Unfortunately, this sounds more like a political rather than a scientific question. Politicians oblivious to science (something we in the US are coming to know all too much about) can do a great deal of harm, and there are limits to what can be done if there's no local political backlash against the policy. Appeals from international conservation organizations may have some effect, but their pleas are likely to be ignored if there's a strong local constituency in favor of culling. 

Unfortunately, culling policies in general have little to do with science and more to do with political point-scoring.  Rather than conduct studies or enact strategies that could better manage the human-wildlife interface, in many cases politicians and other authorities find it easier to simply conduct a cull in order to placate farmers and farming lobby groups.  It is important to note that, frequently, farmers are convinced that fruit bats are having a detrimental impact on their crops.  It is the job of environmentalists to convince them otherwise if this is not the case (we cannot expect government officials to do that).  In those rare cases where bats do damage fruit crops (and of course it does happen to an extent and can have a profound impact on the finances of a small farmer), then we need to looks at means of compensation those farmers rathern than blanket culls.

Dear Ravi

Carl and John are right to say that it is indeed a political decision. So much so that the Government went to the pain of changing legislation to allow the culling as the species is protected in Mauritius. Bats are being killed officially 'in the national interest', and there is strong support from opposition. Therefore, I agree that the scientific community and NGO's needs to raise awareness and educate the public and the Government alike. There are a number of solutions for the conflict, all very much doable. The main problem is that the scale of the culling (that is probably going to decrease the population by 40-60%) on the time when mothers are carry the infants, and the cyclone season is starting.  The same species have already gone extinct in the other two islands of the Mascarene because of overhunting, and it is threatened with extinction in Mauritius. The situation is very worrying indeed. So in the short-term, the it seems that to avoid more damage to the bat population is international pressure which is mounting through newspaper articles and petitions. But also local population need to speak out loudly through all media outlet possible - from manifestation on the streets (which I understand if being planned),  and reach out to the consumers of Mauritian fruits in Europe (many people, especially from the UK are saying that they will boycott the fruits). 

In Australia some time ago they wanted to cull the fruit bats in the Melbourne botanical gardens, Anyway, the timber industry kicked up a huge stink about it as the Bats are important pollinators, so important that the timber trees produce and release their pollen at night. In the end they moved the colony instead of culling. I wouldn't be surprised is they play a similar ecological role for an economically important product in Mauritius as well. Perhaps the Mauritius timber industry should investigate how critical the bats are for pollinating their trees, then, only when a dollar sign is fixed to them, do you have a chance of stopping the senseless cull.

Money talks. Here too. If one can estimate the financial damage caused by the bats, things will be clearer for the government, for the farmers, and for the bat supporters.If it is a real treat to peoples' livelihood, little could be done against. If otherwise, then both farmers and officials could be persuaded.

In this financial estimate the only factors that are to be brought in are the agricultural damage (and its variability) and the cost of the culling. This leaves it a clear cut agricultural pest issue.

Nature conservation, however important, should not be done on the shoulders of some poor farmers. If nature conservation is the deal - people or institutions interested in it should support financially the individuals affected by the bats.

That's a good point Yoay, to expand just a little - combine the projected loss of timber and the cost of culling and price that against fruit tree netting then you may have a viable alternative to culling that the politicians can stomach

Replying to some points above of Cameron and Yoav:

There is no timber industry in Mauriitus. There is a small scale plantation of mostly pine and eucalyptus for poles.

The fruit bat that is being killed is the last of the 3 species that once occured in Mauritius. The same species has gone extinct in the other 2 islands of the Mascarenes due to overhunting and deforestation.

The suggestion of moving colonies is somehow difficult in Mauritius as any bat can flight over the whole island every night (the island is 40 by 60 km). Worrying is that the culling is being done on forest areas - so the bats might move to even closer to cities and orchars. Also different from Austraiia, it is the Government that is killing the animals officially. However, bats are being killed by common citizen every day and night, although illegal. So the true numbers of the mass culing will be higher than announced  and might reduce the population by well over 50%. The cyclone season is approaching and sea temperatures in the region are expected to be high in summer. So, the probability of a big cyclone hitting Mauritius is high (at least one cyclone crosses the island every year). Cyclones are the main species population regulator, and can reduce populations by 80% (as recorded for the other Mascarene island of Rodrigues).

The Government culling of a legally threatened island endemic species - with or without science backing it - was on the make for over a decade (see here and here), (see here; here and here). When the first mentions to cull was done, the fruit industry was even small than that is today.

The scale of the cull is also unheard for a native species. Even more for a threatened endemic species with restrict distribution, long live spam and low rates of reproduction. The mass culling is similar to those done to control invasive alien species.

