I agree with Mike Flannigan and his post below.
To Ms. Buecher: Using the words "rant", and "shoot off your mouth" are not conducive to any e mail conversation, and are themselves ranting, and shooting off your mouth. This is emotion based, and as always, has no validity. That I would have hoped would been beneath you. Yes, perhaps NM caves do have the same climate suitable for Pseudogymnoascus destructans to flourish as other places. How many other places-throughout the WORLD- have the same climate? Is your implication here, however INVALID, that it just rises up out of nowhere, simply because the climate is right? Is there any EMPIRICAL evidence for this? Perhaps hysteria? NO, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out-even a mere caver can do it. The heart of the WNS discussion is the issue of the closure of caves because of fear that humans are the primary vector of WNS. Please, Ms. Buecher, to you and other scientists, show EMPERICAL evidence that this is so. Please show empirical evidence that humans have been the primary, if not only vector of WNS. If not, then it is from purely "theory or pure logic" that you make your inferences. Logic does work, but NOT if it is flawed logic. This is why, as you must know, that empirical evidence is a must. A scientific conclusion must be verifiable, repeatable by experiment, and objective. It cannot be subjective, based on inference, false extrapolation or flawed logic. I cite webster's online dictionary for the word empirical for your benefit, and others. It is a good read. http://www.merriam-webster.com em·pir·i·cal adjective \im-ˈpir-i-kəl\ : based on testing or experience Full Definition of EMPIRICAL 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience<empirical data> 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory> 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws I also cite the definition of scientific method, also from webster's online : Definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. The hypothesis in order to be VALID, must be testable, and repeatable. Please note #3 of the definition empirical. Once again, please show that you have done this before you accuse anyone of ranting and "shooting off their mouth". Finally; An apology might be in order. Regards, Carl Pagano, SWR Caver Begin forwarded message: > From: Mike Flannigan <mikef...@att.net> > Subject: Re: [SWR] Bat hibernation > Date: June 12, 2014 5:52:35 AM MDT > To: s...@caver.net > > > It isn't that hard to understand. Quite clear actually. > He stated facts about the USGS and then some opinions > from Wildlife Department biologists and himself. > > You obviously don't agree, so you use words like > "rant" and "shoot off their mouth". You might want to > change your field of study to global warming. You'd fit > right in with that "scientific" crowd. > > > Mike > > > > On 6/11/2014 9:25 PM, Debbie Buecher wrote: >> Hi Steve, >> I could not entirely understand your most recent rant but that is not >> entirely new. >> >> I have REAL scientific data that I have presented a number of times at SWR >> paper regionals that documents bat hibernacula microclimate data >> (temperatures and RH) from both AZ and NM bat roosts. It shows conclusively >> that these caves have appropriate microclimate for Pseudogymnoascus >> destructans to flourish. I am currently preparing a manuscript for a >> peer-reviewed journal to report these findings. If you were a scientist you >> would understand the rigorous protocols that scientists must follow in order >> to publish findings. Cavers are more fortunate because they are free to >> shoot off their mouth without checking with anyone first. >> Cheers, >> Debbie >> >> Debbie Buecher >> Buecher Biological Consulting >> >> >> >> Stephen Fleming <casto...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 06/11/2014 7:17, Debbie Buecher wrote: >>> Hi ET, >>> The cave myotis in southern Arizona go up in elevation and enter >>> hibernation in late Sept and come out in April. Myotis are the hardest hit >>> back east so we have real concerns for their counterparts in the West. >>> Debbie >> >> Your statement about cave myotis is deflated by the May 6, 2014 press >> release from the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation noting that >> not only had >> >> "scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center >> have dropped Oklahoma from the list of areas where White-Nose Syndrome in >> bats has been suspected or confirmed." >> >> But, >> >> "The scientists have also removed the Cave Myotis (Myotis velifer) from the >> list of bat species that have tested positive for the fungus >> (Pseudogymnoascus destructans) that has been associated with White-Nose >> Syndrome..." >> >> And, >> >> "Wildlife Department biologists commended the U.S. Geological Survey >> National Wildlife Heath Center's continued efforts to ensure accuracy and >> transparency in diagnostic results." >> >> That ranks right up there with removing Oklahoma from the Chicken Little >> list. It actually is refreshing because, except for the USGS, we have seen >> zero accuracy and transparency from any other agency or groups-with-agendas >> from the get-go of this problem. >> >> The USGS obviously holds science and professionalism in much higher regard >> than various land agencies. The land agencies ought to be embarrassed for >> substituting fiction for fact, but it's clear they aren't troubled in the >> least by their actions, which constitute serious lapses of judgment and >> professionalism. It's clear they believe they are not accountable for their >> actions. And, they are not if the public does not hold them accountable. >> >> >> Because agencies are doing things without having an articulable (legal >> definition: capable of being expressed, explained, or justified) basis as to >> why, and they simply don't care that it's obvious their actions are a total >> sham to everyone with the ability to think and question. Remember, if you >> are a tourist at Mammoth Cave in the heart of proven WNS cases, you not only >> can go into a completely open cave, where WNS has been confirmed, but your >> "decon" is to stroll across some silly bio-mat on your way out and on to the >> next tourist cave. However, if you are in NM, hundreds and hundreds of miles >> from any WNS, caves are nearly completely closed because they're deemed "at >> risk" (without so much as a scintilla of proof) and if you can get into one >> you have to boil your clothes, and jump through other hoops, repeatedly. >> That's hardly science, and it certainly isn't "management." Professionalism >> is not the word that comes to mind. Voodoo and "we don't care about the >> science, or what anyone thinks; we're in charge" does. >> >> Wrong on every level. >> >> Stephen > > _______________________________________________ > SWR mailing list > s...@caver.net > http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr > _______________________________________________ > This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET
_______________________________________________ SWR mailing list s...@caver.net http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr _______________________________________________ This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET
