Action Alert request for WNS funding

[BrianC]

Caves were closed due to fear, blind speculation, and ignorance; absent supporting facts and evidence,

So eloquently pictured, but also very factual! Chicken little, and the war of the worlds comes to mind. While at the same time invaders from the outer limits continue,( under the guise of legal mumbo-jumble), to guide our everyday lives through similar speculation, speculation that only seemed to allow the prospering of the old timers during the "Gold Rush". Ah Ha! The gold rush has hit again for the enterprising researchers.

[wyandottecaver]

John,

yes, of the MILLIONS of dollars lavished upon and dispensed by the USFWS some good data has emerged. A lot of BS has too. Heated caves anyone? That doesn't count the ridiculous amounts spent on administrative costs and hiring new USFWS staff or building cave gates.

[1oldbuzzard]

$24 million is pretty good loose change to have around. Is there any way that I might be able to get in on this "research" if the funds are dropped? I think maybe that my archaic and "unenlightened" opinions about all this might just change if I could get in on a little of the action. Just one half of one percent ($120,000) would more than cover the expense needed to re-educate me and turn me into a valuable soldier in the war against WNS. I do know a lot about caves and microbes, and I have worked for the Federal Government in an agency that cooperated with private "researchers". I am still teachable. How do I join the club? Is it by invitation only? Would it help if I list all the politicians that know me for references?

[PYoungbaer]

I thought it might be helpful to interject some facts here. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has only allocated $3.9 million for research to date of the $11 million USFWS has spent on WNS to date. That does not include the current RFP for up to $1 million in new research projects (deadline Dec. 4):
http://www.caves.org/WNS/2012%20WNS%20Research%20RFP_Oct%202011.pdf

I don't know where the $ 24 million figure comes from. That said, as I testified to Congress in June on behalf of the NSS, we feel strongly that too much of the USFWS funding goes into meetings, planning, and management. That feeling is also strongly held within the research community. Indeed, the majority of research to date has NOT been funded through the federal government, but through the private sector, including Non-government organizations, such as the NSS.

Another important fact: other than the $1.9 million that the NSS successfully advocated for in 2009, all other USFWS and other federal agency funding for WNS-related activities was re-allocated from other sources within the agency. In other words, it got taken away from other ongoing activities, including on other endangered species.

We continue to advocate for direct research funding. I personally lobbied hard to get the word "research" in the final Congressional conference committee report for the $1.9 million for the exact same reasons of those of you posting critical comments for the current effort. The NSS has long heard that criticism and we have officially, aggressively, and successfully acted upon it.

Which brings us to the current We The People petition. While an awkward mechanism, it provides the best current opportunity for the NSS to be in direct discussions with the White House budget people on an issue for which there is demonstrated public concern. Certainly, we are constantly working other channels, but this one provides an opportunity for the NSS to have a show of force. If cavers are a good part of the reason this campaign succeeds, cavers will have every right to help shape the response. To not participate means that will be left to others.

Bob Biddex can certainly start a We The People petition to open closed caves if he wants, and I would encourage him to do so. I'd be happy to sign it. Unfortunately, the petitions need 25,000 signatures, and the NSS has only 10,000 members, so unless we can readily access another 15,000 cavers, that's destined to fail. The current petition may fail, too, but it has a much higher probability of succeeding and creating a new forum for policy change with the NSS in a position to influence it.

John Lovaas is correct that "fear, blind speculation, and ignorance" will not reopen caves. Supporting research that provides a scientific basis for good management decisions is key. Hazel Barton's transmission work is one such effort. Cynthia Sandeno is currently working on an economic and social impact study of cave closures in the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. She plans to present these results at the NSS Convention this summer (MayaCon 2012, Lewisburg, WVA).

However, there is no doubt a shortage of funds for the kind of research people want. This petition is one way to change that reality. Another is to donate to our own WNS Rapid Response Fund. We've funded fourteen projects to date, and will continue to influence the direction of research to the extent funding is available. Please donate to the NSS fund:
http://www.caves.org/WNS/Rapid_Response.shtml if you can't support the petition. All of the funds go directly to research, not bureaucracy or management.

[DeanWiseman]

[tncaver]

I thought it might be helpful to interject some facts here. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has only allocated $3.9 million for research to date of the $11 million USFWS has spent on WNS to date.

Which leads me to ask, was the other $7.1 million used to gate caves and/or monitor caves for human access? Just asking. The latest research
proving the infection is spread by direct contact as opposed to being airborne is much appreciated.

