Cavechat.org

Presentations made at the special WNS session at the 2011 NSS Convention in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, have now been posted on the NSS WNS website: http://www.caves.org/WNS

Seven of the presentations are currently available, although all the topics are listed. Thanks to session organizer, Carl Bern, for obtaining permission from the presenters. We hope the rest will soon follow.

Peter-

I was just looking at the PDF of Ann Froschauer's powerpoint-

http://www.caves.org/WNS/Western%20Powe ... _Final.pdf

and the third slide took me by surprise.

A map of the US, with a red line from New York to Oklahoma, and then on to Washington, with the caption "Apparent Spread of Geomyces destructans".

My first thought is "WTF!?! I know I was only at Convention for 2 1/2 days, but I figure this would have been the talk of the campground!" But no.

Could you elaborate on that slide?

jl

John,

This was Ann's slide simply to dramatize the fact that the Geomyces destructans fungus was as close to the West Coast as the East Coast, based on the finding on the lone Oklahoma bat in 2010.

There was a lot of discussion of that Oklahoma bat during the panel portion of the WNS session. Was it an anomaly? What exactly is an "anomaly?" Did it "spread" there from the East, or by some other means? No one knows. My own inquiries of the University professor in Oklahoma did not turn up any evidence of human visitation to this University-regulated site from any Eastern site. Neither was there any evidence from the local grotto newsletter of any such trips. I've yet to see or hear any evidence of any possible human vector for Oklahoma, so the presence of G.d. on that one bat remains a mystery.

It's important to note that this year's Oklahoma surveys turned up no evidence of G.d. or WNS.

Anyway, I believe Ann's intent was to show that if it only took five years to spread from NY to OK, then being cautious in the West is prudent.

Phew! Feel much better now- thanks, Peter.

I understand Ann is a nice person, and I know folks who know her, but I have to say this- absent any narrative, that slide is a spectacularly poor and potentially deceptive visual representation of quantitative data.

The line from New York to Oklahoma represents something real- DNA of Geomyces destructans found in both locations. The line from OK to WA? Doesn't mean anything, as there is no Gd in WA, or any other state located north, south, or west of OK. The OK-WA line has the same weight and color as the NY-OK line, so from a design standpoint, it infers the identical meaning. The title doesn't help a bit either- "Apparent Spread of Geomyces destructans". Only one line segment meets that criteria.

Feel free to call me petty for criticizing it, but I'll wager $100 that the slide will be misused in an agency or organization's presentation sometime in the next 12 months.

John Lovaas wrote:Phew! Feel much better now- thanks, Peter.

I understand Ann is a nice person, and I know folks who know her, but I have to say this- absent any narrative, that slide is a spectacularly poor and potentially deceptive visual representation of quantitative data.

The line from New York to Oklahoma represents something real- DNA of Geomyces destructans found in both locations. The line from OK to WA? Doesn't mean anything, as there is no Gd in WA, or any other state located north, south, or west of OK. The OK-WA line has the same weight and color as the NY-OK line, so from a design standpoint, it infers the identical meaning. The title doesn't help a bit either- "Apparent Spread of Geomyces destructans". Only one line segment meets that criteria.

Feel free to call me petty for criticizing it, but I'll wager $100 that the slide will be misused in an agency or organization's presentation sometime in the next 12 months.

I agree with John Lovaas and I consider that slide to be a total misrepresentation of existing data.

first,

The presentation was from Ann and Jeremy, the "spokesperson" and "leader" for USFWS WNS. All you really needed to know.

Several things about that presentation are hooey.

They had a nice slide of all these hibernacula with drastic declines.... but curiously, left out those with less drastic changes. They stated as fact anthropegenic (people) transmission, that the fungus could persist in caves without bats (speculative, since the absence was very short and the biological waste WAS still present) etc.

Overall about what I have come to expect of USFWS "science".

I had a number of concerns with Ann's presentation and statements she made during the panel session. She has an NSS number, which is on her title slide, and started her presentation by pointing out that she is also a caver, and therefore shares our perspective. She then went on to make the statement that they know people are spreading the fungus, but presented no new evidence. She made several factual mis-statements (aka lies) during the panel discussion and had to be corrected by Peter. She's clearly starting to confuse her facts and propaganda.

Can someone post a synopsis of what happened during the panel discussion? What topics did the group discuss? Was there any indication that federal agencies realize that total cave closures don't work?

Pippin wrote:Was there any indication that federal agencies realize that total cave closures don't work?

To quote Peter: "No"

I tried but I couldn't sit there and listen to it without making a complete a$$ out of myself and disrupting the talks being given. If I wasn't so involved with running this convention.....I would have felt differently. Maybe next time......

I'm still wondering why the suspected WNS cases in Missouri and Oklahoma have never changed, despite several (many) months in the "suspected" category.





-Dean

DeanWiseman wrote:I'm still wondering why the suspected WNS cases in Missouri and Oklahoma have never changed, despite several (many) months in the "suspected" category.

