position at Monarch Watch is that we neither encourage or discourage rearing. As I will try to make clear, this is a low priority issue. Further, the concerns are exaggerated and unsupported by data. 

Facts, Observations, Questions, Tagging and Priorities

Facts
Monarch numbers have been declining since the mid 2000s coincident with the adoption of herbicide tolerant crop lines that facilitated the use of glyphosate that all but eliminated milkweed from these row crops.

Habitat loss has been invoked, and supported by data, as the most likely cause of the decline. The alternative hypothesis that the decline is due to an increase in mortality during the migration is unsupported by data.

Habitat loss continues. Estimates are that we are losing 1 million acres of grassland each year and are likely losing at least another million acres due to development and other forms of land conversion.

There is no credible data suggesting that we are restoring habitat for monarchs and pollinators at a rate that matches these losses. In other words, monarchs are losing habitat as we argue about the merits of one detail or another.

Cerro Pelón monarch sanctuary in the state of Mexico, in Central Mexico
February 20, 2018

If my predictions come true, the overwintering population in Mexico will be approximately 5 hectares - maybe more. That translates to at least 60 million monarchs. This will be the largest population since 2008 and may be the last big population for another decade and maybe ever due to changing spring conditions in Texas and higher temperature in May and early June. If you remember the conditions during 2012, those are in our future and it's those conditions that were the precursor to the low monarch return in the spring of 2013 and the alarmingly low population (.67 hectares) that winter.

Monarch larval monitoring and other studies show that 98% of all eggs and larvae succumb to predators or other conditions. 

Observation 
Most of those advocating the reduction and even the cessation of all rearing are not engaged in monarch rearing. Those doing the rearing are being told that what they are doing will have negative consequences for the population. These admonitions are supported by strongly worded opinions and references to conditions that do not apply to the average person rearing monarchs, e.g. the argument about inbreeding and genetic declines. 

While there are lots of data that show that LONG TERM cultures of various species often lose fitness, this argument DOES NOT apply to those who simply collect eggs and caterpillars in their gardens or along roadsides or even those who breed monarchs for 1-2 generations. In fact, it's not even clear that it applies to monarchs. 

How many breeders maintain long term inbreed cultures? We don't know. 
How often do breeders refresh their stocks? We don't know but have been told that "refreshing" stocks is common, mostly from northern states. 
How many breeders rear more than two of three generations per year? We don't know. 

 What does any of that have to do with those who harvest monarch eggs and larvae in their gardens and natural areas for rearing and release? Zero. While many are dismayed by commercial releases of monarchs, it's not prohibited. These "do not rear" directives will not impact commercial releases but they have raised concerns by many lay persons who enjoy rearing monarchs.

Under magnification, Oe spores can be seen as tiny football-
shaped particles among the larger monarch scales that
cover a monarch's body.

The fact that 98% of the monarch immatures are consumed by predators and parasites inspires people to engage in "monarch rescue," that is, harvesting monarch eggs and larvae and rearing them both indoors and outdoors to "save" them from their usual fate. So, is it really a bad thing to do this? What are the risks? 

Yes, the spread of O.e. (Ophryocystis elektroscirrha) could be a risk but that is easy to avoid if the foliage is sanitized before being fed to the larvae. Monarchs to be released could also be checked for O.e. spores and some people do that. Interestingly, we have found that, if you collect all the 5th instar larvae and rear them through indoors, you can suppress the tachinid fly population.

As to whether monarchs should be reared with the goal of increasing the population, the reality is that such efforts are likely to have little or no impact on the overall population. To have a real impact on population growth, monarchs would have to be released in the RIGHT places at the RIGHT times early in the season rather than during the migration.

Questions
        
How many monarchs are reared and released by amateurs relative to the total monarchs in the migration - 40,000 or maybe 60,000? 

We don't know.




Where and when are these monarchs released? Does it make a difference?


I don't have time to elaborate, but the tagging data, as well as the seasonal dynamics, show that the impact associated with the when and where of releases varies greatly across the continent. In short, the outcomes of a thousand monarchs released at three widely (MN, ME, FL) different locations on the same day during the migration are likely to be very different. There are seasonal differences in outcomes as well. 


What happens if O.e. infested adult monarchs are released into the population?