[trogman]

I have been watching this discussion and wanted to add a thought or two: If not for our current budget crisis our country is facing, I would likely lend my support and signature to this petition. I know in our world we think that any research that might stop or slow this disease is paramount and should take the highest priority. But in the bigger picture of the current budget battle and discussions by the "supercommittee," WNS research funding is really rather unimportant. While the committee struggles to find a way to avoid cuts to defense, welfare and entitlement programs, etc., here we come trying to increase funding for a research project that very few in the general public really care about. I can just imagine my congressman's reaction if I were to ask him to support such funding: I am sure to my face he would be cordial and diplomatic, but as soon as I was out of earshot he would probably shake his head and mutter "you have got to be kidding!" We are currently trying to avoid becoming like Greece, and some pretty serious cuts will probably have to be made in some programs that many of us like and support. Somehow, I just don't see how this has a chance of passing, and I for one cannot support it.

Trogman

[PYoungbaer]

Although I don't have budget details for every agency, USFWS has given approximately half of that $ 7 million to states. This has occurred through two major multi-state State Wildlife Grants, that were specific to WNS. When that money is divided among all the participating states, it really doesn't cover much more than some of the time for state wildlife personnel to work on WNS. Some specific experiments were included in these SWG grants, but most of the funds went to cover field monitoring of bat populations. Remember, most of the non-listed bat species did not have funding to track their status, so this was a big focus. Also remember that this $11 million figure is aggregate for four years.

The bulk of the rest of the USFWS funds went for building its own WNS staff, running WNS meetings, conference calls, policy development, and planning, such as the so-called Structured Decision Making exercise and the National WNS Plan. Most of the criticism I've heard is about these expenditures.

I'm aware of only a few cave gates as a result of WNS. Off the top of my head, I can actually only cite you three: one in Colorado in a city park, that was actually more to prevent vandalism than WNS, and another in New Mexico, and, of course, the controversial situation in Wisconsin. I believe there was some money in the SWG grants that could be used for gating, but I don't know how much, or how much has actually occurred. Gates are expensive. Perhaps there are others, and maybe someone should collect and maintain a list.

Ironically, there is very little monitoring of caves for human access. This is one of the points the NSS has continually made in our various public and private comments. If there were better monitoring - e.g. enlisting cavers to assist - we probably wouldn't have had the vandalism incidents in caves such as Plymouth, Vermont, Bone-Norman, West Virginia, Bowden Cave, West Virginia, and Fern Cave, Alabama.

In response to Trogman, this petition has nothing to do with the Supercommittee or this year's budget, which is what they are working on. The White House petition has to do with the budget the President will submit in his budget address after the New Year. It is for the very reasons you cite with the Supercommittee that we're not going that route. You are absolutely correct about the reaction of people in Congress - and it's on both sides of the political aisle. Most of the new Republicans came in on a cut spending pledge, so have steadfastly refused to sign on to any "Dear Collegue" letters or anything similar. Democrats refuse to sign on so as not to give any political advantage to potential election opponents.

This means that the real spending and priority decisions are being made behind the scenes and as a result of testimony taken in committees. These committees inform their negotiators, and funds get worked in. This is why funds have gotten freed up within already existing budgets to work on WNS. Pressure has come from Representatives and Senators (because they hear from us and want to do something) cavers, state agencies, academic researchers, and advocacy groups that have a permanent presence on Capitol Hill. These include Bat Conservation International, the Center for Biological Diversity, and many other wildlife organizations. This is why the NSS must stay engaged at the grass roots level. Thankfully, both Republicans and Democrats are aware of WNS and the problems it has created, and it's not a partisan issue, nor should it be. That means it won't be a headline grabbing issue. We're not going to see "Supercommittee Deadlocked on Bat Issue" screaming across the papers or taking up time of the talking heads on Fox News or MSNBC.

Direct contact with our Representatives and Senators has always been the best and most efficient, but not the only method of getting our message across. We need to pay attention to all those fronts, including petitions like these. These petitions don't change policy; what they do is create the opportunity for more deliberative and substantive input.

So again, please don't confuse the petition (which is for next year's budget), with the committee testimony we gave in June and the direct contact efforts we continue to make behind the scenes and ask that you continue to make to your delegation.

The Supercommittee will perhaps make its recommendations by its target date of Thanksgiving, unless it crashes and burns or gets an extension. No matter. They aren't going to decide funding for WNS. What they will do is set an overall budget number for agencies or departments. Within the Department of Interior, the rank and file members, staffs, and executive branch will then allocate the remaining funds to priority work. This is where our message and our contacts become important. If the message is there is too much bureaucracy and not enough hard research, then that can guide the allocation of remaining funds.

Again, the Supercommittee, if a budget gets determined through that method, will essentially set a new baseline. That's where the Administration will start for its next budget submission. Whatever that target is, we're hoping there will be research funding for WNS in it.

One additional federal budget process point: if such funding is in the President's budget, the agencies must defend it before Congress. Congress has to act affirmatively to remove it. Thus, it has a far greater chance of making it through the Congressional budget-making process than the way we've been doing it, which is to advocate for additions to the budget. This year, we recognize that additions are unlikely, but reallocations happen all the time. That's why we're at the table.

