Its not over yet

[BrianC]

It would appear that we don't have enough cave closures.
http://www.daily-times.com/nmnews/ci_22484554/white-nose-syndrome-blm-holding-meeting-discuss-cave

[BrianC]

Of course the 800 mile jump is still suspect?

[Extremeophile]

These aren't new closures, just an update on the existing policy. This policy on BLM land in NM targets only significant bat caves with exceptions for research. No management plan is perfect, but this is the model that all public land managers should be following.

Brian, if you have something to contribute, and want to influence cave access decisions, then you should definitely attend the meeting.

[gindling]

Here is the synopsis of a meeting between the Northern Rocky Mountain Grotto and the USFS Region 1. It is interesting to see how all the regions have different rules and regulations. This has a lot to do with the "C" word and how the different entities define it.


Here is the meeting synopsis from Thursday’s meeting with USFS Northern Region (Region 1) staff, hosted by Eric Johnston.

1. The Forest Service (FS) would like to partner with the grotto on information gathering on bats and cave use as part of their risk abatement strategy with respect to White-Nose Syndrome (WNS).

2. The FS recognizes the grotto’s expertise in caving, and has neither the knowledge nor the resources to make informed management decisions in the region without the help of cavers.

3. The FS would like to formalize an agreement (Memorandum of Understanding, (MOU) or similar) with the grotto which, in exchange for information gathering and conformance to current decontamination procedures, would allow grotto-sanctioned trips to continue with an online “registration” process. Free, self-issued wilderness permits which are required in many US wilderness areas was offered as an analogy to the FS proposal. With respect to the “C word” (closure), it was offered that wilderness areas that require self-issued permits are technically “closed to cross-country travel, except by permit.” This example is to show that the FS’s use of the word “closure” should not be taken adversely, as hikers consider the wilderness areas “open,” although technically, again, they are “closed…except by permit.” This was part of a discussion of semantics (the “C” word) that are required to be used by the FS in their policies. Red Watson offered that the word “registration” is preferred over “permit” if possible, which was duly noted. Another perspective is that if grotto members want continued access to the region’s caves, we can keep our access in exchange for attesting to decontamination and reporting bat sightings. Finally, one mentioned grotto members should be doing that anyway.


5. An exception for exploration-related discoveries will be considered in the agreement. Since a large portion of the grotto membership routinely finds and explores virgin caves in the region, the agreement will include a provision for such activities, provided that decontamination procedures are followed and a subsequent report on bat observations is submitted.

6. The focus of the proposed agreement is on information gathering and risk mitigation. It is not the intention of the FS to keep us out of caves, rather it is their full intention to gather, as quickly as possible, information of bat use in the region’s caves while mitigating the risk of WNS transmission by utilizing the national decontamination policy.

[BrianC]

gindling, all good in theory, but with all that we know at this time eg; White Nose Syndrome follows migratory habits, cavers have not in any instance been responsible for the spread of WNS, WNS only has been proven to spread bat to bat, WNS can be spread long jumps because bats can jump travel on many vehicles, Why FS FWS, TNC etc... cannot use common sense and see that without much decon in the caving groups affiliated and not affiliated with organised caving see that WNS spreads Bat to Bat, and open caves to regular use?

[gindling]

damn double post....

[gindling]

Im not trying to debate you on transmission of WNS. I agree with you in that cavers have never been verified as a transmission vector. I was just showing how different management plans have been enacted within the same goverment body sometimes based on the definition of "closed". I don't know where you live so I don't know if you have experience with wilderness areas (which are damn near extinct out east besides small ones like the Charles C. Deam in Indiana), so you may already know this, but when you arrive at the boundary there is a small kiosk where you are supposed to fill out a Self Issued permit, under USFS laws these areas are "closed" until you fill one out. This is something similar to what they are thinking with caves. Self policing as of now, which is far better than outright NO. Though luckily the near freezing temps of the caves coupled with the usually miles long marches keeps the spelunker problem to a minimum, though that is a great problem here in the lava tubes of southern Idaho.

[PYoungbaer]

This statement jumped out at me:

"They found a bat in a cave in Western Oklahoma that had been dead for a while. DNA sequencing determined that white nose syndrome was in fact present in the soils there."

I don't believe this is true, and I've sent a request for confirmation to the lab.

