The WaPo Asks: ‘Does a bear leave its waste in the woods?’

By October 11, 2006General

Lest you thought high-minded journalism was dead at the WaPo, fear not. They continue to exercise the highest standards of reportage, as evidenced by this big brained piece which opens with the line above, i.e., “Does a bear leave its waste in the woods?” Well, duh!

Actually this is a great story by David Fahrenthold, an important object lesson for the enviro left. As they run around hysterically trying to stem the tide of various theories (or are they hypotheses?) like global warming, there is a new culprit: animal waste. Hope you’re not reading this over breakfast or, for our friends Down Under, dinner. You might want to finish eating before continuing.

The enviros love to rail about clean water — ignoring the fact that the water is getting cleaner not dirtier. And they always prattle on about corporate polluters (i.e., us) in their rants. Well, as this article points out, they have a much bigger problem with, shall we say, “natural” pollution.

According to the article, a recent Virginia Tech study, “Found that humans are responsible for 24 percent of the bacteria in the Anacostia (River) and 16 percent of the Potomac (River). By comparison, “In the Potomac and the Anacostia, for instance, more than half of the bacteria in the streams came from wild creatures.” [Emphasis ours.] Maybe the enviros will start up an anti-wildlife campaign next. Not likely, we guess.

This of course, calls into question the wisdom of the federal water standards. Says one EPA official, “‘You need to go back and say, ‘Maybe the standards aren’t exactly right’ if wildlife are causing the problem.'” Ya think? Makes you wonder what else isn’t right.

Join the discussion One Comment

  • TokyoTom says:

    Pat, I agree with you generally about federal water standards. They are too unwieldy and costly; we could get excellent water cheaply by leaving this to the states (and to private transactions and litigation).

    However, a single snapshot of this statistic doesn’t really tell us much, does it? Human FCF is still a substantinal portion, and we have no further snapshots, so we can see no trendline upon which to make a judgment.