WNS Confirmed in Mammoth Cave NP

[John Lovaas]

Wyandottecaver-

"...decon did not work..."

Citation, please.

[dfcaver]

Obviously, those pesky bats refused to follow the decon protocols.

Decon did diminish the already tiny chance of humans transporting any spores into a new environment. Unforunately, the bats proved themselves to be very efficient carriers...

[BrianC]

The USFW Service should be compelled to offer an accounting of what they did with what they took.

Don't hold your breath, but if they make any statement at all, it will b e structured like this; "The closing of caves on fed, state, and local areas have significantly reduced the spread of WNS according to the actual maps available, and any person that disagrees with the findings has no conservation accountability" I like any true conversationalist, have the mindset to see through the smoke and, mirrors and see the truth.

[BrianC]

Wyandottecaver-

"...decon did not work..."

Citation, please.

Please John, show where it did work! Not with maps, rather show where bats have not been infected in caves open to the public to any degree (where decon is fully established), less than caves locally open to cavers where no decon has been regulated in the same area with a similar bat population of type and gender.

[tncaver]

Bats spread WNS. Decon to/by humans is irrelevant to that fact.

[John Lovaas]

Wyandottecaver-

"...decon did not work..."

Citation, please.

Please John, show where it did work!

Well, it works for commercial fungi cultivators. That's where I learned about the efficacy of 409 in the 1990s.

The question was for Mr. W.

[BrianC]

Well, it works for commercial fungi cultivators. That's where I learned about the efficacy of 409 in the 1990s.

The question was for Mr. W.

Sorry John, Just had to interject there.

[wyandottecaver]

John,

I will preface by saying that certainly decon for some things in some cases does work, sterilizing surgical instruments and such as an example. I am referring explicitly to the decon protocols developed for WNS.

I start with a quote from earlier in this thread.
This method includes physical removal of spores and chemical treatment to kill the spores in the time taken to walk across a decontamination mat. Using this data, it’s clear that the current biomats at MACA would not be effective at killing all G. destructans spores.

So it appears that at least that form of decon does not work using a previously validated substance (Lysol IC). Further, the goal of decon is not just the killing of GD spores (which a blowtorch will do nicely) but to provide a process that is reliable and effective AND actually implemented when specified in the real world to prevent the movement of GD and possible spread of WNS.

Is decon reliable and effective at killing GD? It can be, especially in a lab. But must be well implemented with the proper concentrations and times and must include ALL potential contaminated surfaces which could include gear, containers, hair, bodies, cars etc. depending on cavers behaviour. In both performing small group decon for permit activities and observing large scale event level decon in the the real world I feel confident that in many cases the above crriteria were not met despite a genuine willingness to make the system work. While I doubt it made a difference to WNS spread, *if* GD was truly present and using humans as a significant vector the decon I have observed would probably not have worked.

Is decon actually implemented when specified? Sometimes. That is not a failure of the decon process, but a failure of implementation. The end result is still the same, it can't work if it isn't done. Of the active cavers and actual cave trips (not counting formal Permit trips in Agency caves) I have personally been involved with in IN and KY (both in WNS areas) in the last 2 years, decon has been performed on only a small fraction of the trips and in the cases it was, by only a subset of the group. In addition, I personally know at least 4 cavers who have caved across several entire regions and even internationally who have NEVER deconned.

So, Decon doesn't work not because it can't kill GD, but because it often wouldn't in the real world if GD were present and because it often isn't actually implemented in the first place thus failing in the primary goal of preventing WNS spread.

Of course this all assumes that there is actually something there decon can stop and it needs decon to stop it. I think observational data shows clearly that movement of GD and the spread of WNS using human vectors makes the whole issue of decon essentially moot except in very limited and specific circumstances.

[John Lovaas]

Wyandotte-

You lost me when you quoted Peter. That excerpt he quoted is from July 2011. There's been a great deal of research done at MACA since then. If you are going to claim that MACA's protocols are ineffective, you may want to ask Hazel Barton before you do so.

18 months is an eternity in this issue. 18 months ago, there were still bat biologists talking about imaginary French scientists bringing WNS to New York state. 18 months ago, I had to listen to a state endangered resources manager tell me that a tourist could bring one spore from Tennessee to Cave of the Mounds in Wisconsin, another tourist could pick that one spore up and carry it to Wisconsin's Crystal Cave, infecting the bats there. Really. Probably the dumbest pseudoscientific BS I've ever heard in my life. Of course, her views were shaped entirely by her state bat biologist.

