A response to the letter to the editor about the article “Predicaments of endangered huemul deer, Hippocamelus bisulcus, in Argentina: a review”

Abstract

Ramilo and Chehebar’s (DRP) response begins like a scientific debate, but turns out to be one of rhetoric. DRP claims our review (Flueck and Smith-Flueck 2006) is extremely incomplete and widely discredits existing data on most topics, yet no supporting data nor citations are offered. We applaud activities favoring huemul, including the many due to DRP policy. Instead our paper questioned if these are sufficient for huemul recovery. Our thrust—the state of knowledge on biophysical factors affecting populations (Table 1,2)—was not criticized nor even mentioned. Does this mean that DRG agrees that mayor gaps of knowledge exist? Let us examine their claims: 1. DRP claims that diagnoses were discredited as hypotheses and dogmas...