wyandottecaver wrote:I also think a serious discussion should be started now about NEXT winter. In particular doing extensive hibernacula surveys across the NE and midwest (with cross contamination prevention in mind) to identify infected sites by late next winter and taking a serious look at eliminating infected animals and even whole colonies. Yes, that means actively destroying animals in infected locations. I'll say it again, we must seriously consider exterminating infected colonies. With the high mobility of cavers and bats, and the aggressive nature of this disease we need to be thinking now about keeping BOTH cavers and bats from carrying this threat beyond the scope it reaches next winter if at all possible.
Here's an even more emotionally difficult idea, from the other side of the spectrum. In order to express this idea, I have to bring up some theoretical things, which I hope will not be viewed as off-topic.
Maybe, if this syndrome is not the result of recent human alteration to the ecosystem, it would be wrong make positive alterations to the environment to try to stop the spread of the disease and consequent massive die-offs.
This cuts to a major point of contention--is the diversity of species what is valuable, or is it the natural processes by which diversity of species happens that is valuable? Bats provide many benefits to humans, and that may be a valid reason to interfere in the natural development of bat species, altering ecosystems containing bats for our own benefit. But it is another thing entirely for humans to decide that we want there to be bats (of certain species, in certain locations, or *at all*), so we will alter the environment to make it conform to our wishes...and then call that environmental conservation. We know that bats are beneficial to humans because we define our own needs and desires over a short period of time--that of only a few generations. It is much more difficult to know what *natural* processes are bad for the Earth, and I am *terrified* of the idea that we should control the natural course that the planet takes.
One can argue that humans are already hurting the planet, so we should offset our harm by performing unrelated acts of mercy that do not address or reverse the harm we have done and are doing, but improve the natural world in other ways. I disagree. Just because an alteration to the environment looks like a good idea now does not mean that in the long run it is.
You can also say that humans are part of nature, and that is definitely true. In fact, a great deal of harm has been done due to people's failure to recognize that. And I would not say that it is generally wrong for one kind of life to effect devastating change on all others. (DIsagree? I guess those cyanobacteria are real Earth-destroyers!) But humans are able to understand, in part, the effects of what we do on the world, and we are also able to understand that our understanding is limited. Just as it is natural for us (as intelligent, tool-using beings) to have an effect on the planet, the urge to exercise moderation and limit the ways in which we interfere with other species is just as natural. The knowledge that humans are part of nature does not excuse us from keeping our hands off of things, absent a very compelling reason to do otherwise. The harm done by those who believe humans are separate from nature has usually arisen from the belief that humans are stewards and masters of nature. Neither is the case.
Now, humans have had an enormous impact on bats already, mostly in the last couple generations, and it has been virtually all negative. Bats would be doing a lot better if it weren't for us. So it may make sense for us to interfere with them, to the point of intentionally killing some of them to save others, so as to partially reverse the damage that we have caused (and are causing). But that would be a conclusion that would have to be supported with compelling evidence, and in my (inadequately humble) opinion, you need a *lot* of evidence to be secure in the belief that it is right to enter a natural environment and deliberately kill things for the express purpose of interfering with a major natural process.