by ek » Jun 19, 2009 7:25 pm
Hold on now, wyandottecaver. Your analogy to killing a rabid dog doesn't seem to fit. In fact, this appears to be the least well constructed and least compelling argument you've made so far. Without intending offense, the inadequacy of this analogy actually makes me consider the position that bat colonies should be exterminated to be a less credible position. Because WNS-infected bat colonies are so obviously not like rabid dogs.
First of all, I'm not convinced that you are using the term "colony" correctly. Are two separate groups of bats, of possibly different species, in the same cave but separated by many miles, the same colony? What if they're separated by many miles and several sumps?
What about two caves that are near one another, such that there is only a short distance between the bats in one cave and those in another? Would those be separate colonies? What if the entrances are only three feet apart? What if the two caves used to be one cave, but now it's impossible to get from one to the other because the connection has been closed off permanently by human quarrying operations? (We have a that situation up here in the northeast--Howe Caverns and Barytes).
Second of all, you seem to be saying that because a colony is like an organism in some ways, and that this is especially often so with respect to diseases, that a colony can be considered a single organism without further consideration, i.e. that because a colony has many of the same properties as an organism, that it has all the same properties. But this is patently false--if there are some resistant bats, and WNS kills most but not all of the colony, then those bats were substantially different from the rest of the colony. If there are some bats that are not resistant but recover, and those recovering bats comprise a substantial percentage of their species in their area (or perhaps of their species in a wide geographic area), then, again, this is a way that the colony is not like a single organism. You are categorically and, it seems, uncritically ignoring all the possible benefits of allowing some bats to live, and having implicitly concluded that there is no realizable benefit of allowing some to live, you then, in your first logically valid rhetorical step, conclude that all should die. Well, I don't buy it. If you want to make your point effectively, you're going to have to address these fine (but supremely important) distinctions.
Now let's move on to the dog example. Suppose that dogs are extremely important to our ecosystem, and that humans will suffer terribly if they go extinct. Now suppose that they're all rabid, or that there is evidence that there's no way that we can prevent them all from being rabid. This is a very sad situation with not a large chance of a highly positive outcome. But in this situation it is not at all clear that all rabid dogs should be killed...especially if we add to this situation that all humans, as well as all other non-dog organisms, are almost certainly immune to rabies. If you have a species that is being existentially threatened, or whose existence in a significant geographic area is being threatened, then suddenly it is much more problematic to kill off hundreds of thousands of its members.
Finally, the odds of a rabid dog recovering are almost zero, and we know this to be the case. If you consider a hibernaculum as an organism, then in one year, the odds of the hibernaculum surviving in the limited sense of one or more of its individual constituent bats surviving is actually quite good. The odds of it surviving through an extended multi-year period are incalculable for lack of data.
tncaver, clearly most organized bat biologists do not agree with wyandottecaver, or wildlife agencies would have already started systematically killing off bats in large numbers in an attempt to curtail or contain WNS. That you disagree with one biologist shouldn't say anything about the rest of them, much less of all cavers or of the NSS. Furthermore, wyandottecaver is not killing thousands of bats--he is arguing that a policy should be implemented to do it. You could argue that that's as bad, but it's not the same thing. If you glorified killing one bat, but did not actually do so, then you would not go to jail. Finally, it is a mistake to assume that the two options are to kill off bats intentionally, or to stand on the sidelines and do nothing. Scientists are working to develop a strategy to save bats, even though they generally reject wyandottecaver's exterminationist views. Let's keep supporting their work by volunteering where possible and by donating money, so that we can maximize the chances of curing or (more likely) mitigating WNS.
Eliah Kagan
NSS 57892
Syracuse University Outing Club
Fund vital White Nose Syndrome research--
donate to the NSS and select the WNS Rapid Response Fund.
Facebook users can also
donate here.