The snippet of text I quoted from you was, grammatically, a statement of fact- but your response was based on A) old information and B) speculation.

Which is par for the course on this issue.

[PYoungbaer]

All,

Let me take this opportunity to reply to several comments and questions on this thread.

First, in response to Crockett's question,

if closing caves is intended to slow the spread of WNS and give more time, what has been done with that time?

I'd say that Wyandottecaver's response, while slightly hyperbolic, pretty much hits all the points. A perhaps less skeptical view of what has occurred in the interim would be that of Dr. David Blehert of the USGS, in a summary of the disease he wrote that was published this past summer in Plos Pathogens (Blehert DS (2012) Fungal Disease and the Developing Story of Bat White-nose Syndrome. PLoS Pathog 8(7): e1002779. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1002779). The entire article is linked on the NSS WNS web page, under the Education section. In his conclusions, he writes:

Conclusions

Infectious diseases occur when a pathogen is introduced into a population of susceptible hosts under appropriate environmental conditions. In the case of WNS, the pathogen is G. destructans, the hosts are hibernating bats, and the environments that promote development of disease are cold underground hibernacula that bats occupy during winter. Unlike pathogenic microbes such as viruses that require host species for their survival, fungal pathogens can survive in the environment in the absence of hosts, providing them with the unique potential to extirpate host populations. Thus, WNS presents a dire threat to populations of insectivorous hibernating bats in North America. However, much is known about the physiology of bat host species, and since the first published description of WNS, we have isolated and identified the pathogen and developed model systems to study host–pathogen aspects of WNS in the laboratory, affording opportunities to fully define mechanisms of WNS pathogenesis. To date, efforts to manage the spread of WNS have focused on implementation of universal precautions, including restricting access of humans to sensitive bat hibernation sites and decontaminating equipment and clothing when sites are accessed for disease surveillance, research, or recreational purposes. Despite the considerable challenge of managing infectious disease in free-ranging wildlife while avoiding unintended adverse consequences, additional research aimed at increasing our understanding of the ecology of WNS in bats and their environment continues to offer the greatest potential for identifying novel strategies to mitigate the effects of this unprecedented disease.

So, Crockett, your question needs to be broader than just for USFWS. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead federal agency in the WNS investigation, it is my no means the only. The U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Park System, the Bureau of land Management, and even the Department of Defense are all active in different ways. State agencies from nearly 40 states have been involved, mostly through federal State Wildlife Grants, but in some cases their own state funds. Private research labs - even Disney - academic institutions, and Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) such as BCI, TNC, and the NSS have all been involved.

While many questions remain unanswered,much has been learned about the disease, the fungus, and the bats themselves. Certainly, no cure has been found - or more correctly, many things have been found that kill the fungus, but virtually all of them cause problems for the bats, including death. Moreover, the practical logistical challenges of field application, much less affordability and, importantly, environmental impact make their use unlikely except in limited circumstances.

If you read Dr. Blehert's conclusions carefully, he candidly acknowledges that management efforts have focused on preventing possible human vectoring of WNS. That's because the logistical, economic, and environmental challenges of field application of any cure are widely considered impractical, if not impossible. Yes, substances have been found that kill the fungus, but then what? Blehert ends by saying that future actions will focus on mitigating the effects of the disease.

In the WNS-ravaged regions, that means things like avoiding hibernacula when bats are present, educating the public about the value of bats, encouraging the erection of bat houses, informing homeowners of the proper time to exclude bats (after the juveniles can forage), and protection of summer and maternity habitat. In other words, shifting to conservation and recovery.

Similarly, the U.S. Forest Service is in the process of shifting its focus, as reflected in this presentation:

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2012_amelon_s001.pdf

It's entitled, "U.S. Forest Service Research and Development (USFS R/D) National Science Strategy on White Nose Syndrome (WNS). I would specifically direct you to the top of page 10, where the authors put forth what they believe should be the focus of WNS efforts for the Forest Service: "We propose the expenditure of funds for this EID (Emerging Infections Disease) should shift from the paradigm of focusing on surveillance for clinical disease and attempting to control inevitable disease spread to focusing on the desired endpoint for bat conservation and recovery, that is - the perpetuation of viable bat populations even if G. destructans is endemic."

