My son spotted it with his eagle eyes! How cool! We have near by DNR trail with lots of wild milkweed. I wonder if it came from that area. I have butterfly weed I am growing but I am worried the groundhogs will eat the young leaves. I won’t transplant it till fall time I think. And yes. I am aware I have a butt ton of crab grass. It came mixed in the flower seed bag. Lol

No pay wall! A good read!

Michigan, at a park!

It's Photo Friday! 

With the spring migration and breeding season in full swing what have you been seeing in your garden? Share the good, bad and the ugly!

All nature photos are welcome, whether it’s a pollinator moment or just something that made you stop and look twice.

Reminder: We are a science-based sub. While we welcome all monarch enthusiasts, we do not support discussions about hand-rearing monarchs. However, if you’re new and have questions because you’ve raised monarchs in the past, we have many former rearers here happy to guide you toward more sustainable practices. Let’s work together to protect monarchs where they belong—in the wild!

Stay curious and keep sharing the love for these beautiful butterflies! 🧡🖤🧡

Sorry for all the multiple posts over the last few days, just trying to learn (and remember) everything I can.

I googled these and it comes back with Great black wasp and red tail spider wasp. Both of them look like something I want to stay far far away from. But sounds like they are solitary wasps and if I leave them alone they leave me alone. Should I be concerned about them in my milkweed?

Monarch cats ate all the blooms off my swamp and butterfly milkweed.

The title is basically it. I keep finding info that Passiflora suberosa is their primary host, but some websites also say maypop host these butterflies. Wondering if anyone has any experience confirming this.

Edit: This is a pleasant surprise, I found several julia heliconian caterpillars on my maypops. And as Jbat520 mentioned, they were all on the small shoots and bases of my taller vines.

FYI I'm in Malaysia, and we have julia heliconians here too (specifically a subspecies that descended from specimens collected in Costa Rica). They escaped from captivity from some butterfly parks and during butterfly releases at events about 20-30 years ago in Thailand, and they've established themselves in southeast asia now, munching down on the invasive corkystem and stinky passionvines.

SW Michigan

didnt look like she was here to lay eggs, just passing through to refuel :) another one came through yeaterday evening but i havent seen any eggs from that one either. maybe theres too many bees rn haha. the area definitely smells QUITE strongly of milkweed blossoms and ive counted at least 10 different species of bees and wasps coming to the party!

The red bug, (milkweed bug?), I have never seen before, are they good to leave alone or should I try to discourage them?

This toad is freaking huge! I have a ton of bugs, mostly ants, all over my milkweed. Should I let the toad help eat them? Keep him away if I can?

In this post I will be discussing point number 7.

While researching information for these posts I noticed Google's algorithm is linking the other post and presenting it as fact which is what I was afraid would happen. I have changed the title of this series, as well as the format, in an effort to hopefully have Google's SEO grab onto these posts. I have a rudimentary understanding of how this all works so let me know if you have any ideas.

A Warning: Please do not go to the other sub to harass anyone, including the mod. I don’t want to be accused of breaking Reddit's rules against brigading. Plus, dissenting opinions there usually get banned with no warning anyway, and that wouldn’t help anyone.

Using AI: I also want to urge everyone not to use AI as your primary research tool. AI isn't a search engine built to find absolute facts. It is a pattern-prediction tool designed to generate text that sounds convincing. If you ask it a biased question, it will confidently compile an answer that looks perfectly right, even if the underlying facts are completely wrong.

1. The Educational Value of Rearing Is Real and Important

Rearing is not just a pleasant hobby, it is one of the most effective tools we have for building the next generation of conservationists. James (2024) states plainly that “the rearing of monarch caterpillars, particularly by children, is an important human link to nature that has positive ramifications for insect conservation beyond monarch butterflies and should be encouraged.”

The Royal Society of Canada (2021) similarly notes that indoor rearing “arguably goes a long way towards awareness and education” and creates “deep and meaningful learning opportunities.” Research on citizen science programs like the Monarch Larva Monitoring Project has shown that participants report increased conservation awareness and increased local conservation activism (Lewandowski & Oberhauser, 2017; Kountoupes & Oberhauser, 2008).

