Expert risk elicitation on vampire bats and rabies: Implications for United States surveillance, management, and research

Abstract

The common vampire bat ( Desmodus rotundus ) is expanding in geographic range, increasing concern about the spread of this species to the United States (U.S.) and the associated risks of rabies virus (RABV) transmission. In 2020, we used a structured approach to convene a panel of experts to assess the risks of common vampire bat and vampire bat RABV incursion into the U.S. and to identify strategies for surveillance, management, research, and outreach/education. Expert opinion estimated a relatively low probability (25%) of common vampire bat establishment in the U.S. within 5 years and an even lower probability (12%) regarding the establishment of vampire bat RABV. However, both probabilities increased (60% for the common vampire bat and 48% for vampire bat RABV) within a 20‐year time horizon. Experts attributed increasing risks of common vampire bat range expansion to increasing temperatures, land cover use changes, and vampire bat population growth. If established, the highest perceived risk of vampire bat RABV transmission was to livestock and domestic animals, followed by other wildlife and humans. Vaccination of livestock and enhanced rabies surveillance were identified as key strategies for mitigating and detecting potential incursions of vampire bat RABV, yet culling or population control of common vampire bats was not widely supported by experts to reduce risks of range expansion nor viral transmission. Education and outreach were identified as critical components of a vampire bat RABV prevention and response strategy, including public awareness about identifying vampire bats and their bites, the health risks of RABV infection, and the importance of case reporting and preventive vaccination. The process also underscored the need for proactive, interagency communication and coordination to ensure readiness to detect common vampire bats within U.S. borders. This work demonstrates how expert elicitation can provide both quantitative risk estimates and qualitative insights to support evidence‐based management in the face of ecological uncertainty.