It's also important to understand that all of the federal agencies have differing missions and authorities under the law. I would disagree in part with Wyandottecaver when he says,

"Of course that all assumes we want to help bats, help caves, help caving, and implement common sense solutions. I don't believe those shaping Federal WNS policy have ANY of those goals in mind."

First off, I have to say that I have been incredibly impressed with the compassion and professionalism of virtually all federal and state personnel working on WNS in terms of their desire to help bats. They have gone beyond their job descriptions and found resources under rocks for this effort, particularly early on. That said, it's true that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has no mission or authority beyond biology regarding WNS. As I wrote strongly in the NSS's comments on the WNS National Plan, this biology-centric plan shortchanges cave conservation and an array of other sciences and human activity.

However, the missions of the National Parks, the BLM, and the Forest Service are multi-faceted, and include the public's use and enjoyment of the natural resources under their management as part of their mission, in addition to protection of species.

That said, I wouldn't disagree that the farther up the bureaucratic chain one goes, the more disconnected from, or simply ignorant of caves and caving some people are. That's a challenge.

So, Crockett, a lot has been done. WNS hasn't been cured or stopped, but many things have been learned. And while conservation and protection of survivors may now be the focus at ground zero and environs, unaffected areas are spending time and resources trying to build a baseline of information about their bats - a luxury we did not have in the Northeast before WNS overtook us.

In terms of asking USFWS for an accounting, they have reported to Congress, and Jeremy Coleman frequently presents on what USFWS is up to and has done, and what has been learned. He made such a presentation at the Conservation Session of the NSS convention this past summer, and I just saw an update two weeks ago at the Northeast Bat Working Group (NEBWG). If the implication is that funds have been wasted or inefficiently spent, I personally think it's been overly bureaucratic, and some funds have been spent inadvisably. A case in point would be the disastrous Virginia Big-Eared captive breeding experiment. Thankfully, those efforts have been abandoned for almost all of the affected species, and put on hold for the others, as per USFWS' report to NEBWG. It's a mixed bag.

Regarding John Lovass' question about decon, I think Wyandottecaver gave a pretty nuanced and comprehensive response. I would add, as I have in prior posts over the years, that decon does work, but is only one item on a spectrum of risk management strategies. At the top of the chain would be not caving at all. At the bottom would be wearing your muddy coveralls from cave to cave without ever cleaning them. Along the spectrum would be other strategies, including a good laundering, which would get rid of many spores, and doing partial deconning. Other strategies would include using dedicated gear, or only caving in a limited region.

John, regarding the ignorant state endangered resources manager who said that one spore moving around would cause the disease, you are absolutely justified in calling that " pseudoscientific BS." Let me say this clearly, and please forgive my use of all caps, but I want any agency person not intimate with the WNS research to know that:

AFTER SEVEN YEARS, WE STILL DO NOT KNOW THE MULTIPLICITY OF INFECTION FOR WNS. WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH OF THE FUNGUS IT TAKES TO CAUSE INFECTION.

Indeed, in communicating with Hazel Barton a couple days ago, she said the load dosage used for lab inoculations was 500,000 spores. In fact, that was the exact spore load used in Dr. Lisa Warneke, et al's comparative study, "Inoculation of bats with European Geomyces destructans supports the novel pathogen hypothesis for the origin of white-nose syndrome" (Warnecke, et al; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 9, 2012). A link to the full study can be found under the Research section of the NSS' WNS web site.

Regarding the Mammoth Cave biomats, perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been in my earlier post. They don't work. Dr. Barton confirmed that again just the other day. Another consulting firm is now working with Mammoth Cave and testing other substances, but I'm not aware of any results, or any changes to the mats. The off-label use of Lysol IC that caused a change in the decon protocols would also be an issue, so what's going to happen with the biomats is unclear.

Finally, the fun part. BrianC asked,

"Does anyone know exactly what speed at which WNS is spreading?"

You're in luck - I've just finished those calculations. There are two possible answers, as I figure it.

