[oucorry]

You may have heard the fuss Sen. John McCain is making over what he calls an "unbelievable" $3 million grizzly study in Montana.

Something about government pork-barrel projects.

Certainly there must be merit in the presidential candidate's arguments that some federal spending on such programs is a waste of money. But the U.S. Geological Survey's Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project is a tired example, and what's unbelievable is how McCain is so uniformed.

Never has there been such an aggressive count of griz in the Rockies, and the bottom line, according to the Washington Post, is that the study could have long-term implications for the Northern Divide grizzlies, possibly including their removal someday from the threatened list. Delisting them would restore management of the bears to state control after decades of federal oversight.

And if we know anything about state management, hunting must be in the equation somewhere.

Certainly debate isn't our strong suit, but here's another bottom line that seems to make sense: If there was no Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project, our hunting opps would be diminished. Therefore, McCain is hurting hunting.

That really hurts our feelings, senator, and we certainly hope that's not the attitude you would bring to the White House.

Quite apart from McCain's rantings, of which, frankly, we've heard enough, the Post's piece is fascinating: how one committed field scientist, Katherine Kendall ("cheerleader turns bear biologist") devised a plan to study 12,127 square miles of griz territory that involved 207 paid workers, hundreds of volunteers, 2,560 bear sampling sites and data (in the form of bear hair) from 563 different humpbacks in her census of Ursus arctos horribilis.

Oh, and one note, Mr. McCain: The study, in fact, cost more than $5 million, the Post reports, including nearly $4.8 million in congressional appropriations.

And worth every penny!

Kate Kendall, Backcasts salutes you.

One more note: McCain actually voted for the 2003 appropriations bill that included the grizzly-research funding, instead of proposing an amendment to have it removed from the bill, according to the newspaper account.


espnoutdoors.com