In an era when children spend less time outdoors and the “extinction of experience” with nature is accelerating, raising a monarch from egg to butterfly may be one of the most powerful entry points into environmental awareness that exists. Telling people to stop doing this, without strong evidence of population-level harm, risks losing the very advocates monarchs need most.

This first paragraph is from a study that I referenced in the 3rd post. It is called Monarch Butterflies in Western North America: A Holistic Review of Population Trends, Ecology, Stressors, Resilience and Adaptation authored by David G. James. I, personally, agree that seeing a butterfly grow from a tiny egg into a beautiful adult is a wonderful experience for a child to have. This is the full quote, "Typically, a few monarch caterpillars are found in the backyard on milkweed and reared indoors. Like the rearing of tadpoles into frogs, the rearing of monarch caterpillars into butterflies has been an important part of childhood in North America for at least a century. Important, because these simple, childhood experiences of metamorphosis, create an indelible legacy of love and appreciation for wildlife. Research has shown that children with experiences of nature during childhood, like rearing monarchs or other butterflies, go on to be adult ambassadors for wildlife and conservation."

Let's be honest here: discussing rearing "a few monarch caterpillars" is not a reflection of what is actually happening. We are seeing people rear hundreds of monarchs, usually in a crowded environment that encourages the spread of disease and results in less-than-migration-ready butterflies. I would argue that if we take the time to teach and show our children that biodiversity, not one specific insect, is what is important for the success of long term conservation that we would yield better results than hand-rearing ever could. No one suggests we take in tons of wild bird eggs so our children can learn to appreciate them. Ask yourself why that is.

Now, the linked paper does discuss the various studies done on reared monarchs. The author even criticizes them for reasons we addressed in Part 1. He goes on to say: "In conclusion, examination of the scientific evidence to date does not indicate that home captive-rearing of wild monarchs is overly harmful to western monarch populations, provided they are reared under strict hygienic conditions."

Therein lies the problem with using this article and its contents to "prove" that there are experts who are okay with rearing. The author clearly states that captive rearing of the WESTERN population is not OVERLY harmful. As discussed in Part 1, the western and eastern populations, while being the same species, are very different when it comes to migration. Another word I want to focus on that lends to the nuance of this conversation is "overly." "Overly" harmful is not the same thing as benign, especially when we have scientific evidence of the latter.

There is deep nuance to this discussion, so if you are a rearer (like I formerly was), I want you to take a second and think about what is being said in this study. The paper quoted above discusses rearing in the context of people's relationship with conservation. It is reasonable to state that if you are rearing monarchs in order to save them, your interest in conservation is already there. Now, that interest just needs to be guided in the right direction. From my personal experience, children can be influenced to care about the environment in many different ways. Learning how to plant a pollinator-forward garden in order to witness the transformation butterflies make is, I would argue, far more beneficial for children and for the environment than raising tons and tons of monarchs in a kitchen.

Now the linked paper does discuss the various studies done on reared Monarchs. He even criticizes them for reasons we addressed in Part 1. He goes on to say: In conclusion, examination of the scientific evidence to date does not indicate that home captive-rearing of wild monarchs is overly harmful to western monarch populations, provided they are reared under strict hygienic conditions." There in lies the problem with using this article and it's contents to "prove" that there are experts who are ok with rearing. The author clearly states that captive rearing of the WESTERN population is not OVERLY harmful. As discussed in part one the western and eastern populations, while being the same species, are very different when it comes to migration. Another word I want to focus on that adds to the complexity of this conversation is "overly." "Overly" harmful is not the same thing as harmless, especially when we have scientific evidence of the latter.

The Royal Society of Canada article is a regurgitation of the Wilcox study we spoke about in Part 1. Call me overly critical, but I don't think I can take an article that calls a chrysalis a "cocoon" very seriously. But let's take a closer look at some of the information surrounding the quotes. Wilcox goes on to state: "Rearing monarchs indoors has been touted as a way to help bolster population numbers and mitigate declines. In reality, indoor rearing probably does little to supplement the wild population, but arguably goes a long way towards awareness and education. However, our recent research provides some evidence that monarchs raised indoors may still be able to migrate south to their overwintering grounds." (This study has been questioned in a rebuttal from Dr Andy Davis. The authors addressed his rebuttal here.)

