This powerful article in Southeast Asia Globe, by Claire Baker-Munton, on the value of artificial bat roosts in Southeast Asia deserves much praise. With the help of Merlin’s photos, this article clearly promotes a better understanding of bats and their values. At a time when so many media headlines are attempting to grab readership by speculating potential linkage of bats to scary diseases, positive stories like this are crucial. In reality, as Claire points out, Cambodians have found bats to be highly valued neighbors.
Choose any or all means of contact to reach out with your praise and encouragement on behalf of bats.
Wildlife and Wind Farms: Conflicts and Solutions Book Review by Merlin Tuttle 1/8/18
Wildlife and Wind Farms, Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2, provides a summary of current conflicts and solutions involving the rapid growth of wind farms and their impacts on wildlife. Chapters by leading experts cover topics from turbine siting and mortality monitoring to, statistical evaluations and mitigation.
This is the second of two volumes, both edited by M.R. Perrow. They are thorough and authoritative, an important resource for professionals concerned with wind energy impacts on wildlife. Unfortunately, this is a complex subject, and industry has been slow to adopt many of the remedies reported. Issues for birds and bats differ significantly and typically require different solutions. This review emphasizes those involving bats.
Early investigations often failed to account for searcher detectability or scavenger removal rates when calculating wildlife fatalities at wind farms. Such problems were exacerbated by long intervals between searches, during which most corpses were removed by scavengers or arthropods. Small corpses can virtually disappear to human view in even a few inches of vegetation, and most of a night’s kill can be removed by scavengers within hours, depending on local circumstances. Trained dogs have performed far better than humans in searching for kills, but few are used. Fatality detection is complicated and often debated.
The impact of scavenger removal is difficult to accurately document. Depending on local scavenger faunas, removal rates can vary greatly. Scavengers may also take time to discover a new food source, causing removal rates to change from week to week or year to year.
Especially in the case of bats, no one knows how many may be permanently injured without detection. It is generally agreed that, early morning searches, are best for detecting bat fatalities prior to scavenger removal, but how often should these searches be conducted, and how can they avoid biases? Calculations of scavenger removal rates can be affected in many ways. What if scavengers learn to follow human scent trails to birds or bats intentionally placed as surrogates to measure scavenger removal? Also, how can we be sure that surrogate corpses are as attractive as fresh kills? Most surrogates are frozen prior to use. By becoming less attractive with age, scavenger removal could be significantly underestimated.
Statistical adjustments, predictive models, and invaluable insights to the most apparent biases are provided in this publication. However, some are extremely difficult to document. It is still impossible to accurately predict population-level impacts. Even if all other variables were accurately measured, knowledge of actual population size of impacted species rarely, if ever exists. As noted, estimates often fall short of reality, and losses may already be unsustainable in many cases.
The chapter on mitigating bat collisions is thorough and enlightening. It reports the apparent futility of predicting bat risks based on pre-construction sampling because turbines appear to attract bats.
Operational mitigation strategies that could significantly reduce bat mortality were reported as early as 2011. By slightly raising turbine cut-in speeds (the wind speeds at which turbines are permitted to spin for power production) above those set by manufacturers, bat mortality reductions of 50 to 93% are documented in this publication. By 2013, a German study of multiple sites, in different geographic regions, reported fatality reduction of 83% by including algorithms, such as season, time, and temperature.
Due to non-disclosure by power companies, few studies have reported amounts of power lost through such mitigation, but available evidence suggests less than 1%. Unfortunately, few companies, especially outside of Europe, have been willing to incorporate even these simple operational changes.
The possible use of acoustic deterrents has long been considered as a means of reducing bat mortality. However, the high frequency signals required for bats attenuate rapidly in air, making them ineffective in covering the large areas required to protect bats at wind turbines. By strategic placement of multiple transmitters on turbines, one study reduced mortality by 64%, but no ultrasonic deterrents are yet available for affordable commercial use. Changing turbine color to reduce attractiveness to insect prey, and use of electromagnetic signals have been proposed but appear unlikely to prove adequate.