The dangers of O.e. are reasonably clear and infested monarchs should NOT be released at any time. Most of the heavily infested monarchs have a reduced fitness and a low probability of getting to Mexico, let alone returning in the spring. Given that scenario, it's likely that most of the O.e. spores that persist in the population through the winter have been acquired by healthy monarchs through horizontal transfer - that is, the proximity of healthy monarchs to those infested with spores while clustered during the winter or even through contact at roosts through the fall migration. The clear message in these directives is that rearing needs to be conducted in a way that eliminates the release of O.e. infested butterflies.         

Do tagged monarchs have a reduced chance of making it to Mexico?


Tagging may or may not have an impact on whether monarchs get to Mexico. There has never been a fair test. If tagged and wild monarchs of the same age, sex and size distributions were released at the same date and same place, we could determine whether tagging impacted the ability to get to Mexico. (Assuming also that the monarchs were tagged according to our instructions).

Tropical milkweed
Asclepias curassavica

What we do know is that lots of reared and tagged monarchs make it to Mexico some having fed on non-native milkweeds such as Calotropis procera and C. gigantea (both species of giant milkweed) and the much maligned Asclepias curassavica (tropical milkweed).
        
Irrespective of the potential impact of tagging, the data from reared monarchs is quite valuable. Like the data from wild tagged monarchs, it tells us a great deal about the migration - the timing, the pace and the probability of reaching Mexico based on sex, geographic origins and date of tagging.

Further, the recovery of reared monarchs can be used as a control for isotope studies.  


Given the habitat losses due to agricultural practices and the continuing loss of habitat, what should our priorities be if our goal is to sustain the monarch migration?


Habitat restoration has to be the number 1 priority. The "All hands on Deck" analysis indicated that we need to re-establish at least 1 BILLION milkweed stems mostly in the Upper Midwest to return the monarch numbers to an average of close to 6 hectares at the overwintering sites. That figure is based on an extinction analysis - that is, the probability of losing the migration due to a series of catastrophic events such as the winter storm of 2002 and 2004. That analysis was conservative in that the projections could only be made using past data and inferences based on those conditions. 

Unfortunately, conditions are changing and if the projections based on climate models come true, and that seems likely, the need to restore habitat is even greater than estimated. 

We have work to do and we need all hands on deck and that means that we need everyone who can to pitch in in any way they can. 

We need people to pass on their enthusiasm for monarchs and their concern for maintaining the migration.         


Should rearing be conducted with the goal of increasing the wild population?

Again, to be clear, at Monarch Watch we neither encourage nor discourage monarch rearing. Looking a the monarch population holistically - and from the standpoint of the year-to-year dynamics of a population that is governed largely by both temperatures, and other weather-related phenomena, as well as habitat limitations, rearing is a minor issue. 

_______________________________________ 

Orley R. "Chip" Taylor [chip@ku.edu]
Founder and Director of Monarch Watch; Professor Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Trained as an insect ecologist, Chip Taylor has published papers on species assemblages, hybridization, reproductive biology, population dynamics and plant demographics and pollination. Starting in 1974, Chip Taylor established research sites and directed students studying Neotropical African honey bees (killer bees) in French Guiana, Venezuela, and Mexico.

In 1992, Taylor founded Monarch Watch, an outreach program focused on education, research and conservation relative to monarch butterflies. Since then, Monarch Watch has enlisted the help of volunteers to tag monarchs during the fall migration. This program has produced many new insights into the dynamics of the monarch migration. 

In 2005 Monarch Watch created the Monarch Waystation program, in recognition that habitats for monarchs are declining at a rate of 6,000 acres a day in the United States. The goal of this program is to inspire the public, schools and others to create habitats for monarch butterflies and to assist Monarch Watch in educating the public about the decline in resources for monarchs, pollinators and all wildlife that share the same habitats.
 __________________

***I have formatted the information provided by Monarch Watch to make it easier to read and have provided some emphasis to some words and phrases. The text provided here is accurate, and is what Monarch Watch issued, with no other changes.
 

To Be or Not to Be? A Monarch Raiser, That Is.

Nothing like a good controversy to get your butt in gear and finally start blogging again. I never intended to stop, but life just kept getting in the way, and Facebook has made it easy to microblog. But now something has caused such an uproar in the monarch community and beyond, that... well... here we are.

A recent blog post written by someone from The Xerces Society has been making the rounds in the last few days. It's one that has a lot of people really upset and threatens to divide those of us who love the monarch and are doing our darnedest to help them have the population explosion they need.

Lots of people raise monarch butterflies in their homes, and teachers do it in their classrooms. This practice has gone on for decades, but never more than the present, in an effort to bolster the monarch population. But now, in light of this article published just four days ago, lots of people have vowed that they will quit raising monarchs.

