Fish and Wildlife Service Unveils National Plan to Combat De

[Teresa]

I read it. No surprises, and it sounded quite well thought out actually. Especially considering the absence of a whole lot of scientific study on the fungus. No big call for cave/mine closures, and they are still allowing state and local authorities to do as they feel is best for their own region. Its a lot easier to work things out with state and local authorities than it is to deal with Washington. I like the various working groups and hope that cavers will be called to work with each of the groups.

It sounds like a committee was formed to form committees to draw up rules for other agencies containing committees.

What, if anything it will do for bats or cavers is still undisclosed.

I wish someone could do a good paraphrase of this plan. I keep trying to do so, and it's about a hard as going up a 30 degree mud slope without a rope or cleats on your shoes.

[cavermom]

Just curious. What do others think should have been in this plan?

Teresa, not exactly. There is no committee, at least not a formal committee. The gist is the plan is calling for the creation of several working groups. Each group will focus on one of the issues dealing with WNS. Then an implementation plan will be written based on the recommendations of the groups.

On the surface it may sound silly to make a plan to make a plan, but it actually quite reasonable and is often used by groups needing to solve problems. Several NSS members are calling for the NSS to finish writing the strategic plan, and even calling for a business plan to be created, before they move forward with implementing the expense and time of the new NSS HQ. Unlike the NSS, govt agencies are actually required to do this. Unless the President of the United States or some other highly influential elected official asks for it to be done without a plan (I call this political override), the govt is stuck following due process. They have to find a knowledgable person with time enough to write the document, get the document at least somewhat peer-reviewed/public reviewed (draft), then the document is sent up for a huge chain of approvals. If one of those needing to approved the document questions it, the document will have to be adjusted to make that person happy, then re-sent up the long chain. Takes a long time.

[Batgirl]

Teresa, the purpose of the document is to provide a means for collecting and disseminating data across multiple agencies. Agencies don't typically communicate with each other. That was obvious after 9/11. So the purpose of this document is to allow communication and data to flow freely amongst differing groups. As Peter said, they are still working on the implementation plan. That will be the nuts and bolts of it - where the rubber meets the road. That's what we need to be concerned about - IMHO.

That being said, I sat down and read through both the draft and the final document and did a little comparison. Very little was changed between them. Don't know why it took them so long to put out the same document but it doesn't surprise me one bit. I have not had a chance to compare it with the comments made by the NSS, but i believe there were a few things that were added at our request. Most notably this:

Each working group will designate one leader who will oversee and coordinate the activities within that group. All working group leaders will also serve on an oversight team to coordinate activities and ensure communication between the working groups. This role is of particular importance given the complementary objectives of several groups and the need for collaboration to avoid duplicative efforts between elements.

Th draft plan did not include an oversight team which meant that data and information collected would stay within that group and not be shared. Many of the committees have cross relationships in terms of data collection and knowledge and what one committee collects could mean an answer for another. So its important that they all share information between them. This was a request made by the NSS.

Other than that, most of the language is the same. They did clarify a few things and included language to allow all stakeholders and individuals to have input in the process which didn't exist in the draft plan. The plan provides for a way to allow states to make their own decisions based on need, but wyandotte caver is right, federal money is a carrot and if the states don't comply with federal wishes then all that money disappears.

This whole thing here still really ticks me off:

Goal 5: Eliminate G. destructans from infected individuals.
Actions: (1) Investigate means of G. destructans control that are effective
and safe for the bats.
(a) Identify chemical control treatments for G. destructans.
(b) Identify biological control treatments for G. destructans.
(c) Identify effective environmental manipulations to reduce
or eliminate G. destructans from affected bats or sites.
(d) Identify effective bat exclusion/inclusion of infected sites/
uninfected sites.
(2) Reduce disturbance-related mortality associated with disease
management activities.

Even after everything that happened in Wisconsin (siting this as reasoning for their emergency orders), they still kept this in the document without dumbing it down so that it can't be used to make dumb ass decisions. But then perhaps you can't fix stupid.

[Pippin]

Cavermom, as far as what others think should be in the plan: read Peter's official letter to FWS with comments. I also strongly feel that the partnership between the caving community and FWS should have been outlined or at least mentioned. In the draft plan, the only language mentioning cavers or the caving community was an obnoxious phrase that said FWS would "exercise oversight over the caving community." That phrase is now gone, but the document doesn't mention cavers a single time, even though we're the people who know the most about caves. I guess we're all just lumped in with "partners" like the Center for Biological Diversity, even though that group knows nothing about caves and thinks the best way to protect bats is to ban caving.