I attended one of the BLM public meetings in Albuquerque two years ago, and agree with Extremophile's characterization. This was a targeted closure of a small number of significant bat caves by BLM. That said, I believe there is some room for improvement if the order is extended.

[PYoungbaer]

I confirmed today with Dr. David Blehert, USGS lab in Madison, Wisconsin, which did the testing on the Oklahoma bat, and also did the testing of the cave soils/sediments through the eastern U.S. that they haven't even tested any Oklahoma soils. So, it's not accurate to say that DNA testing confirmed WNS in the soils. In fact, DNA testing didn't confirm WNS in the bat either, only the presence of the fungus.

[wyandottecaver]

Since by definition WNS *CANT* exist in soil (as opposed to GD) the statement was suspect anyway. though the semantics are often confused, most people reporting DNA lab results should know the difference.

[PYoungbaer]

Wyandottecaver,

It wasn't lab folks to whom the statements were attributed - they are, as you say, more accurate with those sorts of statements.

Regarding your statement that WNS can't exist in soil anyway - that's true. But in this case, not even G.d was found to exist in the soil, so the statement was doubly troublesome.

With this in the public and media prior to the upcoming meetings in New Mexico, I felt it important to correct the record, and sent Jim a detailed message of correction and clarification.

[BrianC]

Wyandottecaver,

It wasn't lab folks to whom the statements were attributed - they are, as you say, more accurate with those sorts of statements.

Regarding your statement that WNS can't exist in soil anyway - that's true. But in this case, not even G.d was found to exist in the soil, so the statement was doubly troublesome.

With this in the public and media prior to the upcoming meetings in New Mexico, I felt it important to correct the record, and sent Jim a detailed message of correction and clarification.

You might want to set the 800 mile jump straight as well. It is more likely that a mouse dragged the carcass the distance than someone carried Gd there on their shoes.

Very obvious deductive reasoning is- If Gd were brought there and infected bats, many bats would show signs, where as the only real finding would have to be that a sickened lonely bat hitched a ride from a mode of transportation and found way to said cave where it died. Second because of the difficult ability of Gd being able to infect, no more bats had interaction with the lone sick bat, What else could be found reasonable. I am being facetious with that statement because it isn't really an open question unless other motives are in effect!

[wyandottecaver]

well I'm bored, so I gotta play devil's advocate here.

btw "hitching a ride from mode of transportation" pretty much translates to human transmission...just saying.

My obvious deductive reasoning is that bats by their nature tend to interact and GD/WNS by it's nature passes EASILY among bats and kills relatively slowly. If GD made it to OK by any means and ended up infecting a bat, it probably came in contact with other bats before death. Therefore, if GD and WNS were not subsequently observed elsewhere then we must consider (in order of probability based on my opinion):

0) GD/WNS is present in OK but at very low levels
1) Transmission/infection of GD/WNS is so hampered by local environmental factors it cant persist
2) There was a lab error ( previous threads make this a low probability)
3) A sick disoriented bat travelled far from familiar surroundings and avoiding other bats happened upon a cave by accident.....
4) local bats are not affected (or not observably so) by GD/WNS
5) WNS is present in OK bats at observable rates but nobody caves there....

[Extremeophile]

The OK bat was a cave myotis (velifer). I don't believe their range extends much farther to the east, so I don't think it was hitching a ride anywhere. I believe Oklahoma is at the NE extent of it's normal migratory range. Also, I don't think there's any evidence that it became sick and died. It was killed by a researcher but was exhibiting no signs of illness. There have been lots of wildlife biologists looking all over Oklahoma for WNS for the past 3 years without finding anything. It has been argued that the lab testing conclusively showed Gd, but I still believe the empirical evidence suggests there was a problem somewhere in sample identification, isolation, test specificity, whatever. Will WNS reach Oklahoma? Perhaps, but I don't think it did in 2010.

[wyandottecaver]

Derek,

you may not know, but if it wasn't exhibiting any external signs of illness why was it killed? Certainly suspect bats are routinely collected for sampling. While I don't see an issue with it per se', grabbing a random bat just to see if the site might be infected isn't common I don't think.

You probably read the thread where Peter and I discussed the reasoning behind the validity of the OK lab results. I agree that at least that particular "proof" simply means they double checked the validity the lab process and reagents...it tells you nothing about the validity of the sample in the first place.

Also, since I'm playing devil's advocate in this thread, if OK is at the NE edge of it's range then maybe we should check the Convention sites in Texas....