First, if you accept today's date in 2006 as the beginning of WNS, then WNS has been spreading for seven years, including one leap year. That would make it 2556 days, or 61,344 hours. The distance from the non-commercial Howe's Cave to Onondaga Cave is 1779.59 miles as the bat flies. This would mean WNS is spreading at the rate of 0.029 MPH, or 254.23 miles per year.

On the other hand, WNS is not spreading during the winter, except perhaps locally, and arguably not much at all during the summer.The disease is apparently spreading only when hibernating bats are seasonally migrating to mix with other bats at maternity roosts or fall swarming sites. Assuming an average flight speed of the hibernating species of 18 MPH, and we estimate the spring emergence flights to maternity colonies last approximately three weeks, and another three weeks for return to the hibernacula and fall swarming, we have a period of six weeks of actual travel per year. This would mean only 7056 hours of actual "spreading time" since WNS began. Divide that into the 1779.59 miles the disease has moved, and one arrives at a spreading speed of 0.25 MPH.

So, 0.029 MPH, or 0.25 MPH. We report; you decide. Remarkably, either way the disease has spread 254.23 miles per year. Wait. How can that be? Clearly more research is needed.

(apologies to our neighbors to the north for omitting the conversions to KPH)

[wyandottecaver]

254.23 miles/yr.

Per BCI, (many other sources exist I used that as an example) little Browns have documented migration lengths of between 200-800km (124-497 miles). individual records of radio-tracked or banded long distance migrations across several states have been noted. Certainly these would not be oriented on an exact line from Howes to Onandaga or even necessarily east to west.

However, a cold NE starting point would be expected to travel mostly SW if all we were looking at was long distance bat migration. 254.23 miles/yr. in a generally SW direction.....One could say it was a smoking gun for bat vectors. Of course one could also say WNS has gone where WNS can go. Even WNS carried intentionally by people to Texas, New Mexico (or Oklahoma) could possibly find it difficult to establish and persist in any event.

[Crockett]

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response Peter. I agree that a lot has been done, mysteries remain and more research is needed. Please consider formalizing a State of the War With WNS that spans these 7 years...this is probably a part of your regular reporting and I am too dull to know.

An observation -They would blame us if they could so cavers should instead be recognized and praised for the lack of a big human caused jump. Right? We will probably have to do the praise and recognition ourselves, but that's ok too.

[BrianC]

Finally, the fun part. BrianC asked,
"Does anyone know exactly what speed at which WNS is spreading?"
You're in luck - I've just finished those calculations. There are two possible answers, as I figure it.

First, if you accept today's date in 2006 as the beginning of WNS, then WNS has been spreading for seven years, including one leap year. That would make it 2556 days, or 61,344 hours. The distance from the non-commercial Howe's Cave to Onondaga Cave is 1779.59 miles as the bat flies. This would mean WNS is spreading at the rate of 0.029 MPH, or 254.23 miles per year.

On the other hand, WNS is not spreading during the winter, except perhaps locally, and arguably not much at all during the summer.The disease is apparently spreading only when hibernating bats are seasonally migrating to mix with other bats at maternity roosts or fall swarming sites. Assuming an average flight speed of the hibernating species of 18 MPH, and we estimate the spring emergence flights to maternity colonies last approximately three weeks, and another three weeks for return to the hibernacula and fall swarming, we have a period of six weeks of actual travel per year. This would mean only 7056 hours of actual "spreading time" since WNS began. Divide that into the 1779.59 miles the disease has moved, and one arrives at a spreading speed of 0.25 MPH.

So, 0.029 MPH, or 0.25 MPH. We report; you decide. Remarkably, either way the disease has spread 254.23 miles per year. Wait. How can that be? Clearly more research is needed.

(apologies to our neighbors to the north for omitting the conversions to KPH)
Peter Youngbaer

So I was right, I spreads much quicker than my turtle can move. Amazing!

[PYoungbaer]

yes, but another day has passed, and the rate has now slowed to 0.0289 MPH

[ohiocaver]

My understanding is that the Lysol mats were removed at Mammoth Cave because of the potential damage the chemicals had on other cave biota. The chemical was traipsed through the cave on boots and any critter unlucky enough to land, walk, squiggle or otherwise come in contact with the material was prone to injury.
In any case, the mats were gone from the tourist entrances when I was there last month.