Updated WNS Map

[wyandottecaver]

It's probably an issue that the USFWS should have addressed but obviously wont. With bats dying by the millions why the heck can't they issue an emergency rule that allows a general nation-wide take permit that allows people engaged in organized bat/cave surveys authorized by a respective State Agency to "take" up to 2-3 bats of any species from a site as long as there is reason to believe they might be affected by GD and that the bats are sent directly to a approved lab for testing?

I mean really....seeing Al Hicks wading ankle deep in bat carcasses while at the same time preventing someone from taking and sending 1-2 bats for testing and early detection of WNS just defies logic....oh wait.....I forgot who we were talking about.

[BrianC]

Thank You Peter, makes some sense.
Hypothetically,Re. the white fungus covered bat that was suspect for the syndrome, would it not have been prudent to have collected this poor creature that was obviously a new arrival from as far away as maybe 200 miles (because of its obvious condition and not relevant throughout the colony)? Collection and euthanize would potentially have given others in the colony some time to enjoy life, at least maybe one more year. By allowing this bat to spread its characteristic condition to others sounds scientifically unethical. I understand that the ESA has its legal reprisal for this action, but rules are made to be broken, especially since the poor little guy could have given its life for science (happens all the time) instead, it will walk or possibly fly through the fiery doors of death, maybe as lunch for a Coopers hawk, without making a difference.

[PYoungbaer]

Unhappy Valentine's Day Map Update - confirms WNS in Tucker County, West Virginia

Click to enlarge image

[self-deleted_user]

I htink I've mentioned before but is there any way to get a similar map but instead of dates general numbers of deaths? I mean, is it 2 in this county, but thousands in that other? This year map gives a great idea of how it's spreading over time but I'm curious about the extent too...if that makes sense. Are most of the deaths up north where it's colder? Are certain populations more sucesptible by area pointing to local climate/environment perhaps being a factor? I dunno maybe this stuff has been answered and I missed it but I think a death population map would be just as useful as this time map.

[PYoungbaer]

I hear you. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone is keeping data that way. There are several reasons for that.

First, the confirmation of the fungus, or of WNS, is generally determined by the analysis of a very small number of samples sent to a lab - sometimes only a single bat - generally two or three. No more are really necessary to make the determination.

Second, comparative data is often hard to come buy. In the case of hibernacula where endangered species have been known to roost, sites are often already gated and managed as such. In these instances, there may be a good longitudinal data set for comparison

For example, I just finished an article for the NSS News on West Virginia's Hellhole Cave. In a survey done in 2007, over 112,000 bats were counted; in 2010, that number was 66,789, so we know that more than 40,000 bats have disappeared from this one site.

However, when WNS hit virtually every bat cave in the northeast beginning six years ago, many of these caves did not have historical data to compare. Some of that is due to the federal funding for bat research, almost entirely tied to endangered species. Sites with those bats have been counted; sites with Little Brown bats - our most common bat - were not, primarily because they were so common, and there was no money specifically targeted to study them - with some prominent exceptions.

Third, counting bat deaths without longitudinal data means counting carcasses. Carcasses, unfortunately don't remain around very long due to scavengers: racoons, birds, snakes, and ultimately other fungi and bugs make them disappear and decompose rather rapidly. Accurate counts are difficult.

Still, I know what you mean. You may recall that, for a while, a huge section of Oklahoma was marked in red. It took up virtually the same geographic area as all of the Northeast, yet it represented a single bat. That left a very misleading impression. The reason that Oklahoma insisted it be marked that way was to try to protect the specific location. However, it quickly became evident that it wasn't a secret, and so they agreed a couple months ago, upon our request, to go to the county method used on the rest of the map.

If you look at the Canadian provinces, we have the same issue, but I'm not sure how to fix that. All I can say is that the mass mortalities have so far been in the East. West Virginia and Virginia, from all reports, are being hard hit this winter. The Tennessee, North Carolina, and Indiana reports are just a handful of bats to date. Similarly, the Oklahoma, Missouri, and western Tennessee reports from last year were also just a handful of bats.

Hope that helps.

[dfcaver]

The Pennsylvania colonies are not nearly as large as more southern locales, so the total deaths are fewer. However, compared to pre WNS counts, the counts in central Pennsylvania that I've heard so far this winter are showing declines of up to 99%+. This overall percent, however, has remained frighteningly consistent as WNS has spread south and west. Colonies that numbered in the thousands have been reduced to a handful - sometimes less, as of 2011. This in the third winter of infection. From Peter's numbers, Hellhole was already down 41% as of 2010.

