What's in a name??

Dog named L.L. Bean adopted by L.L. Bean employee
1:29 PM, Dec 15, 2011
Photo courtesy Dunn County Humane Society

MENOMONIE, Wis. - A dog named L.L. Bean will soon be united with the clothing company of the same name after a TV report in Eau Claire, Wis., featured the dog in an adoption segment.

The day after the dog, a three-year-old, 80-pound coon hound, was showcased on WQOW-TV during a "Pet of the Day" segment, an employee from L.L. Bean's corporate office in Maine contacted the Dunn County Humane Society to inquire about the dog's availability.

According to the Dunn County Humane Society's website, the shelter had not been able to find a place for L.L. Bean the dog for more than a year. That is, until L.L. Bean the company called.

An employee at L.L. Bean's headquarters shared the dog's story with other employees. Four adoption applications were submitted to the Dunn County Humane Society for L.L. Bean.

Pam Burt of Windham, Maine, is a customer service representative at L.L. Bean and in early January, she will be the proud new owner of the hunting dog. She was selected after a phone interview with the shelter.

"I fell in love with L.L. Bean as soon as I read the story and saw his picture," Burt told WQOW. "My family can't wait to get him."

The dog will leave western Wisconsin for Maine in early January.

Employees at L.L. Bean's Maine offices collected more than $800 to pay for the dog's transportation from Menomonie to Burt's home in Maine.

(Copyright 2011 by KARE. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

New limits on use of chimps in medical research

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) adopt strict new limits on using chimpanzees in medical research, saying most unneeded

Article by: LAURAN NEERGAARD ,
Associated Press Updated: December 15, 2011 - 1:08 PM

Marlon, 10, a chimpanzee, in his outdoor cage at the New Iberia Research Center in New Iberia, La., Oct. 28, 2011.
Photo: Tim Mueller, New York Times


WASHINGTON - The government on Thursday said it would adopt strict new limits on using chimpanzees in medical research, after a prestigious scientific group recommended that experiments with humans' closest relative be done only as a last resort.

The National Institutes of Health agreed that science has advanced enough that chimps seldom would be needed to help develop new medicines.

NIH Director Francis Collins temporarily barred new federal funding for research involving chimps, and said a working group will review about 37 ongoing projects involving the animals to see if they should be phased out.

Chimps' similarity to people "demands special consideration and respect," Collins said.

These apes' genetic closeness to humans has long caused a quandary. It's what has made them so valuable to scientists for nearly a century. They were vital in creating a vaccine for hepatitis B, for example, and even were shot into space to make sure the trip wouldn't kill the astronauts next in line.

But that close relationship also has had animal rights groups arguing that using chimps for biomedical research is unethical, even cruel.

Chimp research already was dwindling fast as scientists turned to less costly and ethically charged alternatives.

Thursday's decision was triggered by an uproar last year over the fate of 186 semi-retired research chimps that the NIH, to save money, planned to move from a New Mexico facility to an active research lab in Texas.

Where and how to house those animals — and others scattered around the country who probably no longer will be needed — are among the issues that Collins said a government working group will decide as it determines how to implement the new research restrictions.

The Institute of Medicine's recommendation on Thursday stopped short of the outright ban that animal rights activists had pushed. Instead, it urged strict limits on biomedical research — testing new drugs or giving animals a disease — that would allow using chimps only if studies could not be done on other animals or people themselves, and if foregoing the chimp work would hinder progress against life-threatening or debilitating conditions.

The panel advised the government to limit use of chimps in behavioral and genetic research as well, saying such studies must provide insights that otherwise are unattainable — and use techniques that minimize any pain or distress.

"We understand and feel compelled by the moral cost of using chimpanzees in research," said bioethicist Jeffrey Kahn of Johns Hopkins University, who chaired the Institute of Medicine panel. "We have established criteria that will set the bar quite high for justification of the use of chimpanzees."

The U.S. is one of only two countries known to still conduct medical research with chimpanzees; the other is Gabon, in Africa. The European Union essentially banned such research last year.

Here, too, the practice was becoming uncommon. The Institute of Medicine's investigation found over the past 10 years, the NIH has paid for just 110 projects of any type that involved chimps. There are not quite 1,000 chimps available for medical research in the country.

While it's impossible to say how many have been used in privately funded pharmaceutical research, the industry is shifting to higher-tech and less costly research methods. One drug company, GlaxoSmithKline, adopted an official policy ending its use of great apes, including chimpanzees, in research.

Horsemeat may become available in U.S.

Horsemeat May Become Available in U.S.
By AP / JUSTIN JUOZAPAVICIUS Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2011

(TULSA, Okla.) — Horses could soon be butchered in the U.S. for human consumption after Congress quietly lifted a 5-year-old ban on funding horse meat inspections, and activists say slaughterhouses could be up and running in as little as a month.

Slaughter opponents pushed a measure cutting off funding for horse meat inspections through Congress in 2006 after other efforts to pass outright bans on horse slaughter failed in previous years. Congress lifted the ban in a spending bill President Barack Obama signed into law Nov. 18 to keep the government afloat until mid-December.

It did not, however, allocate any new money to pay for horse meat inspections, which opponents claim could cost taxpayers $3 million to $5 million a year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture would have to find the money in its existing budget, which is expected to see more cuts this year as Congress and the White House aim to trim federal spending.

