Why have some counties never gotten past "suspected"?

[hewhocaves]

There are counties on the WNS map that have been "suspected" since 2008-09. Why is that? Have there not be subsequent checks in recent years? Have the checks been inconclusive as well? How many years is appropriate before we change suspected back to "clean"?

John

[batrotter]

If the feds keep the "suspected" label on the counties, then they can also keep a thumb on us. It's all about control. As soon as a county is declared clean, then its starts to snowball and they lose control. They are not our friends.

[hewhocaves]

If the feds keep the "suspected" label on the counties, then they can also keep a thumb on us. It's all about control. As soon as a county is declared clean, then its starts to snowball and they lose control. They are not our friends.

hmm..

I'm not saying that I agree with that for 2 reasons - 1. it implies that the "feds" are all some monolithic conspiracy. 2. There's no actual data to back (1) up.

My thinking was more that these were marginal areas which didn't have big bat populations to begin with and haven't been revisited yet because concentration is being focused on the larger colony sites. I wonder what the "WNS map" would look like if the suspected label faded after 2 years.

[batrotter]

hmm..

I'm not saying that I agree with that for 2 reasons - 1. it implies that the "feds" are all some monolithic conspiracy. 2. There's no actual data to back (1) up.

My thinking was more that these were marginal areas which didn't have big bat populations to begin with and haven't been revisited yet because concentration is being focused on the larger colony sites. I wonder what the "WNS map" would look like if the suspected label faded after 2 years.

I will have to respectably disagree. I believe there is a conspiracy to grow the government and control all the people. As far as proof, there has never been a time in our 235 year history that the feds have ever relinquished control or shrank in size. That is proof enough data that they are out to control us. The laws and regulations that we are supposed to abide by everyday have become overbearing. The average everyday person cannot go through a day without breaking some unknown law.

But, I do agree with your thinking that there are marginal areas with small bat populations.

[hewhocaves]

I will have to respectably disagree. I believe there is a conspiracy to grow the government and control all the people. As far as proof, there has never been a time in our 235 year history that the feds have ever relinquished control or shrank in size. That is proof enough data that they are out to control us. The laws and regulations that we are supposed to abide by everyday have become overbearing. The average everyday person cannot go through a day without breaking some unknown law.

Then we disagree. We must solve this as men do. Competitive cave surveying!

but yea, I'll put together a map (or series of maps) which will delete counties that have been suspicious for more than 2 years and post them.

[batrotter]

Then we disagree. We must solve this as men do. Competitive cave surveying!

but yea, I'll put together a map (or series of maps) which will delete counties that have been suspicious for more than 2 years and post them.

Ha! Competitive cave surveying, that's great! I love it! I'm glad you didn't challenge me to a duel!

[BrianC]

I will have to respectably disagree. I believe there is a conspiracy to grow the government and control all the people. As far as proof, there has never been a time in our 235 year history that the feds have ever relinquished control or shrank in size. That is proof enough data that they are out to control us. The laws and regulations that we are supposed to abide by everyday have become overbearing. The average everyday person cannot go through a day without breaking some unknown law.

Then we disagree. We must solve this as men do. Competitive cave surveying!

but yea, I'll put together a map (or series of maps) which will delete counties that have been suspicious for more than 2 years and post them.

Very interesting indeed, but it is obvious that all that was really necessary for closure orders was the suspect name, then they really don't care about the bats. If the bats survived or not doesn't matter to the feds, just the controlling necessity! Otherwise there would have been timely follow up.

[Steve Pitts]

Very interesting indeed, but it is obvious that all that was really necessary for closure orders was the suspect name, then they really don't care about the bats. If the bats survived or not doesn't matter to the feds, just the controlling necessity!

Blaming cavers and closing caves makes it look like they are doing something about it. Doing nothing might make them more vulnerable to attacks by the extremists.

[BrianC]

Some of us are much, much, much smarter than the average Smokey Bear, and we can see far,far,far beyond what we are told to see!

[PYoungbaer]

There are counties on the WNS map that have been "suspected" since 2008-09. Why is that? Have there not be subsequent checks in recent years? Have the checks been inconclusive as well? How many years is appropriate before we change suspected back to "clean"?

John - You are correct in your guess that have not been subsequent checks at many of these sites. You raise a good and interesting question, and I have forwarded it to Cal Butchkoski, creater and keeper of the map.

As Cal reminds us, this is "our" map, speaking to the collective WNS community. How information has been presented has always been the subject of discussion, witness the change in the visual representation of the lone Oklahoma bat that tested positive for Geomyces destructans a year and a half ago. If you recall, a huge block of Oklahoma was marked off in red - an area equal to or greater than the entire WNS-affected NY/NE region with hundreds of thousands of bat deaths. It created essentially a very misleading visual representation of the disease. We pointed that out, and it was changed.

Your question is a good one. Up until now, the map has tracked the growth and spread of WNS. That has been its purpose, and I think it's served us well. However, your point gets to what may be the next evolving management issue for WNS - when do we declare a site clean again? If it's surrounded by nearby infected sites, does that serve a real purpose, given how easily bats move? Thus, it may not make sense to remove a county in New York, for example, but what about the Missouri sites? There were only suspect sites found last year; all clean in MO this year. I would suspect there would be resistance to taking down the MO suspect sites right now, with the confirmation of new sites near the MO border in both TN and KY.

In discussing the status of the disease, most knowledgeable folks understand the distinction between suspect and confirmed. In public documents, agencies, NGO's and even the media are being more careful about how things are phrased. WNS has spread as far west as western Tennessee, but the fungus associated with it has been founds on bats in MO and OK (at least last year, but clean this year in both cases).

One other important factor is at play here: simple lack of resources to monitor and sample at each and every site, even ones already sampled. As we know, funding has been historically limited for monitoring listed species, or specifically funded grant projects at major hibernacula, for example. Additional samples in the WNS era have come when someone, often a caver, has sighted something suspicious and a subsequent sample was taken and analyzed. With major declines in some bat species in the WNS regions, scientists are loath to take unnecessary samples. All of this factors into the monitoring.

[BrianC]

.

One other important factor is at play here: simple lack of resources to monitor and sample at each and every site, even ones already sampled. As we know, funding has been historically limited for monitoring listed species, or specifically funded grant projects at major hibernacula, for example. Additional samples in the WNS era have come when someone, often a caver, has sighted something suspicious and a subsequent sample was taken and analyzed. With major declines in some bat species in the WNS regions, scientists are loath to take unnecessary samples. All of this factors into the monitoring.

I don't even believe that this excuse is relevant if understanding WNS was an issue, rather the issue appears to be what many of us have thought all along, Money!