Hope that helps with some context.

[DeanWiseman]

I have been watching this discussion and wanted to add a thought or two: If not for our current budget crisis our country is facing, I would likely lend my support and signature to this petition. I know in our world we think that any research that might stop or slow this disease is paramount and should take the highest priority. But in the bigger picture of the current budget battle and discussions by the "supercommittee," WNS research funding is really rather unimportant. While the committee struggles to find a way to avoid cuts to defense, welfare and entitlement programs, etc., here we come trying to increase funding for a research project that very few in the general public really care about. I can just imagine my congressman's reaction if I were to ask him to support such funding: I am sure to my face he would be cordial and diplomatic, but as soon as I was out of earshot he would probably shake his head and mutter "you have got to be kidding!" We are currently trying to avoid becoming like Greece, and some pretty serious cuts will probably have to be made in some programs that many of us like and support. Somehow, I just don't see how this has a chance of passing, and I for one cannot support it.

That's a fair statement, Trog, but if I could use a crude analogy... Trimming one's toenails is not an effective means of losing weight.

Funding of even $20 Million for WNS--which would exceed our wildest funding dreams and is the equivalent of dozens of economic lifetimes--would hardly cause anyone to blink in terms of federal budgeting. One TRILLION dollars is ONE MILLION x ONE MILLION... it is 1,000 x 1Billion.

I say let's fund WNS research (and NOT USFWS salaries) rather than build/re-pave 10 or 20 miles of highway somewhere.

[tncaver]

P. Youngbaer wrote: “The bulk of the rest of the USFWS funds went for building its own WNS staff, running WNS meetings, conference calls, policy development, and planning, such as the so-called Structured Decision Making exercise and the National WNS Plan. Most of the criticism I've heard is about these expenditures.”

Dean Wiseman wrote: “I say let's fund WNS research (and NOT USFWS salaries) rather than build/re-pave 10 or 20 miles of highway somewhere.”

WNS research is a much better way to spend money in my opinion. How can NSS members and other cavers contribute and be guaranteed money
will be used for WNS research rather than USFWS staff meetings, conference calls, policy and planning (which is basically what I call bureaucracy)?

[PYoungbaer]

Easy:

Another is to donate to our own WNS Rapid Response Fund. We've funded fourteen projects to date, and will continue to influence the direction of research to the extent funding is available. Please donate to the NSS fund:
http://www.caves.org/WNS/Rapid_Response.shtml if you can't support the petition. All of the funds go directly to research, not bureaucracy or management.

Our funds may not be used for indirect costs, attending meetings or conferences, or preparing the research application. And, it's tax-deductible, great for your year-end donations. Thank you!

[trogman]

In response to Trogman, this petition has nothing to do with the Supercommittee or this year's budget, which is what they are working on. The White House petition has to do with the budget the President will submit in his budget address after the New Year. It is for the very reasons you cite with the Supercommittee that we're not going that route. You are absolutely correct about the reaction of people in Congress - and it's on both sides of the political aisle. Most of the new Republicans came in on a cut spending pledge, so have steadfastly refused to sign on to any "Dear Collegue" letters or anything similar. Democrats refuse to sign on so as not to give any political advantage to potential election opponents.

This means that the real spending and priority decisions are being made behind the scenes and as a result of testimony taken in committees. These committees inform their negotiators, and funds get worked in. This is why funds have gotten freed up within already existing budgets to work on WNS. Pressure has come from Representatives and Senators (because they hear from us and want to do something) cavers, state agencies, academic researchers, and advocacy groups that have a permanent presence on Capitol Hill. These include Bat Conservation International, the Center for Biological Diversity, and many other wildlife organizations. This is why the NSS must stay engaged at the grass roots level. Thankfully, both Republicans and Democrats are aware of WNS and the problems it has created, and it's not a partisan issue, nor should it be. That means it won't be a headline grabbing issue. We're not going to see "Supercommittee Deadlocked on Bat Issue" screaming across the papers or taking up time of the talking heads on Fox News or MSNBC.

Direct contact with our Representatives and Senators has always been the best and most efficient, but not the only method of getting our message across. We need to pay attention to all those fronts, including petitions like these. These petitions don't change policy; what they do is create the opportunity for more deliberative and substantive input.

So again, please don't confuse the petition (which is for next year's budget), with the committee testimony we gave in June and the direct contact efforts we continue to make behind the scenes and ask that you continue to make to your delegation.

The Supercommittee will perhaps make its recommendations by its target date of Thanksgiving, unless it crashes and burns or gets an extension. No matter. They aren't going to decide funding for WNS. What they will do is set an overall budget number for agencies or departments. Within the Department of Interior, the rank and file members, staffs, and executive branch will then allocate the remaining funds to priority work. This is where our message and our contacts become important. If the message is there is too much bureaucracy and not enough hard research, then that can guide the allocation of remaining funds.

