The question that I will be answering in this paper is, “Should maintaining monarch habitat and resources outweigh human activities affecting monarch resources?” In my opinion monarch habitat shouldn’t outweigh human activities. I have read a few articles and understand the pros and the cons. How can a butterfly outweigh any human activity? Without the trees we would be losing resources in which we need to survive…who is more important me or a butterfly…simple me.
First of all the monarch butterflies life span is short. In a article I read it was saying how when a monarch migrates to the north and then migrates back it is usually three or more generations older than the when the monarchs first got their.
Another issue that bothers me about the butterflies is that in Mexico many of the Mexicans live in poverty. So they need those trees for houses. Many of them live is little hut like shacks. I know I may sound like I don’t care about the butterflies but a persons well being to me is much more important than a butterfly. Not only do they use the wood for housing but for fire and cooking needs. Those people agreed to give up logging rights to the forest so they would be able to survive.
In conclusion, if you were in there predicament what would you choose to do? Would you choose to ban logging so the monarch butterflies would have a place to nest and live? Or would you choose to allow logging so you would have a house to live in, wood for heat, and food? I think the choice would be easier if someone was in their shoes. It’s easy to just agree with everyone and want to save the butterflies but when it comes to a persons live I would have to choose economy instead of ecology.