As an environmental scientist it also bothers me to see scientific
information, particularly the output of models, over-hyped. Unfortunately,
this is the nature of the message in our post-modern, ends-justify-the-means
world. The public do not understand the finer points of the information, but
are unwilling to accept the judgment of the expert. To reach the public, the
message often consists of emotional one-liners from the original work
without the accompanying modifiers.

I believe Richard Heil has his point. It should have been noted and then let
go. He won't be able to change the message by "NJ Audubon, Del. Audubon, and
all the others" because apparently they have no other message to evoke
sufficient action. I share with Richard in wishing for a world which was
otherwise.

--Jerry <[log in to unmask]>


On 6/1/07 3:36 PM, "Norman D.van Swelm" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Richard, even if the entire rufa Red Knot population
> is not 100% dependent upon Delaware Bay and NOT 100% dependent upon
> Horseshoe Crab
> eggs to complete their migration and subsequent reproduction in the Arctic
> is it not a shame to even risk damaging such fascinating and unique
> phenomenon for the sake of moneymaking? What good does an academic quibble
> do as to whether the Knots will die out in 2010 or not? Surely you do agree
> that the Knots suffered heavy losses as a result of crab fishing? The
> Delaware Horseshoe Crab spectacle has always been on top of my list of
> natural wonders to see at one time in my life but now regrettably it seems a
> dream lost.
> Norman
>
> Richard S. Heil>   The extinction by 2010 claim is ridiculous on it's face.
> I don't need to
>> read the paper to know that.   If they made the claim, which I believe
>> thay
>> did (or NJ Audubon, Del. Audubon, and all the others fabricated the
>> citation?) then the criticism remains.  If they did not make the claim,
>> why
>> are they allowing all of these groups for the past three years to state
>> that
>> they have?
>>
>>  Do you believe rufa Red Knots will be extinct in less than three years?
>> The belief that the current empirical data supports the idea that rufa Red
>> Knots will be extinct by 2010, in less than three years, is ridiculous,
>> and
>> I have difficulty believing that any competent scientist actually believes
>> this.
>>
>>   Let me ask you exactly how will rufa Red Knots become extinct in less
>> than three years?  Even in an extreme hypothetical, if Delaware Bay ceased
>> to exist, even if Horseshoe Crabs disappeared from the planet tomorrow,
>> rufa
>> Red Knots would not become extinct in three years.  Knots do eat other
>> prey
>> besides crab eggs, and there are other estuaries and beaches besides those
>> of Delaware Bay.  I understand the implications and requirements of the
>> very
>> long distance migration of the majority of rufa Red Knots, but other
>> portions of the population winter much farther north (than Argentina)
>> including in the US, and employ very different migration strategies than
>> the
>> Tierra del Fuego segment of the population.  Even the Argentine population
>> is capable of altering their migration strategies, and utilizing other,
>> less
>> optimal migratory sites if crab eggs are depleted.  I'm sure they are
>> doing
>> this now.  These and other factors such as a poor Arctic breeding season
>> has
>> dramatically reduce the population to a lower level, but imminent
>> extinction
>> is not an issue.   Do you believe that the entire rufa Red Knot population
>> are 100% dependent upon Delaware Bay AND 100% dependent upon Horseshoe
>> Crab
>> eggs to complete their migration and subsequent reproduction in the
>> Arctic?
>> To claim that ONE site and ONE prey item, though clearly important to
>> maintaining the population at historical levels, is an absolute limiting
>> factor necessary to the complete survival of the entire race, is
>> ridiculous.
>> Knots are not that much of a specialist.