Cavechat.org

To Lovaas,
I believe my qualifying words were: "as far as I know" which left me plenty of room to err. Thanks for the link by the way. Just the kind of stuff I wanted to know!

To ArCaver,
and you are spot on. Too much focus is on the bats themselves, and too many suspects not investigated. If it is easy for rodents to get it and spread it, it is just as likely that humans can too.

To BrianC,
who is so eager to use quotations to quote himself accurately, but not NPR. If you use quotes, you are making a statement that the information is an exact copy. Not a guess, or as you put it: "not exact context." Quotes are used specifically for accuracy, and you sir, erred grossly. Try not using quotations next time, and just say "paraphrasing." But even if you paraphrase incorrectly, like you did in your original post, everyone will call you on it. Even then, your statement wasn't even close to "not exact context." It was greatly distorted. I suspect out of bias?

To wyandottecaver,
I agree with many of your points. And I'm not relying on my imagination to say that humans are the main cause, nor am I suggesting that. But I am suggesting that some people who say humans have no potential in spreading the disease are a little disconnected with reality. And that is all I'm trying to say. Nothing more, nothing less. My stance has been for a while: bats are the vector in the transmission of the disease in the USA. Anything else is insult to injury.

By the way Wyandottecaver, some of your examples were very much that of hyperbole. Some weren't so bad. But using examples like the sun exploding, helps nothing. Hyperbole, as most should know, is used to persuade in arguments.

Honestly, I could care less if it was humans or bats that are spreading the disease. To me it's all a moot point. The bats are going to a take a licking and there's nothing we can do about it, except buy the bats some time.

Leitmotiv wrote:
Honestly, I could care less if it was humans or bats that are spreading the disease. To me it's all a moot point. The bats are going to a take a licking and there's nothing we can do about it, except buy the bats some time.

Yes I am biased in fact only. Your statement, also biased "buy the bats some time" can only mean that you believe that humans spread WNS, and keeping them out of the cave environment will slow the WNS progress, but your facts are missing. Still, it is good to have discussions from both sides of the fence.

BrianC
You didn't even address anything I said to you. Nor did you read all of my message. Within, you would have noted where I say, "bats are the vector in the transmission of the disease in the USA." See how I use quotations there? I didn't distort a thing! By the way, if you are biased in facts, then get your facts right by quoting people accurately.

My only suggestion by saying "buying the bats some time" is through research and by playing it safe. Because we don't know everything about the disease yet. As much as humans like to think we know everything, we don't. And until we know more... perhaps we should cave more responsibly. If not for WNS, but for other things too.

BrianC wrote:

Leitmotiv wrote:
Honestly, I could care less if it was humans or bats that are spreading the disease. To me it's all a moot point. The bats are going to a take a licking and there's nothing we can do about it, except buy the bats some time.

Yes I am biased in fact only. Your statement, also biased "buy the bats some time" can only mean that you believe that humans spread WNS, and keeping them out of the cave environment will slow the WNS progress, but your facts are missing. Still, it is good to have discussions from both sides of the fence.

I'd like to also point out here, that I'm on no side of the fence really. As noted by "it's all a moot point." You however, seem to think in black and white terms.

Leitmotiv wrote:

BrianC wrote:

Leitmotiv wrote:
Honestly, I could care less if it was humans or bats that are spreading the disease. To me it's all a moot point. The bats are going to a take a licking and there's nothing we can do about it, except buy the bats some time.

Yes I am biased in fact only. Your statement, also biased "buy the bats some time" can only mean that you believe that humans spread WNS, and keeping them out of the cave environment will slow the WNS progress, but your facts are missing. Still, it is good to have discussions from both sides of the fence.

I'd like to also point out here, that I'm on no side of the fence really. As noted by "it's all a moot point." You however, seem to think in black and white terms.

I was very happy with initial possibilities of transmission being discussed. Very likely I would still, hadn't the portrayal of cavers been tried, found guilty, and hanged by the nonfactual lies being continually brought forward portrayed as fact. Over and over and over and over and over and over... this theory of transmission is used in every single article that contains anything about WNS. Do you ever wonder why the subject can't be described without the transmission theory being stated? It would seem to me that WNS is a destructive bat disease in its own merits.

