Updated WNS Map

[PYoungbaer]

Here's the latest WNS map, courtesy of Cal Butchkoski, PA Game Commission. Cal passed on that landowner discussions now permitted the Oklahoma section to be reduced to the specific county where the suspect bat was found, consistent with the county style used elsewhere. Further, one NY county has been added - previously overlooked - as confirmed WNS.


Click to enlarge

[Batgirl]

Hey Peter, I have a question. Given that WNS implies mortality, should we not be distinguishing between locations where bats have tested positive for G.d. vs locations where mortality has occurred (ie positive for WNS)?

[wyandottecaver]

good point. although to date its been pretty easy. If there arent any dead bats by year 2 it wasnt WNS

[PYoungbaer]

I raised these questions and others back this past spring (http://www.forums.caves.org/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=10122&start=30) when the map listed as likely a Delaware summer roost for the first time (after a spirited debate with the Delaware wildlife officials who thought it should be "confirmed," but didn't understand the classification system).

Then, the USGS issued its new, more complex and nuanced WNS classification system.
http://www.forums.caves.org/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=10098

The WNS map does distinguish between confirmed cases of WNS and "likely." This corresponds roughly to those cased confirmed by the USGS, and others who lack some piece of confirmation - no histology, no clinical signs, etc.

Recently, I heard from Dr. David Blehert at the USGS, that they were rethinking their classification system.

For whatever flaws the map may have, I think they are understood by most people involved, and the map serves a useful tracking purpose and is the one used and referred to by virtually everyone working on WNS.

The other map one sees frequently is the one prepared by BCI, which shows major hibernacula areas in the eastern U.S. I've asked BCI directly for a western equivalent, and there isn't one - there is simply a lack of sufficient data on bats and where they move in the West, which makes the western challenges greater. This is an area where cavers have a lot of knowledge from the field and can work with federal, state, and NGO parties to identify significant hibernacula and collaborate on a targeted approach to WNS identification and management. Of course, we can always just keep our fingers crossed that WNS won't go out West.

[Batgirl]

Thank you Peter. And I do understand that the "WNS Likely" category assumes infection. I was just thinking that since the USGS has clearly defined whether a cave is Suspect positive, Presumptive positive or Confirmed positive that the map should also reflect these definitions. However, if the USGS is rethinking their case definitions, then it may be a bit premature. Was just a thought.

Thanks for updating me. I have been out of the loop for awhile.

[BrianC]

Some of the "suspect caves" have not been confirmed as of the most current WNS map. Will this ever happen from the earlier detection, or is the information that gave the "suspect" name, been lost?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwssoutheast/5430047508/in/set-72157625882981881/

[Pippin]

Brian, from what I understand, the "suspect/likely" notations mean that a bat was found in those caves that had some Geomyces destructans fungus on its body, and the lab confirmed the fungus as gd, but the bat was not actually sick with the syndrome. Bats actually suffering from WNS have fungus that is actually growing into their skin and causing damage, such as wing damage. Until a bat with full-blown white-nose "syndrome" is discovered, the caves will remain "likely," even though the fungus has been confirmed. Peter, correct me if I'm wrong.

One interesting thing I heard at the TN Cave and Karst meeting is that biologists did see an Indiana bat covered in white fungus in Camp's Gulf last year, and from what people said, they were pretty sure it had WNS. But nobody had a federal permit to kill the bat and send it to the lab so they killed a pip (not endangered) in the same area that turned out to have fungus on it but didn't have WNS. I actually wonder how often that will happen this year--people see endangered bats that likely have WNS, but nobody has a permit to kill the bat or to even use the tape sampling kit to just get a sample of the fungus to send to the lab.

[BrianC]

Brian, from what I understand, the "suspect/likely" notations mean that a bat was found in those caves that had some Geomyces destructans fungus on its body, and the lab confirmed the fungus as gd, but the bat was not actually sick with the syndrome. Bats actually suffering from WNS have fungus that is actually growing into their skin and causing damage, such as wing damage. Until a bat with full-blown white-nose "syndrome" is discovered, the caves will remain "likely," even though the fungus has been confirmed. Peter, correct me if I'm wrong.

One interesting thing I heard at the TN Cave and Karst meeting is that biologists did see an Indiana bat covered in white fungus in Camp's Gulf last year, and from what people said, they were pretty sure it had WNS. But nobody had a federal permit to kill the bat and send it to the lab so they killed a pip (not endangered) in the same area that turned out to have fungus on it but didn't have WNS. I actually wonder how often that will happen this year--people see endangered bats that likely have WNS, but nobody has a permit to kill the bat or to even use the tape sampling kit to just get a sample of the fungus to send to the lab.

I get more confused every time I read about Gd, So now as I understand, Gd is not the same as white nose syndrome, and it doesn't determine that a bat has white nose syndrome. Then why are the researchers even looking for Gd? Does any one know the time frame between seeing Gd and actual damage to skin from WNS?

Could it be possible that the spore from WNS Gd, and the cause of WNS are completely different, and don't determine that WNS is there?