Take a deep breath, friends.

Whenever an alarmist article like this appears, I'm skeptical until I can find other information supporting it. I don't care who writes it - scientist or not. If there's one thing I've discovered in the 12 years I've been studying the monarch, even the major players in the scientific community can't agree on some things. The fact is, there are a LOT of things we all have yet to learn about this iconic butterfly we love.

I could probably add another chapter to my book, THE MONARCH: Saving Our Most-Loved Butterfly, on this subject, and certainly more than you want to read in a blog post. But here are some thoughts of mine to consider. It would be best if you read the Xerces Society blog post first, so that you understand what all the hubbub is about and why I say what I do here.

• First of all, we can't "save" the monarch by raising them inside our homes. There are good reasons to do so, but that alone should not be the rationale behind doing it. It's not sustainable over the long run, not at the levels we're collectively doing it now, and it's not natural. We haven't really saved anything if this is how we have to do it.
  
• Secondly, one of the biologists who co-authored the paper cited in the Xerces Society blog post, has come forth with a rebuttal and clarification of the talking points that have monarch lovers so upset. PLEASE read what Christopher Kline has to say about this. I can't stress this enough. Just read it.

This monarch caterpillar fell victim to
a spined soldier bug - a type of stink bug.

We raise monarchs in our homes mainly to protect them from predators. If you've observed monarchs for any length of time, you know firsthand how dismal their mortality rate is. That's not uncommon in the "eat or be eaten" world of insects. But monarch numbers are drastically down compared to just 20 years ago, for many reasons, mainly irresponsible behaviors by us humans.

So there may be something positive in humans taking it upon themselves to attempt to right a wrong that they committed in the first place. Is it natural or ideal to raise monarchs inside? No, but neither are pesticides, herbicides, urbanization, logging, mowing, and other practices that humans have done that have contributed to the monarch's decline.




An important thing to note when reading articles like the one from The Xerces Society

The Xerces Society raises some important points and things to think about. But their blog post is, for the most part, an opinion piece. So is mine.

Remember too, that The Xerces Society is one of the original writers of the petition to have the monarch added to the Threatened Species List under the Endangered Species Act. That decision is due to be announced in 2019, and the raising of monarchs will be greatly changed and curtailed if they are listed. The society certainly has a vested interest in the topic and this article may be speaking with that bias. 

Also, keep in mind that raising monarchs and breeding monarchs are two very distinctively different things. I have never bred monarchs and I don't advocate doing so. There are businesses that do this - some responsibly and some not - and I'm not talking about them here.

I also don't advocate raising huge numbers of them. Doing that requires an extraordinary amount of time, energy, space, and dedication. Not many of us are willing to do this in a way that avoids inherent problems.


Bottom line . . .

Please don't let yourself have a knee-jerk reaction to what the writer of The Xerces Society blog post has said. It might make sense to you right from the get-go, or it might cast doubts on what you've been doing in an effort to help the monarchs. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be in this predicament in the first place. But people smarter than a lot of us (me included) have made some grave mistakes in the past and our wildlife has suffered and is suffering for it.

Personally, I'm of the same mind as Chris Kline, who is qualified to speak on the situation, and I'm perfectly comfortable in continuing to raise small numbers of monarchs in my home. You may not be, and I respect that.

If you save just one female who has the potential to lay
400+ eggs, you may or may not be making a positive difference.
Think about that exponentially for just a little bit

Lastly, thank you to those of you who are doing your part to help the monarchs and other pollinators, whether it be by growing a little milkweed (or a lot), growing more nectar plants, using fewer pesticides and herbicides, contributing financially to those who are working on the monarch's behalf, or even by just keeping the conversation going.

The monarchs have had a banner year here in the Midwest (yay!), which may or may not have had anything to do with our efforts, but keep up the good work. Maybe 20 years from now, we can look back and see that we're making a difference. I believe that we are.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kylee Baumle is the author of two books, the latest of which is THE MONARCH: Saving Our Most-Loved Butterfly. She is a speaker and writer, who won a 2018 Gold Award for her writings on the monarch.

She will be leading her third tour to the monarch sanctuaries in Mexico in February 2019. For more information on joining the tour, click here. 

__________________________

***Photo of female monarch laying egg is courtesy of Holli Webb Hearn, creator of The Beautiful Monarch Facebook group, which at last count, has 23,396 members.

