Extremeophile wrote:The USFWS are assuming that people may spread the disease - without proof. It's a hypothesis that has now been mistakenly taken as fact by many land managers, the media, etc.
Making the argument that people can not possibly spread the disease is another hypothesis that has also not been proven. I certainly hope this is correct, but unfortunately the issue hasn't been resolved. An opinion that people don't spread the disease, without evidence, doesn't cancel an opinion that people do spread the disease. What is needed is more research, but when people become convinced that their opinion is factual, then they start to see research as a waste of time and money. We need more objectivity from those on both sides of the fence and a willingness to seek the "truth".
Well said. I know many people don't and can't read all the WNS information that is available, but I would recommend that people take the time to read the NSS's formal comments on the draft WNS national plan.
http://www.caves.org/WNS/WNS%20NSS%20Comments%20on%20Draft%20WNS%20National%20Plan,%20Dec.%2026,%202010.pdf
Of many points we raised, one in particular was a theme that runs through the comments: what is the decision-making process for deciding whether or not a plan action is working? The plan lacks specific goals and objectives, and has no evaluation process for determining whether or not a goal has been achieved. Without hard research to guide decision-making, we will be left in a stew of speculation by everyone.
That research takes money, and we've been raising it and advocating for it. Maybe we'll get enough to answer some of these questions, and maybe not. But not to try means we must admit that we're OK with speculation. Clearly, many people are not, so let's do the science and make informed decisions. Let's be at the table where those decisions will be made. Let's continue to insist that those decisions be made based on the science we've helped fund. Let's continue to insist that the plan has benchmarks for determining if something is working or not, not the open-ended state of affairs we have today.
Cavemud believes nature will take its course. Others believe that, too; I've even heard some of the bat researchers say that in their darker hours. But they don't give up trying to do something. And without science to inform them that some of the hypotheses out there about geographic or species or epidemiological limitations are, in fact, true, or, as Cavemud believes, the efforts are, in fact, not working, then all of that boils down, once again, to speculation. And that won't change management policies. Answers are needed, not more speculation.
Here's what I have to say on "The NSS and WNS,"
http://www.caves.org/WNS/The%20NSS%20and%20WNS%20final.pdf
Let's do what we are, in fact, are about: studying, exploring, and conserving caves and all their natural resources. Let's continue to lead with our expertise - demonstrating why our opinions are sound.
In all of these thoughts and comments, I believe wyandottecaver hit it more on the head, so that all of us can understand his thoughts. 
That's not to say that anyone else, who has written, is wrong or anything like that. 
As for "splitting the convention, one inside the infected area and one outside," do you know what headaches that could and would cause...even if there were two areas that would take on the problem? It's difficult enough, now, getting grottos and regions to step up to the plate, in putting on a convention. Most of those individuals have given up caving for a year or more, because of the amount of business, planning, and labor it takes to put on such an event. Maybe we should go back to conventions in hotels, etc. away from any caving areas, to implement your thoughts. That might be the only solution...but, today's cavers probably wouldn't want to attend those kinds of conventions...unfortunately! Or, in the case of WNS, fortunately! It might accomplish what you were suggesting. 
Cavechat RSS Feed