[BrianC]

In another words, is it possible as we have stated before, that Gd is just an opportunistic fungus and not the root cause?

[PYoungbaer]

Pippin - you are correct.

Here's a link to the most recent USGS classifications for WNS (i.e. "Suspect" or "Confirmed"):

http://www.fws.gov/WhiteNoseSyndrome/pdf/WNSCaseDefinitions020211.pdf

Brian - yes, it's possible, but all signs point to G.d as the cause.

[tncaver]

One interesting thing I heard at the TN Cave and Karst meeting is that biologists did see an Indiana bat covered in white fungus in Camp's Gulf last year, and from what people said, they were pretty sure it had WNS. But nobody had a federal permit to kill the bat and send it to the lab so they killed a pip (not endangered) in the same area that turned out to have fungus on it but didn't have WNS. I actually wonder how often that will happen this year--people see endangered bats that likely have WNS, but nobody has a permit to kill the bat or to even use the tape sampling kit to just get a sample of the fungus to send to the lab.

I also wonder how often a white "fungus" has been called GD or WNS when it wasn't? Perhaps if rules weren't so stupidly strict, biologists could do what needs
to be done and get enough information to produce some good science. DOH. Lack of common sense by the "officials"....AGAIN. BTW, cavers don't spread
WNS, bats do.

[PYoungbaer]

If a bat was literally covered in white fungus, it was probably not WNS, but rather a dead, decomposing bat. We've received a few reports of bats like that, but they are few and far between, and usually from lay people - cavers included. Still, we'd rather investigate and rule out WNS.

Regarding the "taking" of endangered species, that is highly regulated. There are collection guidelines from the USGS National Wildlife Health Center lab, which do allow fungal tape lift sampling from endangered species where the permit does not permit a "take:"

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/white-nose_syndrome/USGS_NWHC_Bat_WNS_submission_protocol.pdf

These guidelines are to ensure consistent, professional, and scientifically valid collections. I would hardly call them "stupidly strict."

[tncaver]

If a bat was literally covered in white fungus, it was probably not WNS, but rather a dead, decomposing bat. We've received a few reports of bats like that, but they are few and far between, and usually from lay people - cavers included. Still, we'd rather investigate and rule out WNS.

Regarding the "taking" of endangered species, that is highly regulated. There are collection guidelines from the USGS National Wildlife Health Center lab, which do allow fungal tape lift sampling from endangered species where the permit does not permit a "take:"

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/white-nose_syndrome/USGS_NWHC_Bat_WNS_submission_protocol.pdf

These guidelines are to ensure consistent, professional, and scientifically valid collections. I would hardly call them "stupidly strict."

By tape I interpret that you mean literally a piece of tape stuck to the bat to get a sample? If so, that does not kill the bat and may not
even wake it up. So why don't they do it? Is it once again because of Gov't red tape? Please just say so if it is.

[BrianC]

If a bat was literally covered in white fungus, it was probably not WNS, but rather a dead, decomposing bat.

The bat in question from Camps Gulf (if I read it correctly) was very much alive as the question of take was realized.

I obviously have strong issues with every small bit of information that resonate from procedures and testing of wns and gd. I see some defects in the spreading information coming from every article that I read. Here we have some information that describes a live bat with obvious signs of White Nose Syndrome, and it gets brushed off as some fungus that looks like, smells like, feels like, wns, but because a different bat (a pip) found in the same vicinity, didn't test positive for WNS, so it must not have been WNS. Obviously someone didn't want to find WNS in camps gulf. Why? I also see this information as very revealing as to the spread of Gd spores relationship to spreading the syndrome. As easy as spores find travel from cavers gear, according to all the articles about WNS, ( even after decon), to far away caves, one would suspect that the spores would have infected every inch of a hibernaculem quit quickly and extensively. It appears that there are many more questions than answers here.

[PYoungbaer]

tncaver,

This is only speculation, but a simple explanation as to why they didn't do a tape sample is they might not have had the correct supplies to take it and preserve it properly for submission. Yes, it's a simple strip of tape that is applied to the (white nosed) muzzle of the bat. It takes the fungal growth and permits it to be analyzed for Geomyces destructans, and people do sample like that all the time. Call it CSI WNS.

Brian,

My apologies. I read Pippin's use of the word "covered" literally. I suspect that, if alive - as her post says - it was not "covered," but had very evident visible fungal growth - typically the muzzle and forearms, but possible also ears, wings, and tail. The fur is not covered.

Regarding whether or not people "want" to find WNS in Camps Gulf or anywhere else, I don't know a single person who wants to find it anywhere. Everyone's life would be easier - people and bats - if WNS just went away.

That said, people involved in researching WNS - from state biologists to lab scientists - have tried to be careful about identification and classification. In this case, they were able to sample the tricolor, but not the Indiana. With that information, they confirmed the fungus, but the histological examination would not confirm WNS. That's consistent with similar analyses elsewhere, and it would be inappropriate to "force" an identification not supported by the documentable evidence. However, I gather most folks present at that site would believe the Indiana also probably had WNS ("suspect" or "likely"). I have no problem with that.