The agricultural sector in Mauritius is responsible today for some 3% of the countries GDP. Of this, the sugarcane industry is the leading contributor, followed by export of invasive alien monkeys (that reduce native fruit productive that could be feed the bats by many folds), flowers, etc. The fruit industry is small and the main product is pineapple. Therefore the economic argument does not hold. On top of this, the damage by bats on the mangoes and leitchis is around 11%. Invasive alien birds do similar damage to the fruits, but more interesting is that most fruits are broken by strong winds or are just not collected because the trees are too high. Backyard tree owners do not want to prune their trees or put net that the government have distributed.  People want to have fruits and profit without sending any money on their 'business'.

Mauriitus is a developing country and one of the best economies of Africa, with almost 100% literacy, access to water, electricity, etc. Percentage of poverty is very low. A tree of letchi, on a good year,  would bring around 0.6 dollars a day/year. The damage by bats would represent less than 25 dollars a year per plant. This is for what they are being killed for.

http://www.rufford.org/files/14099-B%20Detailed%20Final%20Report.pdf

Article Going to Bat for an Endangered Species

Article Conservation: Mauritius threatens its own biodiversity

Chapter Conservation in Mauritius and Rodrigues: Challenges and Achi...

Chapter Current decline of the ‘‘Dodo Tree’’: a case of broken-down ...

I am convinced that wildlife culling is not a good option.

However, I happened to be in Mauritius a few weeks ago and got some (obviously biased) perceptions by different islanders. I will make a few comments going against your points to play the role of the devil's advocate as we say in French. I believe this is not (as usual) a black and white picture and that all stakeholders need to be accommodated on this issue. My own perception on the matter is probably biased as well but maybe it can contribute to the way you think and approach this problem.

There is a strong perception (not saying reality) that bats are a pest and are heavily damaging crops and that their numbers have been exploding in the recent years (figure of 100 000? do you have good estimates?). People do hunt them (traditional hunting I guess?) and have been (illegally) doing so for years, so this type of hunting is not "adding" on the official culling because it did not suppress population explosion in the recent years. Your economic point could be attacked as well: yes the fruit industry represent a tiny part of the economy; but maybe that relatively, for a certain part of the Mauritian population, it represents a lot and maybe it concerns the poorest part of the population as I have heard. So their economic loss would be greater.

The lack of major cyclones in the recent decade seems to be a factor that contribute to the booming of the bat population. But land use change in Mauritius in the recent years and the need for lots of stakeholders to turn to the fruit industry seems also to explain why bats appear to do well on Mauritius lately.

I believe you cannot consider a bat population (as you say occurring every where on the island and not only in NP by definition by their behavior - and I went to a few places in Mauritius during my stay and saw bats every day and every where) just from the sole conservation point of view. For some people it is also a great source of proteins. So maybe bat conservation in Mauritius should be considered as a source-sink system where you have colonies well protected in the protected areas (in this the case?) and some form of legal traditional hunting keeping numbers to a level that minimizes conflicts outside protected areas.

The main research questions that would inform policy AND public opinion would be: is the bat population is at threat by the culling (scientific evidence not gut feeling)? What is the economic impact of conflicts at national AND local level? Is the conservation strategy in Mauritius compatible with a sustainable conservation of bat colonies? Additional studies on recent land use change in Mauritius would be also contributing to putting the right type of information on the stakeholders/decision makers table.

So the best strategy to stop culling: to scientifically back-up your says; to monitor bat populations; to analyse people perceptions and their causes; and education of course.

Good luck,

AleX

Hi Alex

The population number of the bats must be around 50,000 (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/18743/0). There is a number of 90,000 bats for 2013 but simple maths will show it is not possible for the population to have grown so fast

The perception of damage to fruits is that all damaged fruits are caused by bats. The reason is because they are noisy when in groups and they eat at night when people are at home. So all goes on the  back of the bats. Damaged done by the invasive alien rats, mynahs, bulbuls, monkeys, diseases are all credited to bats. This is the perception of most of the population. Science shows a very different picture (see link to a Rufford Grant above) but no one want to believe, as it is not convinient.

There is no such 'traditional hunting' on Mauritius, apart from deer hunting by a select group of the society. Bushmeat is also not on the menu of the majority of the people of Mauritius. Bushmeat is usual a delicacy for few. In fact, most of the illegal hunting of bats is done by pleasure, including of some tourists.

The poorest section of the population do not have land, therefore do not have trees which can be sold to a middleman (the one that makes most profit).

For the land use, in fact, the number of mango trees in backyards have decrease in the last decade. These were replaced by lecthis which are more profitable per area.

Mauriitus is one of the countries in the world with the highest percentage of built-up area (see Hammond et al 2015 on my page) - and it is increasing. Protected areas are small percentage of the land (and bats are being killed by the Government on forest areas). Further, the invasion of native forest by alien plants is among the highest in the world and it is increasing. So the available land for native species is decreasing. There is less than 50% canopy cover). The fitness of native plants on invaded areas is very much reduced, meaning less fruits and flowers. Mauritius has the highest percentage of endangered species in the world per land mass (be plants or animals).