Threshold numbers of bat fatalities, allowed prior to required mitigation, are frequently negotiated as part of the permitting process. However, in my experience in North America they are commonly exceeded with minimal or no remedial action taken.
Protection of key habitat, such as hibernation caves, may be useful for endangered species like Indiana myotis (Myotis sodalis), that seldom have been killed by turbines, but this is ineffective for migratory tree-dwelling species such as hoary (Lasiurus cinereus) and red (L. borealis) bats. Despite the absence of population estimates, trends can be regionally monitored at diverse locations not associated with wind farms. Mitigation planning should support systematic, standardized monitoring for such trends. These should be considered in future planning.
In reviewing current policies, I see a need for far more attention being paid to frequent fatalities of originally abundant species, rather than focusing almost exclusively on only occasionally killed endangered species. We cannot afford to ignore loss of still abundant bats like the Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), that play key ecological roles, not to mention their invaluable benefits to agriculture. This species already faces thousands of turbines, and is one of the most vulnerable. Yet, there is no reliable long-term monitoring, either of fatality or population trends.
Major advances in methodology for reducing threats to bats are reported in this publication. Yet, as one of the pioneers in the search for solutions, I’m deeply disappointed to see how little implementation has occurred thus far. Scientists have made important discoveries. Nevertheless, already proven methods for mortality reduction far too often have been ignored by regulators and industry. Standardized regulations are urgently needed at national and international levels.
The current North American goal of reducing bat fatalities by 50% is inadequate. Without limiting the number of turbines that can be permitted, such goals offer unrealistic solutions, even if attained.
Though some companies should be applauded for their special efforts, there are few incentives for investing in wildlife. Many of the largest companies still ruthlessly ignore wildlife. However, by providing token financial support for solution-finding research, they lull an environmentally concerned public into complacency.
In my opinion, far more progress could be made if a fair-minded rating system were organized collaboratively by concerned industry and environmental representatives. Companies could be ranked according to their wildlife policies (i.e. cooperation in solution finding and the extent to which existing mitigation knowledge is implemented). They needn’t be perfect to rate higher than unconcerned competitors. Such information could be shared with green energy investment advisors, providing potentially strong incentives.
The November 23, 2017 issue of THE CONVERSATION lures readers with an important sounding, bat-friendly title, “Can bats help humans survive the next pandemic?” However, two-thirds of the article is devoted to promoting fear instead of progress and is based on questionable sources. This is particularly disturbing given the publication’s stated objective—“Fight for Truth in Journalism.”
This story is a simple repeat of close to a decade of often exaggerated speculation attempting to link viruses found in bats to transmission of scary but relatively rare ones like SARS and MERS to humans. Documented transmission of any disease from bats to humans remains exceedingly rare. And no one has successfully shown transmission of SARS or MERS from bats to other mammals. Dromedary camels are now well known to have been the source of MERS in humans for decades, likely longer.
This story further repeats the poorly founded claim that bat species harbor more coronaviruses than any other group of mammals, assuming without validation, that this makes them uniquely dangerous. The claim is based on a study of fewer than half of the world’s bat families, presumably those that are the largest, most widespread and diverse, the ones most likely to harbor the highest viral diversity. These were then inappropriately assumed to be representative of the remainder that were less diverse and widely distributed as well as less colonial.
Sampled species were not reported, nor was their roosting or feeding behavior. Since the large majority of viral fragments detected came from feces, many could have come from arthropod carriers eaten by bats. This could falsely lead to the conclusion that bat vector controllers instead serve as reservoirs. Despite such biases, these results are now reported as documented facts.
One can only wonder how so many biases can be so consistently overlooked, despite historical evidence that huge bat colonies, even in cities, make safe and highly beneficial neighbors. Unfortunately, scaring us about bats has proven lucrative in gaining large research grants for projects of questionable value. It also seriously threatens some of our planet’s most endangered and valuable animals. Finally, this story provides no new discoveries of how bats might help prevent pandemics, as its title implies. Bats are indeed, largely immune to major human threats, such as cancer and arthritis, and when research objectives are revised, may provide a goldmine of useful discovery.