This whole thing is simply an exercise in bureaucracy. Now, FWS can say "See, we have a plan! We're *doing* something!" even though the plan, and the new committees that will probably take a year to form, won't do a darned thing to save bats from WNS. I've been working at the state level on WNS issues for a while, and we have a plan sort of like this, but again, it hasn't done anything to save bats, just provided a bureaucratic framework for biologists. From what I've observed, bureaucracy is not helpful at solving wildlife disasters, it just offers agencies a way to say "we're doing something!" even if what they're doing is totally ineffective.

I will continue to be very unhappy with FWS until they revise/revoke the caving advisory. That's the document states and other agencies are using as the justification to close caves, even caves with no bats.

Oh, and I'm one of the people calling on the NSS to finish a strategic and business plan before spending a boatload of money on a new HQ, but that kind of plan should have specific and measurable goals and objectives. I'm a big fan of planning. I think vague plans like the one we're talking about are not useful.

[cavermom]

the purpose of the document is to provide a means for collecting and disseminating data across multiple agencies.

Yes, part of the plan is that they are creating communications systems, but that is not all this plan is about. For those looking for a synopsis, here are the groups the plan proposes:

A. Communications: This group will come up with ways to spread the word about WNS to the shareholders, property owners, and the general public. This group will plan for stuff like education outreach and such.
B. Data and Technical Information Management: This sounds like they plan to create a big database that all federal, state, and local government agencies will have access to enabling them to share information quickly.
C. Diagnostics: this group will establish standards for laboratory testing of WNS. As part of my job I review a lot of lab reports and I see a lot of bad data coming from labs. Standardizing lab testing is a must. Good decisions cannot be made without good data.
D. Disease Management: This group will come up with best management practices to keep WNS from spreading further. IMHO, this will be an important group to cavers, as this is where caves will be closed and opened. They will use the information from group E to help them with their decisions. They will also need help from cavers to do this successfully.
E. Epidemiological and Ecological Research: This group will decide what research projects are needed and make a plan to get them done. This is the group that will do more at looking into how WNS is spread and will be very important to making a case to keep caves open.
F. Disease Surveillance: This group will come up with management practices to keep tabs on specific areas infected with WNS and also watch areas suspected of being impacted in the future. They are the ones that will go out and do periodic sampling and cave checks. They would need cavers help to do this.
G. Conservation and Recovery: This group will devise ways to bring back populations of bats that have been affected by WNS. Not sure if this is possible, but its worth having a group to look into this possibility.

Cavermom, as far as what others think should be in the plan: read Peter's official letter to FWS with comments. I also strongly feel that the partnership between the caving community and FWS should have been outlined or at least mentioned. In the draft plan, the only language mentioning cavers or the caving community was an obnoxious phrase that said FWS would "exercise oversight over the caving community." That phrase is now gone, but the document doesn't mention cavers a single time, even though we're the people who know the most about caves. I guess we're all just lumped in with "partners" like the Center for Biological Diversity, even though that group knows nothing about caves and thinks the best way to protect bats is to ban caving.

This whole thing is simply an exercise in bureaucracy...

Actually they DO mention us. Under General Practices section of the plan the plan says: " Maintaining vigilance within the research, wildlife management, and caving communities". It reads to me like they are lumping us in with state wildlife management agencies and researchers - people they need to accomplish their goals. These are some of the most important players in their system, and they have come to recognize they are going to need cavers to help them fulfill their plan. How is this bad?

The reason I came here to post on this topic is because frankly I'm tired of the unproductive whining and hearing from my caver friends about who did what to who. We need to face the truth, and the truth is that unless you can mass enough cavers to stage an effective protest or know the president himself, there is no way to go but straight on through the bureaucratic mess. I want to see cavers stop looking at the past, and instead get up brush ourselves off and move forward to fix it. Now that this plan is finalized, what I really want to know is what roll the NSS going to play in these groups?

[wyandottecaver]

having played in the "bureaucratic mess" on both the State and Federal levels, I feel that the purpose of this plan is to provide a nice big soft punching bag for everybody who has a WNS axe to grind, leaving the USFWS to do whatever it wants in the meantime.

You suck in the stakeholders and let them expend energy providing comment and input to hazy documents that 1) can say whatever they want but may or may not be funded/implemented andd can be conveniently interpreted many ways 2) have no compulsory power on the USFWS, thus leaving them to follow, ignore, or contradict the document at will.

