Talk:Red Knot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Birds
Birds Portal
Red Knot is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do:
Flag
Portal
 Red Knot is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota.
Assessment comments

Hey, we find this article needs some more information! Anyone in for it? -- Juonline 22:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I was quite surprised at the lack of information concerning the plight of the American subspecies, so I added a bunch. From looking at past edits I can see that some details about it were added and then later stripped out; if these details are too specific then let's create a new article discussing the threat of extinction in North/South America. -- Alex 20:04, 8 June 2007 (PST) I'm a bit shocked that the Conservation Status lists this bird as "Least Concerned". As the article itself states, the American sub-species might go extinct by the end of this decade...I think that warrants "Vulnerable" at the very least. Prairie hiker 20:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The conservation status is the world status of this very abundant wader. The status of the NAm form is covered in the text, so there is no contradiction. Jimfbleak 06:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed the IUCN Red List requirements and understand the ranking. "Global population trends have not been quantified, but the species is not believed to approach the thresholds for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e., declining more than 30% in ten years or three generations). For these reasons, the species is evaluated as Least Concern." Still, I personally feel that requiring such substantial declines in worldwide population before even raising a red flag (i.e. "near threatened" status) is unfortunate. As far as the purposes of the Red List it is probably sufficient, but for the average Wikipedia consumer I think it sends the wrong signal. Prairie hiker 18:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The world population is about 1100000, so it hardly threatened numerically, and any global decline (if there is any - no data for this) is not steep. The status of rufa is clear in the article, although I should point out that no references are given for the claimed vulnerability, and the US government does not seem particularly concerned. Jimfbleak 05:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential extinction

The US government is not concerned about any environmental issue at this point. Half the Earth would have to look like the face of the moon before D.C. got "concerned." Anyway, the issue, according to Nature on PBS, is deadly serious. I'll post a link on the site and one here.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/crash/conservation.html 72.78.9.230 (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)