My comments can be seen at the end of THE CONVERSATION article. We encourage you to do the same in your own words by following the directions below. Also, we encourage you to freely contact the editors and authors of any similarly negative articles you find.
Remember, your response can be very simple such as, “I don’t appreciate attempts to create needless fear of bats.” Editors just need to know you like or dislike an article in order for you to have impact. It’s numbers that count. Bats need all of you!
Choose any or all means of contact to reach out to the staff at THE CONVERSATION and share your opinion about this unfair bias against bats in your own words.
Contact the editors. Be sure to include the article and author information.
“Actually this article neglected to mention another huge problem caused by these negative representations of bats. It’s not just about deliberate human killings of bats – even where bats are not being killed by people, the repercussions of this negative reputation are still damaging in indirect ways because it affects efforts and funding for research and conservation. I am currently the only person working on the conservation ecology of Pteropus in Malaysia, where there has been such a disproportionate amount of attention, effort, and money put into researching ONLY the virology and public health aspects of these bats. Hardly anyone is interested in looking at the conservation ecology aspect; never mind that these bats are important pollinators and seed dispersers, and are severely threatened by hunting – all topics which desperately require more attention and work. I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to be constantly approached by other researchers who are only interested in collaborating on virology, or to be told that I can only get funding if I include a disease and public health aspect in my project. Ultimately these bats will go extinct if people – including researchers and funders – are simply too focused on worrying about whether we’re going to catch diseases from them, instead of trying to mitigate the threats that we humans present to them. This kind of attitude is very, very damaging to bat conservation.”
Dr. Aziz is one of a very few researchers in her part of the world dedicated to helping people understand the economic and ecological importance of conserving flying foxes. Her research titled, “Pollination by the locally endangered island flying fox (Pteropus hypomelanus) enhances fruit production of the economically important durian (Durio zibethinus),” recently appeared in the journal Ecology and Evolution.
In her paper, she provides information critical to convincing islanders to protect flying foxes, namely that they are playing a key role as pollinators of one of Southeast Asia’s most valued crops, not causing damage as previously believed. She used camera and video traps to document that island flying foxes (Pteropus hyomelanus) do not damage durian flowers, as even some researchers had suspected. Video traps clearly absolved the bats. Island flying foxes and cave nectar bats (Eonycteris spelaea) are major pollinators. The damage was caused by plantain squirrels (Callosciurus notatus) who often ate immature flowers.
Aziz also notes that flying foxes sometimes can become a nuisance when roosting too near people, causing both noise and odor problems. She hopes to find a way to harmlessly convince these bats to move farther away, so they will be more welcome. There is an urgent need for education to minimize negative biases while solving legitimate nuisances. Aziz emphasizes the need to find solutions to real problems instead of needlessly scaring people about rare threats.
She reports, “I have been using your [Merlin Tuttle’s] photos, especially the amazing shots of P. vampyrus, in all the presentations I give. It’s enormously helpful because the only shots I have of that species are the poor dead ones shot by a hunter, and it’s not a very nice picture at all. I think it would be almost impossible for me to get a good photo of P. vampyrus here in Malaysia! Your close-up shots of Pteropus pollinating and feeding on fruit are also particularly useful for illustrating bat ecosystem services – I used these in a public talk I gave, at an event organized by the Malaysian Heritage and History Club, which was very well received. And of course, I also used your photos in the awareness video! I now use them anytime I want to talk about bat ecosystem services.”
Aziz is devoting her career to helping people solve problems while benefiting from the essential contributions of flying foxes. If bats are to survive in sufficient numbers to fulfil their critical environmental and ecological roles, Aziz, and many more like her will need all the help they can get. Just saving a few endangered remnants is not enough!
I wholeheartedly applaud Atlantic Monthly’s defense of bats at a time when so many other publications are spreading grossly exaggerated stories attempting to link bats to some of the world’s rarest but also scariest diseases. Bats have never needed help more, nor have we needed them more! As the one who persuaded the citizens of Austin to protect instead of eradicating its now world-famous colony, I’m proud to report that none of millions of tourists who come to enjoy their spectacular emergences has ever been harmed. By simply leaving bats alone (not attempting to handle them), we have exceedingly little to fear and much to gain. Our bats eat tons of crop and yard pests every summer night and attract millions of tourist dollars each year.
