Last month we ranted a bit about John McCain's odd decision to take a worthwhile grizzly bear DNA study and turn it into one of his favorite go-to examples of wasteful government spending and the need for earmark reform. We're all for eliminating inane pork projects, but still don't understand how the Montana bear study ended up lumped together with Alaska's bridge to nowhere and Hillary Clinton's Woodstock Museum earmark as a punchline for McCain's campaign rhetoric.

[Astute EnviroWonk readers may also have noticed that ever since we ran that post, McCain advertisements about this exact subject have regularly showed up on these pages.]

Anyway, we loved today's 2,000-word Washington Post story in which reporter Joel Achenbach traveled to Montana and interviewed field biologists working on the bear project. While not allowed to directly respond to McCain's jabs, Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project leader Katherine Kendall makes it clear that the study is worthwhile and may lead to changes in the protection status of the grizzly.

"There's never been any information about the status of this population. We didn't know what was going on -- until this study," she said.

There's a lot to like in this story, particularly this nugget that the GOP nominee probably won't be adding to his campaign speeches anytime soon: "[McCain] didn't try to block the grizzly funding by offering an amendment to remove it from the 2003 appropriations bill. And ultimately he voted for the bill."