As soon as the government stops creating fictional stories, I will quit demanding facts! Is this to much to ask?

One more thing to say, Possible means that information already in existence has proven that something has happened before providing fact. We have absolutely no evidence in this case to say it is possible.
So when we hear possible, it is saying that it has happened. This is what we hear as well what the general public hears.

Dr. FRICK: Well, there's no link between the two fungi, that are the chytrid fungus that's attacking amphibians and this Geomyces destructans that's attacking the bats. But it does, you know, speak to the broader problem of wildlife disease and pathogens creating significant risks to species. And in the case of white-nose, the potential role of humans moving pathogens around.

Now what problem with what I wrote do you have a problem with? It is all there.

The part you misquoted, originally noted by mae, is what she and I have a problem with:

BrianC wrote:

Phil Winkler wrote:Heard this this morning:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129031005

"Yeah, well, you know, so, with humans moving pathogens around so."- not exact context, but its all there.

Duh now! He must have read that in some history book. another fine example of journalism from NPR.

The first sentence you tried quoting NPR, but did so erroneously.

In regards to your possible quote. It's a well established fact that spores are hardy things and can disperse far and wide, by many methods. It is no stretch of the imagination and therefore possible, that humans could spread it. But it's quite a different thing to suggest that the humans are a vector, which I am not doing.

Like you, I too am miffed that humans are perceived as the spreading agent, when I don't believe that to be the case. But I also realize that we still can spread them, albeit, not very well or in any large quantities like the bats are. It's possible, but not very bloody likely.

Leitmotiv wrote:The part you misquoted, originally noted by mae, is what she and I have a problem with:

BrianC wrote:

Phil Winkler wrote:Heard this this morning:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129031005

"Yeah, well, you know, so, with humans moving pathogens around so."- not exact context, but its all there.

Duh now! He must have read that in some history book. another fine example of journalism from NPR.

The first sentence you tried quoting NPR, but did so erroneously.

In regards to your possible quote. It's a well established fact that spores are hardy things and can disperse far and wide, by many methods. It is no stretch of the imagination and therefore possible, that humans could spread it. But it's quite a different thing to suggest that the humans are a vector, which I am not doing.

Like you, I too am miffed that humans are perceived as the spreading agent, when I don't believe that to be the case. But I also realize that we still can spread them, albeit, not very well or in any large quantities like the bats are. It's possible, but not very bloody likely.

I must state that out of context it is all there in different sentences, nerveless all there. Not erroneous at all. Also the spread of spores has not been disputed, but very well documented.. The spread of WNS is the issue. The spread of spores has not caused a spread of WNS, within the time frame of known outbreaks ( more than 4 years), the only known case outside of the NORMAL migratory habits can be explained by well documented bat transportation methods Found at the CDC. There we have it!

If I am ever wrong, misquote, or make extremely erroneous statements, I will be the first to apologize.

and you still haven't yet.

this: "Yeah, well, you know, so, with humans moving pathogens around so." is a misquote from the NPR article. No matter how you want to bend it.

BrianC wrote:

Dr. FRICK: Well, there's no link between the two fungi, that are the chytrid fungus that's attacking amphibians and this Geomyces destructans that's attacking the bats. But it does, you know, speak to the broader problem of wildlife disease and pathogens creating significant risks to species. And in the case of white-nose, the potential role of humans moving pathogens around.

I don't see what you are saying?

yeah I kind of figured that a long time ago.

Edit:

This will be my last effort in trying to educate you. Your original quote (post number 2 in this thread):

"'Yeah, well, you know, so, with humans moving pathogens around so.'- not exact context, but its all there."

You did not quote the following, as you claim:

"Dr. FRICK: Well, there's no link between the two fungi, that are the chytrid fungus that's attacking amphibians and this Geomyces destructans that's attacking the bats. But it does, you know, speak to the broader problem of wildlife disease and pathogens creating significant risks to species. And in the case of white-nose, the potential role of humans moving pathogens around."

That happened much later. Mae and I are responding to your first post. Post # 2 in this thread, where you misquoted NPR.

Go back and reread the first posts, it's all there.

Leitmotiv wrote:yeah I kind of figured that a long time ago.

Now I can't take kindly to that.

sorry getting frustrated because you're bouncing all over the place