I think that truth is critical in science.  The prediction of extinction by
or near 2010, somewhat vaguely stated/strongly suggested in the paper, or
however one wants to characterize it, was distorted and misquoted by NJ
Audubon and the others, and is still being employed as a scare tactic.

The quote in the paper by Baker et al. (2004):

  "the population is predicted to approach extremely low numbers by 2010
when the probability of extinction will be correspondingly higher than it is
today. "  ---  Baker, et al. (2004).

Became ...

"we are looking at certain extinction by 2010"  --- Eric Stiles, NJ Audubon
(June 2005).

and ...

"Also in 2004, Baker and his colleagues published a model predicting
continued significant decline of C. c. rufa resulting in extinction in or
about 2010"  --- from the Emergency Petition, signed by National Audubon,
American Bird Conservancy, Audubon MD-DC, Audubon NY, DEl. Audubon, NJ
Audubon, VA Audubon, and Defenders of Wildlife.

  This purposeful distortion of the information was done for political
reasons in an 'ends justifies the means' attitude.  This is not science.
Unfortunately, the authors of the paper have allowed the misinterpretation
and misuse of their paper by the various conservation organizations for
several years, and thereby their names to the continued extinction by or
near 2010 claim.

  I've already said that I support the moratorium and all the advocated
conservation measures due to the empirically demonstrable decline.  I
actually agree with Dave (below) on one point, that predictive models such
as these, concerning populations of extremely dynamic, adaptable organisms
are "not reality".  The question is, should public policy decisions be made
based on models that are "not reality"?

    Shouldn't the empirically demonstrable and dramatic decline of rufa Red
Knot, which is real, be enough to rally conservation measures, without the
need to exaggerate and falsify the case with an untenable and frankly
embarrasing extinction by 2010 prediction that will inevitably prove false?

Richard S. Heil
S. Peabody, MA
[log in to unmask]


----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Lauten and KACastelein" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [SHOREBIRDS] Red Knot - Extinction Question
> Richard
>
> Did you read the paper?  Did you read Mark's comments?  Just because
> environmental groups have distorted the words in the paper is not a
> reason to attach or trash or blame the authors.  Mark clearly states
> that it is a model, and anyone who works with models would know that a
> model is just that, it is not reality.
>
> And......what if the model is correct?  What if you are wrong?  Are you
> suggesting that nothing be done about it?  Or maybe we shouldn't be
> concerned that thousands and thousands of Red Knots have disappeared and
> may continue to?  Heck, maybe a few thousand will be sufficient?  Maybe
> there is no need to protect horseshoe crabs?  What's the point of
> trashing the authors here?  Are they to blame for pointing out that this
> species needs help, and may be approaching extinction?  I'd be willing
> to bet no one thought Passenger Pigeon's were going to go extinct.
> Oops.  Wrong.  Good thing we had models to predict that......
>
> Cheers
> Dave Lauten
> Bandon OR
> [log in to unmask]