I have to agree with Mr. Paton. I am a non-scientist....simply a birder,
still, I was quite put off by the over-the-top tone of Mr. Heil's rantings.
I feel that the paper, as I read it, did not say 2010 was engraved in stone
but, did paint a very bleak picture for the Red Knot.  As a conservationist,
my sensibilities are not negatively affected by this. We know all too well
that over-harvesting of Horseshoe Crabs is not the only human-based action
that has had an impact on this (and many other) bird species. So, if we
needed to paint this picture in order for something (anything) to be done to
help the situation.......I'm not offended. I do feel, however, that the tone
and presentation of the counter-point has done nothing but subvert anything
Mr. Heil says in the future as nothing more than ranting. This is not good
either because, clearly, Mr. Heil is an intelligent man.  I understand his
point-of-view....I guess I am simply not that put off, even if what he is
saying is true. As a matter of fact........happy.

Folks who want to make money in industries that hurt the environment never
distort the truth, eh?

Patrick Santinello
Birder

-----Original Message-----
From: Shorebird Discussion Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Peter Paton
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 7:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOREBIRDS] Red Knot Extinction Question Redux

Everyone,
I just have to get this off my chest after reading this recent thread of
emails concerning population decline of Red Knots. I have had enough of Rick
Heil's rantings. All one has to do is conduct a quick google search to find
out that man has nothing better to do with his time than to criticize
others.  First, I suggest he learn to read someone's paper before he
criticizes their findings.  It is clear he hasn't even taken the time to
read Baker's et al. (2004) paper, given his recent statements.  As Eric
Stiles eloquently pointed out in his most recent email (which Mr. Heil
apparently ignored), Baker et al. (2004) stated "Demographic modeling
predicts imminent endangerment and an increased risk of extinction of the
subspecies without urgent risk-averse management".  Clearly this subspecies
is in trouble, as further documented by Morrison et al's (2004) research.
Given the precipitous population decline documented in both articles, Baker
et al.'s conclusion that urgent risk-averse management is necessary should
be a cold hard fact.  To quibble whether given current population trends the
species will go extinct in exactly 2010 seems to be a meaningless exercise
in futility. Given the population projections of Baker et al. and Morrison
et al, I support any and all statements that NJ Audubon makes to try to
protect the species.  Mr. Heil's model suggesting that population is
leveling off now (with no data or analysis to back up this claim) is not
satisfactory to me.  I would rather take the conservative conservation
approach of taking all steps necessary to protect the species.

Dr. Peter Paton
Professor and Chair
Dept. of Natural Resources Science
1 Greenhouse Rd.
Coastal Institute at Kingston
University of Rhode Island
Kingston RI 02881
>