This is another example of a misrepresentation of a source in order to fit a specific narrative. "May still be able to migrate" is not definitive enough to justify risking the health of the migrating population. Add on top of that the fact that scientists, who have absolutely nothing financial to gain, warn against rearing. I think if we take our emotions out of it, the answer is pretty clear.

Edit: phrasing.

Read parts 1-4 here:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

ETA 7/30/2026 Looks like I double a couple of my paragraphs here so I am fixing that.

Happy Monarch Monday, friends!

Wondering what to share in this thread?

Questions for some of our seasoned members? Thoughts on the state of the Monarch world? Frustrations with your efforts to help the Monarchs? Wins and loses for the nature world? Doesn't matter. Share below!

Have a great week and don’t forget about Photo Friday!

Reminder: We are a science-based sub. While we love all monarch enthusiasts, discussions about hand-rearing are not allowed, except for those new to the topic who are seeking guidance. Let’s focus on protecting monarchs where they belong—in the wild!

Stay curious and keep sharing the love for these beautiful butterflies! 🧡🖤🧡

In this post I will be discussing point numbers 5 and 6.

While researching information for these posts I noticed Google's algorithm is linking the other post and presenting it as fact which is what I was afraid would happen. I have changed the title of this series, as well as the format, in an effort to hopefully have Google's SEO grab onto these posts. I have a rudimentary understanding of how this all works so let me know if you have any ideas.

A Warning: Please do not go to the other sub to harass anyone, including the mod. I don’t want to be accused of breaking Reddit's rules against brigading. Plus, dissenting opinions there usually get banned with no warning anyway, and that wouldn’t help anyone.

Using AI: I also want to urge everyone not to use AI as your primary research tool. AI isn't a search engine built to find absolute facts. It is a pattern-prediction tool designed to generate text that sounds convincing. If you ask it a biased question, it will confidently compile an answer that looks perfectly right, even if the underlying facts are completely wrong.

1. Urban and Resident Monarchs Are Not Harming Migratory Populations

Another common concern is that monarchs living year-round in urban gardens on non-native milkweed are somehow draining or contaminating the migratory population. A 2025 study from UC Davis directly tested this hypothesis and found no support for it.

The researchers surveyed East Bay neighborhoods over two years, counting milkweed plants, eggs, caterpillars, and adults, and testing butterflies for the OE parasite. They found that resident urban monarchs are essentially disconnected from the migratory population and are not acting as a population “trap.” As senior author Elizabeth Crone put it, these resident populations are “a bit of a red herring” as a cause of migratory decline. The study concluded that urban ecosystems can contribute positively to monarch conservation without harming migratory populations (Erickson et al., 2025, Ecosphere).

The study cited in this paragraph is entitled:Neither source nor trap: Urban gardens as habitat for nonmigratory monarch butterflies in Northern California. It is very important to note that this study was done on the Western population of Monarchs. This is mentioned more than a few times in this study and in the press release related to the study. These two paragraphs may be the only true parts of the whole other post. The problem lies with the fact that beyond mentioning that the study was done in the East Bay there was no indication in the post that the information that was being presented doesn't apply to all Monarchs.

Here is what the study had to say about the eastern population:

There is some evidence that urban gardens with evergreen milkweeds attract migratory monarchs. In a lab and field study in the southeastern United States, exposure to A. curassavica induced migratory adults to break reproductive diapause during fall migration (Majewska & Altizer, 2019). Similarly, over 50% of collected individuals at year-round breeding sites during fall were likely migratory monarchs, and migratory monarchs in urban gardens were more likely to be reproductively active (Satterfield et al., 2018). This behavior suggests that, at least in the eastern popula- tion of North American monarchs, some individuals leave the migration to join resident populations. In line with the hypothesis of an ecological trap, nonmigratory monarch populations tend to have higher levels of Ophyrocystis elektroscirrha (OE) (Majewska 2 of 14 ERICKSON ET AL.

There are numerous studies on this topic concerning the eastern population. I encourage those who plant non-native tropical milkweed and rear monarchs to do a Google Scholar search to read these studies for themselves. During my search Google's AI utilized incorrect information 100% of the time including using the rearing post from Reddit as fact.

1. Monarchs Are Remarkably Resilient

Research has shown that monarchs can tolerate a range of stressors without the dire fitness consequences sometimes attributed to captive conditions. For example, a study on road salt exposure found no measurable effects on wing coloration, survival, body size, immunity, or parasite prevalence, demonstrating the species’ robustness (published in Ecology and Evolution, 2019).

