SteveR Loc: Michigan

And yet this article from National Geographic indicates that 40% of insect species may be in decline. Guess you son missed that one.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/02/why-insect-populations-are-plummeting-and-why-it-matters/

Amielee Loc: Eastern Washington State

I live in the area and I have noticed something similar, but it may not be real. It appears to me that in the winter if we have several days of below zero F. temperature ( like 5 or 6 days of -10 degrees) we have much small amount of moths and other insects the following summer. I think it may be due to a kill off of insect eggs or the failure of insects to survive the cold weather but that is just a guess.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

interesting.
Thank you as we have wondered about variations from year to year.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

Well, yes and no. A lot of things ... something. I always count on the sin of omission.
Many species are on cycles.
Coyotes. Low on coyotes means extra rodents next year. Two years later there are more coyotes, whose reproduction is triggered by the amount of rodents eaten. Two more years, too many coyotes and the rodents are getting scarce. Two more years, we got rodents eating beetles but we're getting low on coyotes ...
Owls. Somebody was doing a study on European owls and found a large hollow tree that pwls have been for centuries. Layer by layer of owl poop show what they ate: a decade of hamsters, a decade or three of mice. Back and forth. 21st Century, computers and databases are hooking up, and these layers correspond with minor weather changes. Which effect the grass populations that these rodentia feed on. Then there's the lag- the bigger hamsters means bigger owl species, more mice mean smaller ones. Who follow their prey. As the hamsters followed the weather, THEN the big owls eventually followed, THEN the mice, THEN the little owls
When I lived in Philly the study was on mid state lizards. Same ol. There's been a lot of bugs the last two years. Lizards eat bugs. More lizards this year. More snakes listed in two more years. More snakes means more owls, then less rodents, then squirrels, etc. It was a definite eleven year cycle, documented for over a hundred years by the 1960s and weather may have had an influence. Or maybe not.
Chernobyl. They're missing a lot of insect species, but mammals and birds are there. ?!?!
Well boom happened. Everything that could run away and did, lived. Insects, etc- too slow.
Nature filled the vacuum wth nearby local animals, and people dropped off unwanted pets. Who scavenged.
The animals didn't survive, they just arrived. A generation or two a year ... bugs just didn't catch up yet.
BUT the place is getting warmer. Weather is changing, The world is being modified. We need to accept that.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

No, my son is an expert. This is his business.

I belong to a number of scientific societies and unfortunately these societies have become much less scientific and more political. The reason for this is there is a lot of government grant money at stake. It is normal to have scientific controversies but these are resolved over time in the peer reviewed literature. National Geographic is a beautiful magazine but is not a reliable source of scientific information. Indeed population variations of various organisms on a global basis is very complex.

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

Well, I'm an Entomologist too (Masters and PhD. 30+ years in academia, yada yada yada. And it is Entomologists worldwide who have been reporting the decline. There is an 'out-numbered' issue here. But in truth the position to take, when one wants to be formal, is to use qualifying language. So...
1. A majority of studies find declines. Some are steep. Other studies don't see much decline, or no decline, and there are studies that report local increases in populations. There is a report that aquatic insects have increased (though most insects are terrestrial). The majority of studies find declines. There is no fake news here. Just good people doing their best to understand populations. There is no profit or other motivation to report a certain kind of result. Note again that not all studies find a decline, and yet those studies get published without a problem. However ...
2. There is the call that we need to be cautious in announcing sweeping conclusions despite the trend of decline being found. Those juicy sounding conclusions get announced in the media and they tend to alarm people. But medium and long term population census studies must be limited in species counted and in geographic area. Most species cannot be counted b/c there are a lot of species. Only a tiny fraction of land area can be assessed. So the cautionary note is that these reports, though alarming, are only a tiny fraction of the picture. This is what researchers are also trying to publicize (or they should be), but that story does not get as much press.
3. If the reported declines are somehow wrong, then that should eventually be discovered by evidence. The position to take on these things is to recognize that the consensus is that there is a decline, b/c that is what the evidence shows, but to keep a kind of mental flexibility that this view is subject to revision pending evidence.

That said, lots of folks have strong anecdotes about noticing declines over time in their area. I can certainly tell the same stories. Anecdotes are powerfully persuasive, but they are still anecdotes.