Discussion of destroying WNS populations

[dfcaver]

Folks, consider that WNS is a SOIL FUNGUS that is attacking bats (and -possibly- other critters that hibernate, stay tuned for that) by eating skin and hair below a certain temperature. Killing or washing bats (or a cave or mine, obviously) is pointless.

Sounds like there are more shoes to drop? We're mostly adults on the forum, so what are the "possibly other critters"? Good science meaning sharing the data. Keeping the cards hidden only works in poker.

[Myrna Attaway]

I have to disagree with Wyandotecaver I respect your education and experience. I would agree with you except for one little bitty point. The bat biologists have said that WNS is almost 100% fatal. Until it is determined to be 100% fatal, I will contiune to disagree. That little one percent could give us our bats back. After all we only had a small percentage of the original populations left after the disturbances and incectacides of the 60's and 70's. We aren't back the historic populations, but we had come far enough that the Grey Bat was taken off the endangered species list.

Of course most of this discussion is moot, or as Gerald would say "mute", because we simply don't know enough about the natural history and habits of even grey bats to find and kill them all in any one area.

I sure would be sad to learn that we had killed even hundreds of bats, just to learn that some simple solution could have saved them.

Well that's my opinion and you know what opinions are like.

Myrna

[wyandottecaver]

Myrna,

we can agree to disagree. With a few local or regional exceptions I don't think most of our bat populations today are the result of a major recovery from historical bottlenecks. Rather, species by species most are probably at or near their historical lows now. The idea of resistence which you allude to is very possible, but the long term effects on the gene pool of a mammal population that has been reduced to single digit percentages are grim even without WNS.

The other side of that coin is that I was only advocating action in WNS affected sites not everywhere, and even then it is with the understanding that we would only reduce not eliminate the potential bat based carriers.

In any event, I think the question is quickly becoming moot regardless as more areas of the dense karst and bat areas of VA and WV and the states of TN and KY will likely fall this summer to the bats we didn't kill this past winter. At that point....there probably isn't much point.

[Crockett]

I'm not scared of the dark. I'm not scared of the things in the dark. It's what you might do to the things in the dark that makes me nervous.

[ron_miller]

We aren't back the historic populations, but we had come far enough that the Grey Bat was taken off the endangered species list.

Did I miss something, Myrna? As far as I know and have been able to determine, the gray bat (Myotis grisescens) is very much still on the federal endangered species list, and has been considered endangered ever since it was first listed in 1976.

[Pippin]

The gray bat has definitely not been taken off the endangered species list. There has been discussion over the last couple of years of changing the species status to "threatened" but that never happened. With WNS, I doubt it will happen now.

[icave]

Folks, consider that WNS is a SOIL FUNGUS that is attacking bats (and -possibly- other critters that hibernate, stay tuned for that) by eating skin and hair below a certain temperature. Killing or washing bats (or a cave or mine, obviously) is pointless.

Did I miss something that the fungus has now been determined the primary cause of WNS??? Last time I read through all the literature, it had not been established that the fungus was the cause. As a matter of fact, it has not been determined that this fungus is not a fungus common to a lot of caves. This fungus may very well be "the cause" of WNS, but let's let the actual science determine that.

I personally would like to hear what exactly is being done to determine the effects of the fungus only on bats. Seems like there is a lot of research playing with exposing WNS bats to non-WNS bats, WNS bats to environments, WNS environments to non-WNS bats....but I see a void in the big area of fungus only to non-WNS bats. Maybe this is a hard experiment to run, or am I just missing something. This seems pretty straight forward to me, and it sure beats some of the other ideas, such as bat destruction.

I would think that with the fungus being the prime suspect that this type of experiment would be top priority. Also, before someone point's me to Peter's update page, which I do ready almost every day, here are the links below:

NSS WNS page: http://www.caves.org/WNS/WNS%20Info.htm
Albany WNS Science Strategy Conference Proceedings: http://www.batcon.org/pdfs/WNSMtgRptFinal2.pdf
WNS Scientific Research Summary and Status: http://www.caves.org/WNS/WNS2009research.pdf

[Anonymous_Coward]

John Chenger wrote:
Folks, consider that WNS is a SOIL FUNGUS that is attacking bats (and -possibly- other critters that hibernate, stay tuned for that) by eating skin and hair below a certain temperature. Killing or washing bats (or a cave or mine, obviously) is pointless.

Did I miss something that the fungus has now been determined the primary cause of WNS??? Last time I read through all the literature, it had not been established that the fungus was the cause. As a matter of fact, it has not been determined that this fungus is not a fungus common to a lot of caves. This fungus may very well be "the cause" of WNS, but let's let the actual science determine that

Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

We are well beyond the "research will determine the most appropriate response" phase.

We have moved on into the "make recommendations and implement questionable procedures and closures without supporting data" phase.

At this point in the game we are expected to take baseless mandates and speculation as fact. Questioning the logic and science is not well received. Oh, and don't whine about how our "sport" and "recreational" activities are being affected. That is frowned upon as well. Now get back in the bleach bath and don't even let me catch you looking at your cave gear!