Again, the Supercommittee, if a budget gets determined through that method, will essentially set a new baseline. That's where the Administration will start for its next budget submission. Whatever that target is, we're hoping there will be research funding for WNS in it.

One additional federal budget process point: if such funding is in the President's budget, the agencies must defend it before Congress. Congress has to act affirmatively to remove it. Thus, it has a far greater chance of making it through the Congressional budget-making process than the way we've been doing it, which is to advocate for additions to the budget. This year, we recognize that additions are unlikely, but reallocations happen all the time. That's why we're at the table.

Hope that helps with some context.

Last I heard, the supercommittee was working on budget guidelines for the next 10 years. That includes next year. I know they aren't getting into the detailed specifics, such as "X million for WNS research." It was the principle of the thing that I was talking about-while Congress is hunting high and low for ways to trim the budget, here we come along wanting to add to it.

I have been watching this discussion and wanted to add a thought or two: If not for our current budget crisis our country is facing, I would likely lend my support and signature to this petition. I know in our world we think that any research that might stop or slow this disease is paramount and should take the highest priority. But in the bigger picture of the current budget battle and discussions by the "supercommittee," WNS research funding is really rather unimportant. While the committee struggles to find a way to avoid cuts to defense, welfare and entitlement programs, etc., here we come trying to increase funding for a research project that very few in the general public really care about. I can just imagine my congressman's reaction if I were to ask him to support such funding: I am sure to my face he would be cordial and diplomatic, but as soon as I was out of earshot he would probably shake his head and mutter "you have got to be kidding!" We are currently trying to avoid becoming like Greece, and some pretty serious cuts will probably have to be made in some programs that many of us like and support. Somehow, I just don't see how this has a chance of passing, and I for one cannot support it.

That's a fair statement, Trog, but if I could use a crude analogy... Trimming one's toenails is not an effective means of losing weight.

Funding of even $20 Million for WNS--which would exceed our wildest funding dreams and is the equivalent of dozens of economic lifetimes--would hardly cause anyone to blink in terms of federal budgeting. One TRILLION dollars is ONE MILLION x ONE MILLION... it is 1,000 x 1Billion.

I say let's fund WNS research (and NOT USFWS salaries) rather than build/re-pave 10 or 20 miles of highway somewhere.

I am a bit surprised at your take on this, Dean. ONLY 20 MILLION!!!??? Yes, compared to the total budget deficit, it is but a drop in the bucket. But there are countless other organizations and special-interest groups out there, all pleading for their "drop in the bucket." All of those drops add up to a lot of water, or in this case, money. And many of those other groups will tell you that their cause is so very important and urgent that it must be funded- after all, "its only a tiny amount compared to the total." This is the kind of attitude that got us here, because every Tom, Dick, and Harry special interest group has to get their portion of the federal budget pie. It all adds up!

Trogman

[PYoungbaer]

It's not necessarily more money, but a prioritization of what money is available.

5000 signatures and counting - still a ways to go, but that's not an insignificant number.

[BrianC]

What really gets me is the misleading data used to scare the public that without the potential WNS decimated bates it will cost 28 billion a year in additional insecticides. We have nearly total loss of bats in the northeast, and as of last year what information available shows zero additional insecticides used. The misleading information discussed actually derived from a study in South America where there are way more bats than all other mammals combined, and those bats do lots of work pollinating and eating insects. Bats at good numbers in the north east do nothing in either of these areas with any relevance. But, as stated our friends in the studies asking for more and more money, use this very study to scare the public! I can continue with other inconsistencies if needed There has been more than enough money raised to study WNS, if it had been used properly. The gold mine is out of gold! Let this be a learning experience!

[PYoungbaer]

I can continue with other inconsistencies if needed

That's OK, Brian, I think you've given us enough inconsistencies to last a life time.

Seriously, I don't know where you are getting your information. First of all, the one paper that was issued by Boyles, et al, was not a study, but an opinion piece by some of the best bat researchers in the country on the potential economic effects on agriculture. They readily admit in their paper the limitations of their data, which is why the range of potential impacts was so wide ($3 billion to more than $50 billion). They actually do say in their paper that the effects in the Northeast are likely far less than in the Midwest, for example, due to the large differences in agricultural practices and the percent of land devoted to agricultural use. They also exclude any impacts to forestry, which make the potential impact of the loss of bats greater.

During his Congressional testimony this past June, Justin Boyles pointed out that there are no other night time predators of flying insects poised to replace bats. The study, by the way, was not based in South America, but was done in Texas by Dr. Tom Kunz et al. It remains one of the only published works measuring the economic impact of bats.

Your statement about bats in the Northeast not being insect eaters "with any relevance," is simply wrong.