Thanks to people who increasingly understand and help bats, even those species most devastated by WNS are gradually beginning to recover. The only cure will come from improved protection and restoration of key bat habitats, especially their hibernation caves. It’s far too late, as well as impractical, to find a cure for WNS. Going forward, all resources should be devoted to recovery.
This summer saw the worst avalanche of grossly exaggerated disease speculation ever launched against bats. While seemingly countless publications world-wide needlessly frightened millions of readers, Mongabay journalist, John Cannon, investigated and bravely countered the tide in his article, “Bats and viruses: Beating back a bad reputation,” published August 29.
Mongabay is one of the world’s leading environmental websites. It reaches 28 million readers in nine languages annually, making its defense of bats especially helpful at a time when bats are facing so much scary misinformation. We’ve listed actions you can take to share your thanks at the end of this post.
A Terrifying Time for Bats By Merlin Tuttle
The past month has seen a virtual explosion of premature speculation presented as though it were now proven fact, much of it traceable to a single article titled, “Bats are global reservoir for deadly coronaviruses,” that appeared in the June 14, 2017 issue of Nature. We’ve already issued a Bat Flash alert responding to this article, and to predecessors, all apparently part of a single cleverly planned campaign.
Sensational speculation has become widely cited as fact1, with spin-off damage that will be exceedingly difficult to reverse. All who truly care about bats have cause to be deeply concerned.
Due to scary speculation attempting to link the SARS outbreak of 2002 to bats, bats have recently become central in the search for viruses2. Thus, rapid advances in viral detection alone may have caused major bias. Also, the number of viruses found in bats is not necessarily indicative of risk.2 Many viruses are innocuous or even beneficial,3 including some that are closely related to deadly ones.4 Finally, the paper in question is based on models, and models are notorious for mistaken conclusions, regardless of the amount of data analyzed.5
A far more meaningful analysis should have considered the historic rarity of viral spillover from bats to humans. Many media stories now claim bats to be the primary source of so-called “emerging infectious diseases” like Ebola, though most of these speculations remain unproven.6- 7
Proponents of such speculation still cannot explain why hundreds of bat biologists, millions of people who eat bats, and the millions more who share cities with huge bat colonies are no less healthy than others. They can’t explain why bats artificially infected with Ebola haven’t become contagious or why virologists haven’t even been able to find live virus in the thousands of bats examined. Certainly, like all other mammals, bats must be capable of harboring at least a few dangerous viruses. Nevertheless, bats still have one of our planet’s finest records of living safely with humans.1
The June 12, 2017 story by Amy Maxmen, titled “Bats are global reservoir for deadly coronaviruses,” published in Nature, continues the needlessly sensational presentation of bats as exceptionally dangerous animals. By simple insertion of the words “global” and “deadly” in the title, it implies bats worldwide to be a serious menace to human health.
The article begins by stating that “Bats are the major animal reservoir for coronaviruses worldwide….” In the reported study, nearly twice as many bats as rodents, shrews, and primates combined were examined, not surprising. The emphasis on easily captured bats, likely centered on colonial species, is an approach that appears to have become the norm. And it’s impossible to know the extent of resulting bias.
Late in the article, it is admitted that at least some of the newly discovered coronaviruses pose no “immediate threat to human health,” though insertion of the word “immediate” still implies they may be in the future. Because only a small fraction of coronaviruses infect humans, diversity in bats is not necessarily an indicator of risk.
At the end, where least likely to be noticed, it is admitted that such exhaustive searches for new viruses may be a waste of resources. Dr. Michael Osterholm, Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, is quoted as saying “that researchers and politicians should direct their limited resources towards halting new outbreaks of pathogens that are known to be deadly in people, rather than trying to predict which virus will be the next to cross over to humans.”
Osterholm is further quoted that “We aren’t much better prepared for Ebola today than we were during the crisis in West Africa, so you have to wonder if we aren’t preparing for the outbreaks we know will happen in the near future, what good does it do to know about spillover events?”
