An editorial in the New York Times today reminds us of their ignorance on matters such as gray wolves and the Endangered Species Act. It also suggests they should stick to topics they might know something about.

The Times, simply passes on the extremist views painted in Judge Donald Molloy’s injunction ruling to place the wolf back under protection of the Endangered Species Act. Much like far too many others, the Times indicates that they think the Endangered Specie Act is the answer to everything connected with the outdoors and preservation.

Without discussing the legalities of the reintroduction of wolves in the west, most don’t understand or refuse to listen to sensible scientists when they are told that over protection and allowing a species to become too populated can have more devastating effects on the ecosystem than before it was protected. More isn’t always better.

We are seeing this ignorance born mostly of hatred of hunting being displayed in several places across America. Hiding behind the sham of animal protection, people seem eager to watch some species perish supposedly in the name of protecting another.

The Times knows nothing about the wolf issue in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and until they do, they shouldn’t be repeating information that isn’t true.

Obviously their information came right from Judge Molloy’s ruling which is a joke. Molloy not only disregarded the information given to him by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and their lawyers but he went so far as to make up stuff, like the requirement of “genetic exchange”, to render a desired outcome.

As long as media outlets like the New York Times continue their lazy reports of repeating what the last liar said, the people will never be given a chance to make decisions based on truth, but that’s nothing new.

The New York Times now supports the needless slaughter of elk and deer in areas where the wolves are running unmanaged and unchecked, all in the name of what they think is conservation. This is ignorant, yet it’s what the left promotes therefore they are all for it.

Tom Remington