Yes, we can beg at the table and will hopefully end up with a few pieces of gristle, such as *hopefully* having some non agency cavers included in the working groups. But in the end, the USFWS responds to exactly two things: 1) Their own internal culture and thinking 2) big sticks across the head from lawsuits, or senators on USFWS appropriations committies. Everything and everybody else are just background noise.

[John Lovaas]

Actually they DO mention us. Under General Practices section of the plan the plan says: " Maintaining vigilance within the research, wildlife management, and caving communities". It reads to me like they are lumping us in with state wildlife management agencies and researchers - people they need to accomplish their goals. These are some of the most important players in their system, and they have come to recognize they are going to need cavers to help them fulfill their plan. How is this bad?

In the interest of accuracy, "cavermom", I have to point out that you seem to be misrepresenting the reference to the caving community in the plan. The sentence you quoted, which can be found on page 5 of the plan document, is item 6 in an action list that is prefaced by these two sentences:

Therefore, adherence to the following actions/measures is considered to be prudent for combating the spread of WNS through human-assisted means. These recommendations can generally be applied in field situations with reasonable modifications and proper training:

Yes, they mention us- as disease vectors, not "important players".

On a minor note, the correct quote is "Maintaining oversight", not "Maintaining vigilance"- the term "vigilance" does not occur in the document.

[tncaver]

If cavers didn't tell the USFWS where the caves are, they couldn't do squat. Too late for that now though, eh. Organized cavers have shot themselves
in the foot. Trusting the gov't is stupid. Just ask Native Americans if you don't believe it.

Interesting how many times "control" was mentioned in the document. That is what our government wants more than anything in the world.
For that matter they want to "control" the world. Haven't you noticed?

[Mudduck]

Its interesting reading the different interpretations of this document. What I find so interesting is the document "MEANS" absolutely nothing. It would seem that everyones interpretation of nothing would be the same. This is typical of a group who feels pressured to release something, so they commit resources and money which could be used to further research as well as other things to write a paper which says nothing new, offers no hope, and wastes our time excessively discussing and analyzing the papers effect on us as individuals as well as the caving community. Its like we're a chat group on FOX news discussing the world ramifications of Arnolds affair and resulting child. I'm sick of it all personally. While I realize these days are long gone, I enjoy the old posts about ridgewalking, virgin cave, and newbs asking funny questions(yes i know we all did at some point). Perhaps its my problem that my filter zones in on WNS everytime I browse the forum. I spoke to a wildlife biologist once and she said exactly whats been said here(in the forum). The caving community are the only ones adhereing to the closures so honestly whats the point(even on public lands) All the cave entrances I visit on lands with "closed" caves still have fresh foot traffic(no not mine). I wish this stuff would just get swept under the rug so we can all get back to doing what we love.(I'm done now).

[BrianC]

the purpose of the document is to provide a means for collecting and disseminating data across multiple agencies.

Yes, part of the plan is that they are creating communications systems, but that is not all this plan is about. For those looking for a synopsis, here are the groups the plan proposes:

A. Communications: This group will come up with ways to spread the word about WNS to the shareholders, property owners, and the general public. This group will plan for stuff like education outreach and such.
B. Data and Technical Information Management: This sounds like they plan to create a big database that all federal, state, and local government agencies will have access to enabling them to share information quickly.
C. Diagnostics: this group will establish standards for laboratory testing of WNS. As part of my job I review a lot of lab reports and I see a lot of bad data coming from labs. Standardizing lab testing is a must. Good decisions cannot be made without good data.
D. Disease Management: This group will come up with best management practices to keep WNS from spreading further. IMHO, this will be an important group to cavers, as this is where caves will be closed and opened. They will use the information from group E to help them with their decisions. They will also need help from cavers to do this successfully.
E. Epidemiological and Ecological Research: This group will decide what research projects are needed and make a plan to get them done. This is the group that will do more at looking into how WNS is spread and will be very important to making a case to keep caves open.
F. Disease Surveillance: This group will come up with management practices to keep tabs on specific areas infected with WNS and also watch areas suspected of being impacted in the future. They are the ones that will go out and do periodic sampling and cave checks. They would need cavers help to do this.
G. Conservation and Recovery: This group will devise ways to bring back populations of bats that have been affected by WNS. Not sure if this is possible, but its worth having a group to look into this possibility.