A Visit With Sue Grafton, Author

In June of 2016, garden communicators from GWA Region III had a two-day get-together in the Louisville, Kentucky, area. One of the highlights of the garden tours was a visit to the home and gardens of author Sue Grafton, whose home is just east of Louisville.

If you aren't aware of who Ms. Grafton is, perhaps you've heard of her books. She's the prolific author of the "Alphabet Series" of detective novels. Beginning with A is for Alibi in 1982 and ending with Y is for Yesterday in 2017, she wrote the series after a 15-year career writing screenplays.

When we sat in Grafton's sunroom that Friday afternoon, listening to her share writing methods and anecdotes about her writing career, we didn't know that she already was battling cancer.

On December 28, 2017, we were saddened to hear that Sue Grafton lost that battle and passed away at her second home in Santa Barbara, California.

Those of us who had the privilege of spending that day with her began reminiscing about it. I realized I'd never written a blog post about the visit, so I'm righting that wrong here and now.

When I heard a couple of months prior that we were going to be visiting Sue Grafton's home, I immediately bought a copy of the first book in her famous series. Though many who attended that day were already fans of her writing, I had yet to read a single book she'd penned. Detective novels aren't my favorite genre (that would be historical fiction), but I wanted to read at least one before I met her.

A is for Alibi was a good read. By the time I got to the ending, which was worded brilliantly, I could understand how and why people were so enamored with her writing.

Of course, I took my copy of her book with me for her to sign, which she so graciously did. I gave her a copy of my own first book, Indoor Plant Decor: The Design Stylebook For Houseplants, as a hostess gift.

Sue and her husband, Steven Humphrey, purchased their beautiful home in 2000. The property encompasses nearly 30 acres and was the former estate of hardware mogul William Belknap. The home was built in 1911, and Belknap named it Lincliff. Situated along the Ohio River, it is listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

Author Sue Grafton welcomes garden writer and author, Barbara Wise,
to her Louisville home.

We started our visit with Sue welcoming us into her home, where we then settled in for a fun and informative chat with her. She explained how she approaches her writing and encouraged us to be less inhibited in our own writing.

Her husband, Steve, gave a tour of the gardens, but we were also allowed to roam her property at our leisure.

The gardens were formal in design, which complimented the Georgian Revival style home. It was Steve who took on the restoration of the gardens and he did his research, discovering that John Olmsted, nephew of Frederick Law Olmsted, designed the original residential layout.

 

About 20 years after the home was built, it was landscape architect Bryant Fleming, designer of Nashville's Cheekwood Estate, that created the gardens. Steve had access to the original plans and used them to guide his restoration.

Steve became interested in gardening before Sue, and he taught her to appreciate the finer points of landscaping. Besides the tailored gardens on the property, they grow edibles too, such as potatoes, asparagus, and an assortment of berries. I don't recall seeing that part of their gardens, but our time was limited enough that we couldn't take in the entire property.

At the time of our visit, Sue fielded a question about what she would do once the final letter "Z" was finished in her series of Kinsey Milhone adventures. Since she had just finished writing Y is for Yesterday, which was released three months after our visit, she still had plenty to think about for Z is for Zero, slated for release sometime in 2019. But she said she had no writing plans past "Z."

When news reported Ms. Grafton's passing, her daughter, Jamie Clark, spoke on behalf of the family:

“She was adamant that her books would never be turned into movies or TV shows, and in that same vein, she would never allow a ghost writer to write in her name. Because of all of those things, and out of the deep abiding love and respect for our dear sweet Sue, as far as we in the family are concerned, the alphabet now ends at Y.”

GWA Region III meeting attendees.
The region includes Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin,
Michigan, and West Virginia.

Ohio Gets a New License Plate to Benefit the Monarch Butterfly (and I helped!)

Today was a special day for me and for Ohio monarch enthusiasts. Many didn't even know it was a special day until it got here. Today was the first day that citizens with a vehicle registered in the state of Ohio could purchase a specialized license plate that will directly benefit the monarch butterfly.

Here's how it happened:


Thanks, Illinois

In March of last year, I saw an online news article from The News-Gazette (Champaign-Urbana, IL) about a specialized license plate being planned for the state of Illinois.

I wondered if Ohio had such a plate and made a search on the website of the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. No such plate existed.