[dfcaver]

I'm still waiting for the update on the "other critters". As a critter who is not a bat, I'm quite curious. Hysteria seems to be the order of the day.

[cavergirl]

[ I see a void in the big area of fungus only to non-WNS bats. Maybe this is a hard experiment to run, or am I just missing something.

sorry, I was rude the other day, but as has been pointed out -hysteria reigns these days.
I will however (and I'm trying to be nice this time,) point you back to
WNS Scientific Research Summary and Status: http://www.caves.org/WNS/WNS2009research.pdf page 3.
Dr. David Blehert, et al, USGS National Wildlife Health Center:

"Eight separate trials are underway with three groupsof bats: A control group of healthy Wisconsin Myotis lucifugus (little brown bats), in two
different settings; a second group of healthy WI Myotis lucifugus, which have been
exposed to the Geomyces fungal strain in three different manners; a third group of healthy
WI Myotis lucifugus that have been exposed to WNS-affected NY Myotis lucifugus.
WI bats became infected with the fungus – both from exposure to the fungus in
the second group, and exposure to the sick NY bats. Thus, it is apparent that bats can get the fungus from other bats, and from environmental exposure."
environmental exposure meaning from the fungus.

[PYoungbaer]

icave put forth some research suggestions, many of which are the subject of research, but not all. I have to admit, it's difficult to monitor all these subtopics, so this post may be more appropriate for the research rather than destroying the populations as a strategy for containment. That said, icave is correct that field testing of one of the environment to laboratory trials is a priority.

Last year, some of the field biologists wanted to do such a thing, but did not have an appropriate site. Several of the scientists objected to the model on a couple of grounds: unnecessary killing of large amounts of bats, and that control (healthy bats) would have to be brought from far outside the area, may be exposed, and, if they escaped, head back home and inadvertently hasten the spread of WNS.

Last fall, several small, contained single entrance mines were fenced off. Once the bats were in for the winter, the mesh was sealed. As bats contracted WNS and died, they could not escape. This enabled both a good mortality count, but also now allows the site to be cleaned of WNS bats. This summer, a couple of sites will be cleared, and then gated outside the mesh fencing. Then, healthy bats will be introduced to the mine and left for the winter. With the assumption that the active fungus is present, we should see bats becoming infected. They will be monitored through the winter. By a year from now, we'll know the results.

Yes, science moves slow, but this has been identified by the scientists as a priority project for the coming year.

[icave]

<snip> a second group of healthy WI Myotis lucifugus, which have been exposed to the Geomyces fungal strain in three different manners; <snip> WI bats became infected with the fungus – both from exposure to the fungus in the second group, and exposure to the sick NY bats. Thus, it is apparent that bats can get the fungus from other bats, and from environmental exposure." environmental exposure meaning from the fungus.

Thank you! I did not take that the same way when I first read it earlier...and I had even re-read that section several times. There are seemingly important details not included about that second group, which it the group of most interest to me. As D. Blehert was one of the primary investigators responsible for the genetic testing and identification of the fungus, I now have hope that the second group was exposed to fungal isolates. When I first read it, I had assumed that the "clean" bats had been exposed through methods derived from WNS infected bats, not just from fungal isolates. This could have lead to other possible mechanisms for the transfer of WNS.

I would love to read the full study when it is finally published, but if this study concludes these "clean" bats developed WNS from fungal isolates, this is probably the most import thing discovered recently. If this is true, and the exposure was from the fungus only (no other possible causes such as bacteria, viruses, etc) then it seems that this would be conclusive evidence that the fungus is what is causing WNS. This also would unfortunately significantly increase the likelihood that cave visitors (human or otherwise) could transfer WNS from location to location.

Peter, did I interpret this study correctly original, or do the preliminary results really point to the fungus as the "cause" of WNS? If this is true, it deserves a little more attention, espically in the caving community.

[MapGirl]

Well, this thread is quite antiquated at this point, and we seem to have gotten off topic, but yeah: my question is the same as icave's: do healthy bats infected with fungal isolates weaken and die? I thought that the research report implied that they contracted the fungus[i], but didn't say anything about the other aspects of the [i]syndrome[i] (depleted fat content, agitation during hubernation, mortality . . . .

Maybe I'll go check out the research threads, hmmm?[/i][/i][/i]

[PYoungbaer]

Short answer - it looks that way.

This question was asked of the USGS lab folks last week in Austin at a science strategy meeting. The answer is that the healthy bats did contract the fungus, some from bat to bat contact, others from the air with no bat to bat contact. Some died. Others had not been in the hibernation chambers long enough to succomb. All were being subjected to histopathology - that is, examination beneath the skin to see if the fungal damage was consistent with the WNS affected bats.

Full results of this work won't be available for a while, but two published works are expected this month: the first naming the Geomyces species, which is not terribly important in terms of understanding the cause or possible solutions, but it is part of the scientific process; the second will look at a diagnostic for WNS which is histopathologically based, as opposed the the current cluster of symptoms and confirmation of the specific fungal presence.

[PYoungbaer]

Beyond talk now: PA Game Commission orders bat rehabilitators to destroy all bats:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa ... _to_be_des