Cavermom, as far as what others think should be in the plan: read Peter's official letter to FWS with comments. I also strongly feel that the partnership between the caving community and FWS should have been outlined or at least mentioned. In the draft plan, the only language mentioning cavers or the caving community was an obnoxious phrase that said FWS would "exercise oversight over the caving community." That phrase is now gone, but the document doesn't mention cavers a single time, even though we're the people who know the most about caves. I guess we're all just lumped in with "partners" like the Center for Biological Diversity, even though that group knows nothing about caves and thinks the best way to protect bats is to ban caving.

This whole thing is simply an exercise in bureaucracy...

Actually they DO mention us. Under General Practices section of the plan the plan says: " Maintaining vigilance within the research, wildlife management, and caving communities". It reads to me like they are lumping us in with state wildlife management agencies and researchers - people they need to accomplish their goals. These are some of the most important players in their system, and they have come to recognize they are going to need cavers to help them fulfill their plan. How is this bad?

The reason I came here to post on this topic is because frankly I'm tired of the unproductive whining and hearing from my caver friends about who did what to who. We need to face the truth, and the truth is that unless you can mass enough cavers to stage an effective protest or know the president himself, there is no way to go but straight on through the bureaucratic mess. I want to see cavers stop looking at the past, and instead get up brush ourselves off and move forward to fix it. Now that this plan is finalized, what I really want to know is what roll the NSS going to play in these groups?

Take this how you want, but it is very evident to me that we will not and cannot control the spread or lack there of WNS. It is not possible. It will do what ever it does with or without an understanding of exactly what it is. Yes, there is monetary gain and environmental needs to understand what it is, but forgive me when I say that, White Nose Syndrome is here for a reason! For the concerns of changing its course, the thought is just plain WACKY! So go ahead and make a mountain out of it, but don't be saddened when you get absolutely no closer to understand it, than where we are now. I find all the bureaucracy involved hilariously idiotic! But , it is what it is! What a shame we need to worry about this un-controllable disease when people are starving in the streets of this nation, people are dying in the streets of this nation. Just a portion of the money spent on this idiotic struggle could help keep thousands in our nation from worrying where their children s next meal will come from. What a shame!I can't help but beg any one reading this that you ask senators to please reconsider throwing any more money at this. Caves are closed, and will remain that way because it is evident that stupidity is in control. I don't even care about that any more, but I do not understand the massive engineering that has been considered to create a structure of agencies dedicated to WNS. It just shows how some have no concept of what reality really is.

[PYoungbaer]

Peter, please ask the FWS people when they're going to revise (or hopefully delete) the caving advisory/moratorium!

Jeremy Coleman showed me a draft amended advisory in Little Rock, and later shared it with a state personnel group during a panel discussion on which we were both presenters.

It's not clear how USFWS is going to proceed, but the draft had four alternatives to the current advisory. These alternatives range from lifting the advisory at one extreme to imposing a nationwide closure for one year (the other extreme). The intermediate options were a spectrum of options, including variations on the current advisory.

It sounded like they were going to put this out for feedback in some manner. I've just written Jeremy for a copy and for the next steps in providing feedback (additional feedback, since we've given plenty).

By the way - important decon information: Hazel Barton reported that one of the labs had confirmed that hot water at 50 degrees Celcius (122 Farenheit) for 15 minutes will kill Geomyces destructans. This is significantly lower than boiling water. This should help in making decon less onorous.

More on the Symposium later and on the NSS WNS website.

[cavermom]

Yes, they mention us- as disease vectors, not "important players".

On a minor note, the correct quote is "Maintaining oversight", not "Maintaining vigilance"- the term "vigilance" does not occur in the document.

I went back to re-read, because I could have sworn that I did a direct cut and paste from the document. The document I'm seeing still says vigilance. There is a big difference between being mindful and being controling, so the difference between these two words would be pretty important to understand the meaning of how they are fitting us into their plan. Was the word oversight in the draft? I never read the draft. I'm looking at the plan at this web page: http://www.fws.gov/whitenosesyndrome/pd ... ay2011.pdf

A cut and paste of that section says:

