----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Paton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:35 AM
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.


Ouch!  That hurts.  It's my parents fault really.  Actually it is sad but
true that I really DON"T have anything better to do.


> 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.


    I'll make one last attempt to make my point here, as some still don't
seem to get it.  As I've said multiple times, from the beginning, my
criticism is very specific, ONLY, ONLY, ONLY with the "extinction by (or
about) 2010" prediction, wherever, whenever, and whoever the frick it
emanated from.  I don't doubt the dramatic decline.  I don't doubt the
causes.   I am in FAVOR of the moratorium, and all other conservation
measures necessary to protect Red Knots and other shorebird species.  How
many times do I have to repeat this?  These are not ammendments to my
position, this is exactly what I've been saying publicly since 2005.  Why do
you Dr. Paton (and some others) argue as if I'm questioning the decline or
the causes, and opposing the conservation measures?   I'm not.  Anyone else
still not getting this?


>To quibble whether given current population trends the
> species will go extinct in exactly 2010 seems to be a meaningless exercise
> in futility.


  Now it's quibbling?   THIS is the whole issue and has been from the start!
Quite the contrary, it has some very serious meaning to it and some very
serious consequences, in the long run.  The issue IS that conservation
organizations purposefully misrepresented and exaggerated what it turns out
the Baker et al. paper [never] said.  NJ Audubon and the others said,
"extinction by 2010 is certain, absent bold action."  I've already written
why this statement is false, why it is wrong, and how it hurts conservation
efforts in the long run.  Go back and read it.

  Now, Dr. Mark Peck of the Royal Ontario Museum, Red Knot research
scientist, and one of the AUTHORS of the Baker et al. paper, agrees with me
on several of the essential points of my argument.  I have a great deal of
respect for the honesty Dr. Peck displays.  Excerps from an email he
graciously sent to me on 5/30/07 are copied here:

Regarding the current predictive validity, or lack thereof, of the model,
Dr. Peck writes:

"In many respects you are right.  By the time the paper was published we
knew that the model using 1998-2001 data was a snapshot during that time
period only (we never suggested anything more in the paper).  2002 and 2003
data had shown the population had levelled temporarily and the decline was
slowing."  --Dr. Mark Peck

And in regard to the misuse and purposeful misinterpretation of the findings
by NJ Audubon and the others:

 "You are also accurate in the misuse of the information.  I would prefer if
everyone used the information in the paper with the addendum that results
from recent years appear to suggest the decline has slowed.  Unfortunately
the problem seems to be that unless you yell fire, no one listens any more."
  "I also wish that good science alone would prevail.  It doesn't seem to
these days.  I believe the best protection knots received over the last
couple of years was, in many ways, directly attributable to the "misquote"
from our paper. It may not have been completely accurate and it may have
been the results of only 4 years of data but I think it brought the point
home very clearly.  I am not sure what else would have been as
uccessful?"  -- Dr. Mark Peck

OK?


>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.


  This is an amazing statement coming from a scientist.  Words have meaning
Dr. Patton, do you REALLY mean this?  You would support "any and all
statements" regardless of whether they are true or false, accurate or
exaggerated, honest or fradulent, as long as it furthered a particular
conservation effort for that day?  Science is about facts and truth.  What
do you suppose might be the long term results of your philosophy?  Is this
what is passing for 'science' now, or should I say replacing science?


> 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.

See Dr, Peck's comments above, it is his data, and his analysis, not just
mine.  I have no model.

> I would rather take the conservative conservation
> approach of taking all steps necessary to protect the species.


So would I, but by honest, truthful, science based means.

  I will try not to post to the list again soon on this subject, I don't
know what more I can add at this point anyway, readers either 'get it' or
they don't, although I'd be happy to respond privately.

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



>
> 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
> >
>