It's been three weeks since the NSS wrote USFWS asking for it's data and methodology in producing its estimate that "at least 5.7 million to 6.7 million" bats have died from WNS, and four weeks since USFWS put out its news release. We still have no response.
However, USFWS spokeswoman, Ann Froschauer did put a post up on the USFWS WNS Blog, including a portion written by Jeremy Coleman. It basically reiterates what the news release said - that they used two methods to arrive at their result, but no details and no data. Coleman says they are preparing a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, but who knows when that might appear?
Coleman also says,
"The methods we used for this exercise preclude the generation of confidence estimates,..." What? What the heck does that mean? What scientific peers will review this? Coleman says that all involved were "generally satisfied" with the "relative agreement" of the methods. I'm sorry, but this is opinion, not science.
Here's a link to the Blog:
http://whitenosebats.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/estimating-mortality/Seriously, I was a part of the group in Austin that came up with the original estimate. I was also privy to the USFWS estimate that was prepared for U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg just last March (2011), of 1.1 million bats. Both of those methods had their acknowledged shortcomings, but that said, just what is USFWS saying now? Did at least an additional 4.6 -5.6 million bats die from WNS in the last 11 months? I don't think anyone can say that, and surely not demonstrate it.
If that's the case, than USFWS's estimate last March was way off. Are they admitting that now? If so, how do they arrive at that? Please explain. These two scenarios cannot coexist.
This is why the NSS asked for a time element to go along with the numbers. In my educated opinion, it is more likely that the deaths - whatever number - have been spread out over the years. But either way, let's see the calculations.
Further, with what we do know about WNS - that cave microclimates affect disease progression, and that WNS affects different species differently, and that some suspect warmer southern climates, smaller western colony size, and species range differences may predict some speed change in the disease spread - scientists and managers need to know and understand the details. Is WNS speeding up or slowing down? Is is slowing in the South, but accelerating in the North? Wouldn't this be more helpful than simply putting out a raw number, which does not help fashion a response or allocate scarce resources?
Finally, nearly every WNS media story now includes boiler plate language to the effect that "over 5 million" or "nearly 7 million" bats have died, up from the previous 1 million. This leaves the clear public impression that the disease has just recently exploded. Even USFWS Director Ashe uses the term "startling new information" to describe the situation in the news release, clearly implying that it just happened. Others say "astonishing" or "alarming," or use similar terms. These are words connoting immediacy, and are carefully chosen for their impact. These are advocacy terms, not scientific terms, and I don't believe they honestly describe what has happened. This hype gets in the way of reasoned and rational scientific inquiry and common sense managerial action.
(Note: edited for typo and format corrections)