Note: Read this chronology from the bottom for a rather interesting reaction to my posting of the Oklahoma bat news on the Northeast Bat Working Group (NEBWG) website. Guess I struck a nerve. A little defensive? Does not portend any change of approach by USFWS. Seriously, I do have tremendous respect for the scientists at the USGS lab. My comments below put that in context. Peter Apparently, Jeremy and I were typing simultaneously in response to Al. I just posted a link to Andy King's excellent I-bat data report, which tracks one specific species with state by state, and regional population survey data over time - in this case 2005 through 2013, where the population held steady, actually increasing by 1%.
If Missouri has documented declines in three other species, it would be good for all to see the data. My previous comments were based on the reports related to the WNS map.
Re: USGS NWLC folks, they are some of the best scientists I have ever met, with a great facility, and whose integrity I would never question. However, a government agency admitting an error is unfortunately a rarity, and when done, should be applauded.
Hyperbole? Yes, there was plenty. I remember quite vividly a USFWS slide showing equidistant arrows pointing from the East Coast to Oklahoma and then to the West Coast. "WNS is now half way across the country." All too many media stories, and comments from advocacy groups like the Center for Biological Diversity and others created an environment that was far from science.
Part of the reaction out West was the blanket closure order issued by the U.S. Forest Service for that region, including Colorado. It was carried out quickly, and not smoothly, and created massive amounts of ill will with the caving community that has taken years to rebuild. Thankfully, Secretary Vilsac was responsive and helped create the environment to adjust management responses to be more practical and inclusive of all cave conservation and management needs, not just bats.
I hope a lesson has been learned that will see that mirrored elsewhere moving forward. Scientific events and announcements like this don't take place in isolation, the pure science aspect of it notwithstanding. We're naive if we think they do, and it's imperative that we consider the context.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Coleman, Jeremy <jeremy_coleman@fws.gov>
To: Northeast Bat Working Group <nebwg-l@list.wpunj.edu>
Cc:
Youngbaer4@aol.com <youngbaer4@aol.com>; Tony Elliott (
Anthony.Elliott@mdc.mo.gov) <Anthony.Elliott@mdc.mo.gov>; Paul Barrett <paul_barrett@fws.gov>; Allysia Park <apark@ccwhc.ca>; David Blehert <dblehert@usgs.gov>; Anne Ballmann <aballmann@usgs.gov>; Richard Geboy <Richard_Geboy@fws.gov>
Sent: Thu, May 8, 2014 12:49 pm
Subject: Re: [nebwg-l] USGS says Oklahoma bat was NOT positive - issues retraction
Thank you, Al, for providing the opportunity to respond to Peter's email, and to discuss the recent news release out of Oklahoma.
Peter, it is nice when we can find some common ground on issues, and I must say that I agree there was a large reaction to the report that evidence of Pd (then Gd) was found in western Oklahoma in 2010. The detection came as a big surprise and represented a considerable threat to bats in the Southwest and western US at a time when few in the region, if any, were prepared to respond. I disagree with your assertion that the gravity of the situation was exaggerated or aggrandized, and I counter that the reported findings served as a wake-up call that did a lot to raise awareness of WNS nationwide and get agencies and individuals prepared. We now have evidence to suggest that call may have come well in advance of the arrival of the fungus, but the reality is that we lack the tools and capacity to know unequivocally where the fungus exists, and where it does not exist, in advance of the disease. The recent report also does not diminish the considerable risks posed by this disease or change the perception of those risks at the time. Sure, it is easy to throw stones given the latest information, but the results were from the best science we had at the time, and the “management reaction” had to address the scenario that those lab results presented. Science can be slow and imperfect; regardless, decisions must be made using the best information at hand. And, as you know, the process must be adaptive. Furthermore, I too am glad that USGS-NWHC was able to reanalyze the Woodward County sample using the latest PCR, but suggest that their report to Oklahoma DWC had nothing to do with candor. They are scientists.
Regarding maps of WNS occurrence by county, I agree with you that they give the impression of a rapidly spreading disaster… and I challenge your assertion that WNS is anything less than that. The maps depict the counties and districts where WNS or Pd have been detected or are suspected to occur. This is worthwhile information to convey, and while it does not tell the whole story, the information is factual to the extent that we know it – not hyperbole. Speaking of presenting facts, the latest I have out of the Missouri Dept. of Conservation is that they have not only recorded their first mortality from WNS this year, but that they have documented population declines in three species across multiple sites. Taken with the reports of considerable bat mortality at sites across the Southeast and Midwest, it would appear that this winter has been particularly hard on WNS-affected bat species in the US, demonstrating the potential for impacts across these regions that are comparable to what has been documented in the Northeast and eastern Canada. Those sound like "massive bat deaths" to me, worthy of our concern and continued attention.
Those are the facts as I know them.
Jeremy
__________________________
Jeremy T. H. Coleman, Ph.D.
National White-Nose Syndrome Coordinator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035 USA
office: 413.253.8223
mobile: 413.265.1441
jeremy_coleman@fws.govhttp://www.WhiteNoseSyndrome.orgCelebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Endangered Species Act
Al,
I'm referring to the WNS map reports of confirmations of the presence of the fungus and/or the actual disease. There is only mention of one bat mortality to date, unless I missed something (always a possibility).
The Missouri Indiana data is particularly interesting, as a new colony of 123,000 bats was confirmed photographically during the 2013 biennial survey. Population is unchanged (actually up 1%) since 2005. See the official USFWS I-bat report from Andy King:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/m ... ug2013.pdfPeter
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 4:13 PM, <achicks@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Hey Peter,
Good to see you still have a finger in the pie.
I always thought that the Oklahoma record was suspicious, given that it was so isolated and never expanded to include additional sites. As for Missouri, I am not up on the details at all... are you saying that no bats are emerging during the winter time and that winter counts are unchanging? The lack of carcasses is not a surprise at all. I would guess that the number of carcasses we found in the Williams complex could have been counted on one hand. We did have lots of bats emerging into snow and ice and lots of bats were found dead in the neighborhood.. Our counts dropped from around 150,000 to 15,000.
If the Missouri winter weather is substantially less stressful (I am pretty sure that it is) then bats could leave with some expectation of survival, including choosing to leave at night instead of during the day time and being able to fly much further, 50 miles or more perhaps, before running out of gas. If bats are indeed infected, numbers are not changing, and bats are not fleeing prematurely at sites that have been infected multiple years, then that is very good news.
I am still waiting for the call to work on your campaign. May I suggest that you become the governor of NY?
Al
---- "Youngbaer4@aol.com" <youngbaer4@aol.com> wrote:
> See attached letter. The wildlife management reaction to the Oklahoma bat finding years ago was large - hyperbolic, some say. Turns out, it wasn't true. I'm glad USGS was candid enough to issue this public statement, but the management reaction still stands. Hyperbole has been an unfortunate part of the entire WNS reality, even today. Look at the WNS map for Missouri, for example. As county after county has been checked off for "suspect" or "positive for the fungus," it creates the impression in the public's eye and the media's eye of a rapidly spreading disaster. Not to understate the reality of massive bat deaths where they have occurred, to this date - as far as my records show - there is only a single confirmed bat death in Missouri.
>
> Maybe more will follow in the coming years, but I urge us to let the facts speak, not the hyperbole.
>
> Peter Youngbaer