My biggest quibble with him, believe it or not, was the commment on millions for studying bear DNA. The US spending money on something like that sounds silly until you spend about ten seconds thinking about it. Bears, in many states, are game animals, thus good management of them means healthy populations, so more licenses can be sold, and more money is brought into government coffers. Furthermore, people go to places like Yellowstone or the Great Smokeys hoping to see bears. Thus, bears can and do have positive economic impact. And yes, there is the other side of the ledger, they can kill livestock and there have been three bear maulings in Anchorage recently. Thus, Ursids can and do have a negative economic impact. The point is, bears affect humans in ways good and bad, so why not spend money to understand their biology well?

radjah shelduck on August 16, 2008 at 9:49 PM

And a DNA study will affect this in a way worth millions of dollars?

A recent study of bear maulings found that radio waves from scientific instruments were making young males aggressive. DNA studies would not have addressed the root cause here.

I think McCain had the right bias toward not spending our money on these studies. These studies only have very minor benefit and huge costs, IMO. Of course, I just carry powerful firearms when I go where there are bears, so I’m not worried about making good medicines for bears.

In Wisconsin, there is a chronic wasting disease in deer, and the state funds research on the disease. However, they have limits on what they will spend based on scientific evaluations of what will be cost effective. Get a congressman wanting to bring home dollars to his district, and the cost side is not considered.

Right_of_Attila on August 16, 2008 at 10:02 PM