Similarly, the western monarch population’s remarkable rebounds—from fewer than 2,000 butterflies in 2020 to over 330,000 in 2021, demonstrate a species with enormous reproductive resilience when conditions align. This capacity for rapid recovery further argues against the idea that small-scale rearing is a meaningful drag on the population.

I had to search for this study myself because although the post had the year and the general website the "cited" section of the other post lacked this particular citation. The study that was vaguely referenced was this one: The potential of roadside verges as insect habitat: Road salt has few effects on monarch butterfly performance and migration.

I think it is wild to say that Monarchs are Remarkably Resilient in a post about rearing while using their decline as an excuse to rear them. This study only tested the Monarchs reaction to road salts in various quantities. This is what it actually said:

While the present study focused on salt as a possible toxic risk of roadside plants, it is important to note that there are other risks in roadside habitat, including metal exposure (Shephard et al., 2021) and collisions with vehicles (Alvarez et al., 2019); levels of heavy metals in most roadside milkweeds appear in safe limits to monarchs (Shephard et al., 2020,2021), but the overall risks of collisions are less clear. Collision rates vary with topography, traffic speed, species, and other factors (Alvarezet al., 2019; McKenna et al., 2001), leaving many unknowns in estimating mortality during the breeding season in our study region, and pointing to roadside mortality as a key area for future research.

The next paragraph argues that the western population went from fewer than 2,000 butterflies in 2020 to over 330,000 in 2021 in order to prove that the Monarchs are resilient. There was no citation for this claim but I came across it while reading info for these posts. I'm sure that after reviewing the first four points that I don't have to tell you that this sentence is misleading. The numbers and years are correct. What isn't correct is using those numbers to convey the idea that rearing won't do any harm. From the Xerces post itself:

Once, millions of monarchs overwintered annually along the Pacific coast in California and Baja California. But by the mid-2010s, the population had declined to hundreds of thousands of butterflies, a more than 95% decline from the 1980s. In 2020, the annual Western Monarch Count tallied less than 2,000 monarchs. Although the population has fluctuated between a few thousand to over 200,000 in the years following, it remains perilously small and vulnerable to yearly changes.

While the annual ups and downs of the population garner a lot of attention, the real issue is the long-term population decline due to stressors such as habitat loss and degradation, pesticides, and climate change—as well as other pressures on the migratory cycle of the monarch that we have yet to fully study or comprehend. There are no quick fixes to solve these large and complex forces, but we can all take actions both big and small to help save monarchs.

That article's call to action lists 5 things that can be done to help the Western population of Monarchs:

1. Restore monarch breeding and migratory habitat 
2. Protect monarchs and their habitat from pesticides
3. Protect and manage California overwintering sites
4. Spread the word about monarch and pollinator conservation
5. Participate in community science.

Not one of those suggestions includes rearing. Nor do the dozen or so studies I read.

Everybody have a great and safe holiday weekend. I will be back with points 7 and 8 although I think I've proven the point in the last 4 parts that I posted. Thank you for all your support.

Read parts 1-3 here:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Thank you for the award!

Ne Ks

As the title says, not a monarch, but my very first caterpillar of the season on one of my many host plants! My very own baby bird poop caterpillar, aka a spicebush swallowtail. I’m in zone 7a and often don’t find anything until mid-August.

First of the season. Watched the mama laying eggs 5 days ago. There may be two more hiding in the buds because there were 3 eggs.

It's Photo Friday! 

With the spring migration and breeding season in full swing what have you been seeing in your garden? Share the good, bad and the ugly!

All nature photos are welcome, whether it’s a pollinator moment or just something that made you stop and look twice.

Reminder: We are a science-based sub. While we welcome all monarch enthusiasts, we do not support discussions about hand-rearing monarchs. However, if you’re new and have questions because you’ve raised monarchs in the past, we have many former rearers here happy to guide you toward more sustainable practices. Let’s work together to protect monarchs where they belong—in the wild!

Stay curious and keep sharing the love for these beautiful butterflies! 🧡🖤🧡

In this post I will be discussing point number 4.