Since bats appear to have an exceptionally good record of not causing disease outbreaks in humans, even where large colonies share major cities with us, Osterholm’s point seems strong.
Choose any or all means of contact to reach out and share your opinion about this unfair bias against bats in your own words.
Email the editor. Be sure to include the article and author information.
Once again, bats are plagued with a rash of sensational bat-attack and bat-disease stories, promoted by clever, but unscrupulous persons who know better. The motivation remains the same—greedy competition for public health funding. As noted by Mexico’s leading bat biologist and conservationist, Dr. Rodrigo Medellin, “unsupported statements and partial truths have been cleverly interwoven to present a picture that bats are the most dangerous, filthy, pathogen-harboring organisms on earth.” So-called virus hunters are linking already feared bats with deadly, but rare diseases, misleading governments to invest billions of dollars in projects of questionable value in saving human lives (USCDC 2015).
The current article in The Independent, is typical, first the scary headline that leaves a lasting impression on readers, despite later qualifiers, most of which go unread. The subtitle says, “Diseases in bats have been around for a long time and historically have not been a problem. Now, there is cause for concern.”
Those promoting this international campaign of fear are clever wordsmithers. They know just enough about bats and diseases to almost imperceptibly distort the truth, scaring people about potential, but unlikely events. Extremely low risks are made to seem imminent and possibly disastrous. And since neither bats nor viruses are well understood, they are ideal victims for such manipulation.
The article claims bats have been attacking humans in increasing numbers because their natural habitats are being destroyed through deforestation. This is a commonly propagated myth in recent scare stories. It appears to be an attempt to look like the writer isn’t anti-bat, but is simply attempting to be helpful. Bats nearly everywhere are in decline, and a growing proportion of the human population now lives in cities where there is less, rather than more likelihood of contact with bats. A veterinary college professor is quoted as saying that expanding cities are causing increasing contact—just the opposite of reality. The professor sounds like a reliable source, though he likely has no personal experience with bats.
It is reported that more than 40 people were bitten by vampires in just three months, with one death from rabies. But that’s in all of northeastern Brazil. This is likely one of the rarest causes of mortality that could have been reported for such a large area. Far more deaths likely occurred from bicycle accidents or dog attacks, though no one is likely to advocate ridding the area of bicycles or dogs!
The story verifies our worst concerns, reporting that authorities are “trying to control the bats, poisoning them and removing their roosting sites.” Highly beneficial species form the largest, most conspicuous colonies so they are the ones most easily found, becoming innocent victims of mass killing. In the current article, a doctor stresses that “Brazilian authorities must take the threat seriously.” And an accompanying photo shows an insect-eating bat, looking exceptionally vicious because it is snarling in self-defense.
Not until the next to last paragraph is it admitted that “Bats in the UK do not pose a threat to the human population.” This nearly universally repeated approach gives authors a disclaimer, but it appears deliberately located where it is least likely to be noticed.
Choose any or all means of contact to reach out and share your opinion in your own words.
Send a Contact Form to The Independent. Be sure to include the article and author information.
Virologists are still doggedly pursuing the search for an Ebola reservoir in bats, as reported in the storytitled Hunting for Ebola among the Bats of the Congo in the June 1, 2017 issue of Science (Kupferschmudt 2017), apparently attempting to ignore mounting evidence pointing elsewhere. The record of unsubstantiated speculation, attributing Ebola to bats is long and becoming an embarrassment to good science.
By 2014, researchers had discovered that 10% of gorillas in Central Africa have antibodies to Ebola, demonstrating that exposure or infection is not uniformly lethal as previously reported (Reed et al. 2014). Because great apes were said to be highly susceptible, virologists had insisted they couldn’t serve as reservoirs. Instead they pointed to bats.
Merlin Tuttle’s Bat Conservation is the most recent contribution by Merlin Tuttle to the world of bats. With over 50 years of in-depth knowledge and experience Merlin Tuttle, renowned bat expert, educator and wildlife photographer founded MTBC with one true goal in mind; teaching the world to understand and appreciate the vital contributions bats make to human beings and the world we live in.