Finally, an environmental policy initiative I can get behind. To paraphrase, it seems that experts have determined that the majority of fecal pollutants found in many streams and rivers are the result of those diabolical animals we’ve all seen ru...

As the intro to the post notes, I just presumed everyone already knew that animal waste made it into the water supply.

The highlighted quote is in response to quotes from scientists in the WaPo piece contemplating relocating the animals.

Given the quote/counterpoint format of the post, it's bizarre that you're having so much trouble reading it.

you will notice that the study doesn’t take into account manmade chemicals…seems like a rather poor study.

MadMatt: you are a moron. The study was on harmful bacteria levels in the water. If you don't know what bacteria is, I would suggest dusting off your middle school science textbook.

Perhaps fodder for another NSF grant: Would the animals continue producing waste if relocated?

James, I am not sure if your understanding of environmental science is any better than MadMatt's. Do you really think it is a waste of government money to fund research on finding the sources of deadly bacteria in the water supply?!?!?!?

I wouldn't dismiss this to quickly. We don't have a manual that says 36 ppm is safe but 37 ppm is unsafe. Most of the standards are set because we know that high levels of something are unsafe and that there seems to be a correlation between the amount of the thing and the number of problems that show up. So we then try to come up with an amount that we will allow. Ideally we would put it to 0, but realistically we recognize that the cost of going from 1 ppm to 0 ppm is not matched by a sufficient benefit in going from 1 ppm to 0 ppm. So to say that we need to re-think the cost to rid ourselves to the benefits of being rid of that amount is reasonable to me. If the target had been 1 ppm and with the bears in the woods we get 10 ppm, I think it is worth while re-looking at the impact of those extra 9 ppm vs the cost. If 1 ppm would average 1 human dying every 100 years and 10 ppm would average 1.1 humans dying every 100 years, then rather than kill all the raccoons and deer, perhaps we accept that additional .001 chance of a human dying in a given year. We are already accepting the .01 chance of a human dying in a given year. If it only cost $100 of additional equipment to move from the 10 ppm to 1 ppm, then the .001 chance is probably a greater cost that we want to bear given the low cost to reduce the chance.

I do think it would be useful to compare "natural" levels (aka in the wild outside of human built up areas) with the results they see here. It may be that the disruption in the ecosystem means that more animals are being left who have an especially bad poop, causing the increased problem.

The "natural" way would be for the change in population to correct itself with a die off because of the disease feedback. To many deer pooping, water gets contaminated, deer start dying off, water gets back into balance between the number of deer it can support and the number it kills off. The balance is made between the 1 and 1.1 deaths per 100 years (though usually the die off would need to involve a much higher death rate). I see nothing wrong with man using his ingenuity to short circuit the balancing equation through technology and knowledge.

Right before our eyes is an entirely new profession, "Wildlife Waste Management", open to the early bidders. Maybe this could help resolve the problems of those who've found their jobs "outsourced". It certainly opens the job door to the less educated, less skilled in our societies.

And it has the bonus of woring in nature!

James: Get to work on a grant proposal for a trial project. USDA, EPA, or Interior are the most likely funders. The various state universities ought to be easily touched, too.

Go, while the mass is still warm...