-Dean

Dean-

Here's the definition from the USGS website:

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inform ... itions.jsp

"...Suspect WNS:

To identify a bat as suspect for WNS, one of the following must be true:

- Field signs are suggestive of WNS AND

- A bat is PCR positive meaning that DNA from G. destructans is present although the viability of the organism is unknown. Field signs are not required. No histopathology was performed or is negative. WNS was previously confirmed in the county or in an adjacent county. Further diagnostics (PCR, culture, fungal tape and histopathology) were either not performed or are negative.

- A bat is culture positive meaning there is viable G. destructans present. Field signs are not required. No histopathology was performed or is negative.

- Fungal tape strip of bat fur or skin is positive for G. destructans-like conidia. Visible fungus is required. No histopathology was performed or is negative.

Confirmed positive for WNS:

- Confirmed positive bats are those that fulfill histopathologic criteria for the disease. These criteria require the identification of a specific pattern of fungal colonization in the epidermis which may extend to invasion of the dermis and connective tissue. Histopathology can also support the presence/identity of G. destructans if distinctive conidia are observed. Field signs, PCR, fungal tape strip, and culture can be negative for bats that fulfill the histopathologic criteria for confirmed WNS. Follow-up PCR/DNA sequencing or fungal culture should be considered to confirm the identity of the organism in geographic regions with no prior or unknown history of WNS..."

The short answer would be that the OK and MO bats did not fulfill histopathologic criteria for the disease.

The OK bat was destroyed/flushed down the toilet/disappeared/sent to the 8th Dimension(however one chooses to characterize it) by the USGS lab during testing, and no longer exists- so no further testing could be done on that bat.

DeanWiseman wrote:I'm still wondering why the suspected WNS cases in Missouri and Oklahoma have never changed, despite several (many) months in the "suspected" category.





-Dean

My understanding is that the bats collected in 2010 (1 in cave myotis in OK and 5 gray bats in MO) tested positive for Gd but had none of the signs of WNS. In the east caves with bats that test positive for Gd have generally, at the same time or soon after, also shown signs of the disease. In OK and MO there have been no signs of the disease and now they can no longer find any bats that even have the fungus. The bats that were collected and tested were then destroyed, so there's no way to do any additional research. So with no new specimens and no way to validate the original results it seems OK and MO will remain "suspect" states at least until next spring.

PYoungbaer wrote:I've yet to see or hear any evidence of any possible human vector for Oklahoma, so the presence of G.d. on that one bat remains a mystery.

TNCaver writes: "It's not a mystery at all. One possibly infected bat flew to Oklahoma from some other location. A recently posted map shows bat habitatation areas overlap almost the entire US."

It's important to note that this year's Oklahoma surveys turned up no evidence of G.d. or WNS.

Anyway, I believe Ann's intent was to show that if it only took five years to spread from NY to OK, then being cautious in the West is prudent.

TNCaver: If cavers were spreading WNS it would have likely arrived in Oklahoma in five weeks. Bats don't travel as far or as fast as humans. It
should be obvious by now that cavers are not the WNS vector. BTW, I've seen swarms of bats flying around here in middle Tennessee lately. Maybe they have been fleeing the gated bat death camps up North. They seem to be enjoying all the bugs and warmer climate here in Tennessee.

John Lovaas wrote:

DeanWiseman wrote:I'm still wondering why the suspected WNS cases in Missouri and Oklahoma have never changed, despite several (many) months in the "suspected" category.

-Dean

Dean-

Here's the definition from the USGS website:

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inform ... itions.jsp

"...Suspect WNS:

To identify a bat as suspect for WNS, one of the following must be true:

- Field signs are suggestive of WNS AND

- A bat is PCR positive meaning that DNA from G. destructans is present although the viability of the organism is unknown. Field signs are not required. No histopathology was performed or is negative. WNS was previously confirmed in the county or in an adjacent county. Further diagnostics (PCR, culture, fungal tape and histopathology) were either not performed or are negative.

- A bat is culture positive meaning there is viable G. destructans present. Field signs are not required. No histopathology was performed or is negative.

- Fungal tape strip of bat fur or skin is positive for G. destructans-like conidia. Visible fungus is required. No histopathology was performed or is negative.

Confirmed positive for WNS:

- Confirmed positive bats are those that fulfill histopathologic criteria for the disease. These criteria require the identification of a specific pattern of fungal colonization in the epidermis which may extend to invasion of the dermis and connective tissue. Histopathology can also support the presence/identity of G. destructans if distinctive conidia are observed. Field signs, PCR, fungal tape strip, and culture can be negative for bats that fulfill the histopathologic criteria for confirmed WNS. Follow-up PCR/DNA sequencing or fungal culture should be considered to confirm the identity of the organism in geographic regions with no prior or unknown history of WNS..."

The short answer would be that the OK and MO bats did not fulfill histopathologic criteria for the disease.

The OK bat was destroyed/flushed down the toilet/disappeared/sent to the 8th Dimension(however one chooses to characterize it) by the USGS lab during testing, and no longer exists- so no further testing could be done on that bat.

Gee , that was a real responsible way of handling a confirmed WNS + bat specimen. Seems to me , flushing it down the toilet could possibly introduce a culture into the environment recklessly , depending on the temperature of the septic system. Maybe it was flushed down with a 2 gallon bolus of 10% Lysol solution , huh?