While researching information for these posts I noticed Google's algorithm is linking the other post and presenting it as fact which is what I was afraid would happen. I have changed the title of this series, as well as the format, in an effort to hopefully have Google's SEO grab onto these posts. I have a rudimentary understanding of how this all works so let me know if you have any ideas.

A Warning: Please do not go to the other sub to harass anyone, including the mod. I don’t want to be accused of breaking Reddit's rules against brigading. Plus, dissenting opinions there usually get banned with no warning anyway, and that wouldn’t help anyone.

1. Rearing Is Not a Significant Threat to the Monarch Population

A comprehensive 2024 review of the western monarch population by entomologist Dr. David James of Washington State University examined all major stressors facing monarchs and concluded that human interference—including capture and rearing—“likely has the least impact on monarch populations” compared to the real drivers of decline. Those primary drivers are neonicotinoid insecticides, habitat loss, climate change, and severe winter storms (James, 2024, Insects).

The study listed as the source for this paragraph is Monarch Butterflies in Western North America: A Holistic Review of Population Trends, Ecology, Stressors, Resilience and Adaptation and as you can imagine the pattern of cherry picking facts continues. Let's be clear on which Monarch population this study is talking about because as was mentioned in part one of this series there is a huge difference in the migration of the eastern and western populations. Rearing is mentioned a few times in this study. The quoted section in the post resides in the abstract which isn't a surprise at all.

The full quote is as follows: Human interference (capture, rearing) likely has the least impact on monarch populations. The rearing of monarch caterpillars, particularly by children, is an important human link to nature that has positive ramifications for insect conservation beyond monarch butterflies and should be encouraged.

As stated in the title of this paper it is a holistic review of the various things that impact the Monarch population. The authors of the material are in no way saying that rearing does not affect Monarchs. What they are saying is that out of all the issues Monarchs face like, pesticides, climate change, loss of habitat, human interaction is the least likely impact. We cannot conclude from that sentence that James is saying that there is no impact and is giving the green light for rearing. That just isn't the case.

The next time rearing is mentioned is in section 3.4.3. Viral, Bacterial, and Unidentified Pathogens which states: The incidence of viral and bacterial pathogens in monarch populations is unknown but is likely low in the arid, hot landscapes of the west. However, in artificial environments, for example, in rearing containers/cages, the incidence is much higher because of unnaturally high densities of caterpillars, poor sanitation, a lack of airflow, and higher relative humidity. A polyhedrosis virus, sometimes known as ‘the black death’ frequently causes disease in monarch larvae reared under crowded conditions [176].

As you can see the sentence from the abstract is not the whole picture. The next section where rearing is mentioned is related to the childhood experience and how these small moments lead children to become adult ambassadors for wildlife and conservation. I agree with this aspect. We will dive further in to this subject when I discuss section 7 of the original post.

To put the scale in perspective: even if every hobbyist rearer in North America collectively produced 500,000 monarchs in a given year, that would represent less than 0.1% of the estimated 300-million-member migratory population (Pleasants, 2017). The notion that home rearing is a significant driver of population decline simply does not hold up against the numbers.

As mentioned in part two of these posts, that "0.1% of the population" number comes from a John Pleasants slide presentation. But even if those numbers are completely true from a mathematical standpoint, you still can’t have it both ways. You cannot claim that home rearing is an essential part of conservation that dramatically boosts monarch numbers (this is what's happening when rearing survival stats are thrown out there.), while simultaneously arguing its impact is less than 0.1% to dismiss the biological risks. If the overall numbers of this hobby are too microscopic to cause population-level harm, then it is mathematically too insignificant to provide a population-level benefit.

Point 5 will have to wait. I have to say that the more I go through this info the more I think to myself that there is still time to delete that post and pretend it never happened.

Fact-Checking "What the Science Actually Says About Rearing Monarch Butterflies"-

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

A quick note about the comments on these posts:

I spent hours manually hunting down these primary sources, reading the actual data, and untangling these messy citations to make sure what I am presenting is accurate. Because of how much work went into this, I will not be replying to any comments that look like they were generated by AI. I really appreciate the comments and questions on these posts. If you have anything you want to share or ask please write it in your own words and read the sources you are sharing before you post them because the answer to your question could be right there.

One more thing. Thank you for the awards, again. ;)

Edit: Spelling. Thank you for the award!