There was a plate benefiting Ohio's Nature Preserves, featuring a monarch butterfly nectaring on a coneflower, but the funds collected for that plate don't specifically go toward the monarch. I looked further on the site to see what needed to be done in order to have a new organizational plate created. It didn't seem too difficult, so I made a phone call to the BMV in Columbus to find out if they were aware of anyone else already working on one for the monarch. There were no efforts in progress that they were aware of.


First things first

Rep. Tony Burkley

There were several steps required to create an organizational plate, with the first one being to get a state legislator to introduce a bill. My husband and I knew our state representative, Tony Burkley, personally, since we went to high school with both him and his wife. I contacted him in April and explained what I was wanting to do.

It was late in the session, with only a few days left to get the bill introduced, but Representative Burkley got the job done. It was passed by the 131st General Assembly and on June 16th, Governor John Kasich signed the bill; 90 days later, on September 14th it would officially become law.


Collecting signatures

The next step was to collect at least 150 signatures on a special petition - signatures of those who had registered vehicles in the state of Ohio, who potentially could purchase the license plate. This made me a tiny bit uncomfortable, because I'm not someone who likes to be approached to sign anything myself. But it's amazing how assertive you can be when you're passionate about something, like I am about the monarch.

Though a few were not willing to give their driver's license number (a requirement), so many more were enthusiastic about helping make this a reality. I posted about it on my Facebook page and in the Facebook monarch forums and several people stepped forward and offered to help collect signatures: Sarah Roney Dalton, Don Byrne, Sandy Cobb, Kara Fritz, Janet Denning, Jamie Walters, Melinda Huseby Krick, Richard Moore, Lori Gogolin, Debbie Hartwig Tope, Ashley Tope, Roman Baumle, Brandi Eberle, Karla Erford Treece, and Melissa Downs Moser. (I hope I haven't forgotten anyone who sent me some!)

Since I wanted to be sure to have more than enough verified signatures (yes, they DO check each and every one), I submitted 250, instead of the minimum 150.


Where will the money go?

The license plate costs an extra $25, of which $15 goes to the benefiting organization and the remaining $10 to the Ohio BMV. I wanted the monies collected to remain in the state of Ohio, so I began investigating possible organizations that could make good use of it.

I chose Monarch Wings Across Ohio, which is a part of the national organization, The Pollinator Partnership. Several locations across Ohio are participants in the monarch studies being conducted, in fact, Ohio is the first state to be a part of the national program Monarch Wings Across the U.S. Included in the program are such sites as Holden Arboretum, Cleveland Metroparks, and many others.

The recipient organization had to provide an affidavit to the BMV as well as the logo that goes on the license plate.


Next...

I procured all the necessary documents and sent them off to the BMV in Columbus on September  12 by Certified Mail.

Whew.

My part was now finished and it was up to the BMV to take the baton and finish the race.


Finally...

I got an email on December 8th, giving me the good news that enough signatures had been verified, the license plate design had been finalized, and the plate would be available for purchase on January 11, 2017. And here we are:

Photo by Lacinda Conley

This is a graphic image of what my own personalized license plate will look like. Since we had just bought a new (to us) car in December, I had to go to the license bureau in person to register it and order my plates. It can take anywhere from two weeks to a month to receive the actual plates once the order is placed.

Current license plate fees in Ohio as listed on the BMV website are:

• New registration/standard plates & registration/plate renewal:
  • Passenger vehicle: $34.50.
  • Motorcycle: $28.50.
  • House vehicle/moped: $24.50.
  • Non-commercial trailer: Fee is based on weight.
• Replacements:
  • 1 license plate: $10.50.
  • 2 license plates: $11.75.
  • Decals: $4.50.
• Plate transfer: $4.50.

The extra fee for the monarch license plate is $25, with $15 of that going to Monarch Wings Across Ohio. If you do want to personalize it, that will cost another $50. Besides providing funds that will help the monarch butterfly and by proxy, other pollinators, the license plate will help create awareness for the plight the monarch faces.

Once again, thank you to all who worked together to make this possible. I've been asked by several others how to go about doing the same thing in their state and since each state is different, my suggestion would be to go to your state's Bureau of Motor Vehicles website (some states call it the Department of Motor Vehicles, or DMV) and find out what your state requires for the creation of a specialized or organizational license plate.

In many cases, all it takes is one ordinary citizen being willing to do what it takes to make it happen. You will be providing a means for many people to help the cause through the purchase of the plates. I encourage vehicle owners in Ohio to purchase one of these plates. Even though the sale of only 25 plates per year are required to keep the monarch plate in production, we can do better than that.

Do it for the monarchs.