All available evidence indicates that WNS is caused by an infectious agent, and
therefore can potentially be spread by all known modes of disease transmission,
including direct contact, inhalation, ingestion, fomites (inanimate objects), and
human or animal vectors. Wildlife diseases such as WNS spread rapidly when
there is high prevalence of pathogen(s), efficient chains of transmission, abundant
susceptible hosts, and/or environments that allow pathogen persistence without
a host. Regardless of the nature of the infectious agent (fungus, bacterium, or
virus), universal precautions should be implemented to reduce incidence of disease
by both preventing infections and breaking chains of transmission. Research is
underway to improve our understanding of what are believed to be the primary
vectors for WNS, namely bat movement and contact with infected bats and
environments. Adherence to the following actions/measures is considered to
be prudent for combating the spread of WNS through human-assisted means,
however, because humans are potentially capable of transmitting the disease great
distances in a short amount of time. These recommendations can generally be
applied in field situations with reasonable modifications and proper training:
1. Avoiding direct contact with bats, contaminated objects (fomites) or
environments, and body fluids;
2. Wearing barriers (e.g., gloves, coveralls, etc.) when contact with bats is
necessary or expected (single-use items are recommended);
3. Carefully handling, cleaning, and disinfecting all potentially contaminated
fomites and vehicles between instances of contact with animals and/or
movement between field locations;
4. Observing proper technique during sample collection for genetic or
microbiological analyses (e.g., wing punch biopsies).
5. Promoting the concept that prevention of transmission requires constant
personal surveillance;
6. Maintaining vigilance within the research, wildlife management, and caving
communities;
7. Adhering to basic hygiene practices that are known to minimize the spread of
infectious agents, as per the most current decontamination protocol for WNS;
8. Increasing public awareness and education.

I initially read this as them keeping watch of the caving community as a partner along with WNS researchers and wildlife management agencies. However, I can kind of see what you are saying, that you think they are wanting to keep a careful eye on how the caving community, researchers, and mgmt agencies may effect the spread of WNS as each of us will be entering the habitats of these bats for our own separate reasons. Maybe Peter could get some clarification from his federal contacts?

[John Lovaas]

'cavermom'-

My mistake!!! Sorry. The October 21,2010 draft document uses the term 'oversight'; the May 17, 2011 plan document uses the term 'vigilance'. I had both versions open when I composed my post, and got confused- and I'm very skilled at confusing myself.

The section you just copied and pasted is essentially identical between the two documents. The key portion I'm focusing on reads:

Adherence to the following actions/measures is considered to be prudent for combating the spread of WNS through human-assisted means, however, because humans are potentially capable of transmitting the disease great distances in a short amount of time.

I don't know how the action list could be construed as any kind of stakeholder engagement. When a government agency maintains vigilance over a group, I don't see how anyone could construe that as engagement or cooperation.

[tncaver]

Adherence to the following actions/measures is considered to be prudent for combating the spread of WNS through human-assisted means, however, because humans are potentially capable of transmitting the disease great distances in a short amount of time.

I don't know how the action list could be construed as any kind of stakeholder engagement. When a government agency maintains vigilance over a group, I don't see how anyone could construe that as engagement or cooperation.

I agree with Mr. Lovaas. However, no one seems to be willing to explain the intention of the FS in it's simplest form. CONTROL.
Frankly I don't think right or wrong makes any difference.

[Teresa]

Teresa, the purpose of the document is to provide a means for collecting and disseminating data across multiple agencies. Agencies don't typically communicate with each other. That was obvious after 9/11. So the purpose of this document is to allow communication and data to flow freely amongst differing groups. As Peter said, they are still working on the implementation plan. That will be the nuts and bolts of it - where the rubber meets the road. That's what we need to be concerned about - IMHO.

I simply do not believe this, batgirl. Maybe some law enforcement agencies don't communicate (out here we do and that is called "mutual aid") but natural resource agencies do, at least in Missouri. They don't always agree, because of differing mission statements, but the do communicate. We have too many joint projects and too many joint area management responsibilities for people not to talk with each other. The community is small enough that one is rarely beyond two degrees of separation from someone you need to reach. I just came from a training (still going on) where there are DNR-DSP (state parks), Missouri Dept of Conservation, and Army Corps of Engineers personnel all together for three days. We've got 3 agencies and 2 or 3 stakeholder groups working on elk reintroduction. I've been to so many inter-agency meetings since 1989, I can't count them all.

It's fairly obvious, though, after rereading the document and this discussion, that this is NOT a national plan to combat WNS; it is a national *agency* plan to combat WNS. If you aren't in an agency, the contents are somewhat irrelevant and the communication top down.

This is where the NSS, BCI and other NGOs got disrespected at the starting gate. Instead of drafing a truly national plan involving all cave and bat stakeholders, it is a plan involving only governmental entities. So sad.