To the Editor,
While the title of the article "Missing Moose? A Lot of Bull" is punny, I resent its anti-science implications. The actual content of the article was accurate and balanced, representing a lack of information to be had in our area. The information that is available suggests that MT moose populations are stable, but that same lack of studies means that the suggestion is not reliable.
However, any statement that scientifically conducted research or responsible reporting is "a lot of bull" only contributes to the current anti-intellectual climate, which places more emphasis on anecdotal evidence and beliefs than statistics and studies. The New York Times reporter may have over-generalized, or our moose populations may very well be an extreme outlier to the continental average. If so (and it would take more science to find out), this is information we can use both to prevent harm to our moose and to inform the recovery efforts in other areas.