[self-deleted_user]

Yeah I guess that all makes sense but the scientist in me wants to scream at lack of data - and yeah like you said that whole section of OK being marked for like, one bat. It gives kinda a false impression, the timeline map, impo. Good point the ^ poster has about percent though. Surely a % decline would be easier to count? All's you would need is a pre-WNS count and a current count. Surely most bat caves have such numbers available?

[PYoungbaer]

Sungura,

Unfortunately, I don't think most bat caves do have accurate counts. Caves and mines with endangered or threatened bats generally do, but not all. And when you get into the vast expanses of federal lands in the West, the knowledge base on bats and bat roosts declines even more. For example, I just read this telling line from Colorado's WNS Response Plan (issued in January):

Population estimates for bat species native to Colorado are not currently known

Without baseline information, one can't measure population decline, either by raw numbers or by percentages.

[wyandottecaver]

Sungura,

I'll use Indiana as an example. We were better off than many states because we had been doing bat census counts(really estimates) every 2 years for Indiana Bats covering roughly 20 current sites a year for decades. The actual sites rotated some to check historical locations and new reports so there was good data for abourt 15 sites and some data for about 30 other sites. About 8 of these are "big" bat caves. We also of course counted other species as encountered. We also have some key cavers who do "consulting" with the DNR bat program and thus they had a decent idea of where *most* of the "bat" caves were even if they held no endangered ones generally, and thus had population estimates like small, medium, large.

We have a new highway project that has been checking caves, and the DNR did a huge million plus dollar study specific to Indiana Bat habitat research. A lot of data.

There are something like 2000 reported caves in the state......With (off my head) maybe 15 truly large bat sites (only maybe 8 being studied bat caves and at least 2 that aren't "officially" even known). There are probably (at a guess) 200 caves holding decent numbers of bats.

Sooo.... We have good data for about 1/2 of the big sites, and 10% of the medium sites and maybe 1% of the sites that hold some bats. I'd guess we have decent data on about 70% of the total Indiana bat population and 40% of the little browns including most of big sites. ALL of that assumes there arent other (we're sure there are) unknown sites.

You begin to see why any number is just some digits somebody made up. Even a % decline is hard, because we were focused on BIG sites which are arguably more vulnerable. The small scattered populations *might* be doing better...or not.

[wyandottecaver]

I also suspect Indiana will take a hard hit this year. At least 30,000 are already at risk and over 100,000 are within a 5 mile circle of the current sites........NEXT year will be bad, very very bad.

[self-deleted_user]

Thanks for sharing that info wyndotte. Although, it sucks :( I like bats. Kinda makes me glad I got a cute photo of some up north in October when I did.

[dfcaver]

Pennsylvania has followed a very similar model to Indiana as far as bat counting. I'd guess that somewhat more of our big and medium sites have been counted, in some cases for probably 20 or so years. The ratio is close, though. The declines I mentioned are from large sites, both over 2000 bats and a long history of counts. For a site to drop from 2000 or so bats to just three demonstrates just how completely WNS has affected sites as we move through years three and four of the infection process. Coupling this with the Pennsylvania Game Commission press release that PA harbors about 4000 WNS sites leads one to believe that during their canvasing of managed caves, open caves and mines of all types that they are seeing almost NO sites that are WNS free, although they don't have the manpower to have physically visited 4000 sites.

I know we keep hoping that as the spread goes further south that WNS burns itself out to some extent, due to increased temperatures. The ugly possibility exists that it could also be worse as the temperature rises....there's more variables than just average temperatures at work.

[PYoungbaer]

Latest map includes Crawford and Monroe Counties, Indiana - two sites and one site respectively - positive for G. destructans, but not for histopathology:

click to enlarge image

[BrianC]

I am seeing a problem with the way that WNS is posted as "suspect" and "confirmed". When I look for relevance to the distribution of the syndrome, I get many difference responses. Yes it has White Nose Syndrome, it has been confirmed that WNS is there, but it hasn't done the damage we are looking for, etc... Now, Either it has it, or it doesn't! The way that it is being represented is confusing. If thw white fungus is on the bat, and g-destructants is available, it should be confirmed as WNS. If the requirement that skin damage has occurred must be realized, then it would appear that something is wrong with the entire diagnosis of understanding. Is there something else associated with WNS that needs defining? There is some irresponsible sequences here, when we look at the map.

[BrianC]

If it cannot be determined by the fungus alone, then it should not be classified as the destructant classification.