Losing or reducing much the population of fruit bats will mean that the most of the trees that structure the native forest will have virtually no seed disperse (check Kim McConkey page).

Bats are simply going to eat fruits on orchards as maximum foraging  strategy.

The bottom line is that the culling is disregarding science and can have serious consequences for the species. Specially when there are solutions for the problem that will not endanger further the species. Culling of flying foxes has not work elsewhere. Netting and prunning of trees do work. An arbitrary decision of culling  of a large % of a protected threatened species population is unheard in the world. How the target was established is unknown and surely not based on science. The local and international scientific community has tried to influence policy for over a decade.

Tomorrow when fruits wont enter the European market, the economic cost for the country would be higher than the 10% of so fruits that the bats take. If it was to improve profits and help the population, a campaing of labelling the Mauritus fuits as environmentally friendly would be more wise. Also, tapping on the bats for ecotourism.

Alex, if you seen bats flying during the day everywhere it means that their roosts were being shot. This species only flying during the day in some forested areas, especially when there is masting of some native fruits.

Article Low redundancy in seed dispersal within an island frugivore community

Claudia,

Thank you for the feedback. As I said, these were my perceptions during my stay in Mauritius and even if I did not go to Mauritius for this, I heard quite a lot about it form different persons from various social classes. The vast majority being negative against bats. I even saw tourists afraid of them in the 5 stars hotel... So to put pressure on the decision makers without the public opinion will be even harder.

As this is a political decision, there is not much to do about it straight away as stopping the culling would be seen as a governmental failure. I don't think they will eradicate the species (this is not their objective) and maybe the best option would be to be more involved in the future management strategy for bats in Mauritius in order to have population follow-up, habitat mapping and bat-associated ecosystem processes identified and if possible quantified.

We had a similar issue in France recently concerning a ibex population maintaining brucellosis which transmitted the disease to 2 persons. The population has been culled despite all the scientific community (and animal welfare/conservation NGOs) against it and scientifically showing that this one non-sens...

AleX

Hi Alex

Of course, no ones want to eradicate a species. But the scale of the culling and threats beseting the species are the main problems. On the issue of being more involved, many of the scientists where not invited to participate in the discussions. Some have been retaliated by not getting permssion to access native forest sites for research.

Do you have article on the Ibis cull?

Ibex & brucellosis in France

https://news.vice.com/article/mass-culling-of-mountain-goats-in-france-is-a-massacre-and-a-mistake-critics-say

and if you can read French:

http://www.lemonde.fr/biodiversite/article/2015/10/21/la-justice-ne-s-oppose-pas-a-l-abattage-des-bouquetins-du-bargy_4793957_1652692.html?xtmc=bouquetins&xtcr=2

Best,

AleX

You may want to contact Merlin Tuttle for advice. He has dealt with political issues related to bat conservation for years and has many success stories.

If there are reasons, like safety (transmitting diseases, aggressive behaviour, negative public opinion), some culling is not the worst option. Just consider how it may happen. 

We must return on the value of bats culture and religious aspects as elements of collective consciousness.  There is nothing more dangerous for politicians to a group of volunteers motivated by the spiritual value of a species.

Salud

Ian Baird advice would be the best solution. Foreign agencies could negotiate a deal - stop the culling, we help farmers (financially) netting the orchards - Another solution, if recipients could be found, is to catch the bats alive and send them to zoos, breeding centers, etc. around the world.

One way to turn around an unpopular top down culling policy is to engage communities and schools through bat biology workshops and performances. Community events and celebrations could use not only biology but art and music to inform and engage in affirmative ways. You might use a (culturally appropriate) catchy title like "Bats in the Belfry" or similar for a series or fun, inclusive community and school events. In this way it is possible to turn the tide of public opinion. Contact me if you want to brainstorm this option. [email protected]

Dear Angela

A group of NGOs are planning to raise awareness about the consequences of culling and why it does not work (it seems that the ethical value of conserving a species against economic gains will not work in the short term, even if the species has a disproportionate high importance for native forests). I hope the group will contact you to discuss. There are still plans to continuing the culling, even if the population of the bats was brought down at least  50% in about a month.

Have the authorities revealed how many bats have been culled so far and have the corpses been donated to science or just dumped?

Dear Irfan

There has been a press article mid-December given a figure of 20,000 bats killed.   However, the shooting re-started afterwards. The total official figures were not disclosed.  The killed animals were incinerated, none donated to science as far as it is known.

Thanks for the clarification Claudia.

The use of 12-gauge shotguns is highly likely to cause further mortalities which will never be recorded and taken into account for future management. This practice would also be considered inhumane by many an ethics committee...