The USDA issued a statement Tuesday saying there are no slaughterhouses in the U.S. that butcher horses for human consumption now, but if one were to open, it would conduct inspections to make sure federal laws were being followed. USDA spokesman Neil Gaffney declined to answer questions beyond what was in the statement.

The last U.S. slaughterhouse that butchered horses closed in 2007 in Illinois, and animal welfare activists warned of massive public outcry in any town where a slaughterhouse may open. "If plants open up in Oklahoma or Nebraska, you'll see controversy, litigation, legislative action and basically a very inhospitable environment to operate," predicted Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of The Humane Society of the United States. "Local opposition will emerge and you'll have tremendous controversy over slaughtering Trigger and Mr. Ed."

But pro-slaughter activists say the ban had unintended consequences, including an increase in neglect and the abandonment of horses, and that they are scrambling to get a plant going — possibly in Wyoming, North Dakota, Nebraska or Missouri. They estimate a slaughterhouse could open in 30 to 90 days with state approval and eventually as many as 200,000 horses a year could be slaughtered for human consumption. Most of the meat would be shipped to Europe and Asia, where it's treated as a delicacy.

Dave Duquette, president of the nonprofit, pro-slaughter group United Horsemen, said no state or site has been picked yet but he's lined up plenty of investors who have expressed interest in financing a processing plant. While the last three slaughterhouses in the U.S. were owned by foreign companies, he said a new plant would be American-owned. "I have personally probably five to 10 investors that I could call right now if I had a plant ready to go," said Duquette, who lives in Hermiston, Ore. He added, "If one plant came open in two weeks, I'd have enough money to fund it. I've got people who will put up $100,000."

Sue Wallis, a Wyoming state lawmaker who's the group's vice president, said ranchers used to be able to sell horses that were too old or unfit for work to slaughterhouses but now they have to ship them to butchers in Canada and Mexico, where they fetch less than half the price.

The federal ban devastated "an entire sector of animal agriculture for purely sentimental and romantic notions," she said.

Although there are reports of Americans dining on horse meat a recently as the 1940s, the practice is virtually non-existent in this country, where the animals are treated as beloved pets and iconic symbols of the West.

Lawmakers in California and Illinois have banned the slaughter of horses for human consumption, and more than a dozen states tightly regulate the sale of horse meat.

Federal lawmakers' lifting of the ban on funding for horse meat inspections came about in part because of the recession, which struck just as slaughtering stopped. A federal report issued in June found that local animal welfare organizations reported a spike in investigations for horse neglect and abandonment since 2007. In Colorado, for example, data showed that investigations for horse neglect and abuse increased more than 60 percent — from 975 in 2005 to almost 1,600 in 2009.

The report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office also determined that about 138,000 horses were transported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter in 2010, nearly the same number that were killed in the U.S. before the ban took effect in 2007. The U.S. has an estimated 9 million horses.

Cheri White Owl, founder of the nonprofit Horse Feathers Equine Rescue in Guthrie, Okla., said she's seen more horse neglect during the recession. Her group is caring for 33 horses now and can't accept more. "A lot of the situation is due to the economy," she said, "People deciding to pay their mortgage or keep their horse."

But White Owl worries that if slaughterhouses open, owners will dump their unwanted animals there instead of looking for alternatives, such as animal sanctuaries.

Animal rights groups also argue that slaughtering is a messy, cruel process, and some say it would be kinder for owners to have their horses put to sleep by a veterinarian. "Euthanasia has always been an option," Pacelle said. But "if you acquire a horse, you should be a responsible owner and provide lifetime care."

The fight over horse slaughtering has pitted lawmakers of the same party against each other.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said the poor economy has resulted in "sad cases" of horse abandonment and neglect and lifting the ban will give Americans a shot at regaining lost jobs and making sure sick horses aren't abandoned or mistreated.

But U.S. Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., is lobbying colleagues to permanently ban horse slaughter because he believes the process is inhumane. "I am committed to doing everything in my power to prevent the resumption of horse slaughter and will force Congress to debate this important policy in an open, democratic manner at every opportunity," he said in a statement.

Yellowstone Grizzly Bear is safe

Protective grizzly that mauled hiker in Yellowstone Park not predatory, won't be hunted
Article by: MATT VOLZ , Associated Press Updated: July 7, 2011 - 5:51 PM

BILLINGS, Mont. - A grizzly bear that mauled a 57-year-old hiker to death in Yellowstone National Park was only defending its cubs and had not threatened humans before. So park officials on Thursday decided to leave it alone to wander the backcountry.

The mauling — the park's first in 25 years — temporarily closed one of Yellowstone's top attractions on one of the busiest days of the year, leaving some tourists to wonder what was going on.

"It was not predatory and so we see no reason to take action against the bear," said Kerry Gunther, bear management biologist for Yellowstone.

The attack also highlighted the potential dangers, however rare, that face tourists who come in record numbers each year to a park known for its burgeoning bear population and the Old Faithful geyser.

Whenever there is a run-in or attack involving bears, park officials must decide whether the attack was defensive or an act of aggression. In Wednesday's mauling, they based their conclusion on the account of the hiker's wife, who survived, as well as their knowledge of bear behavior.

Brian and Marylyn Matayoshi, of Torrance, Calif., were hiking in a backcountry meadow along a trail a mile and a half from the trailhead when they spotted the bear foraging about 100 yards away. The couple immediately turned and began walking away, officials said.

The grizzly charged and attacked Brian Matayoshi, then went for his wife, who ran for cover behind a tree. The grizzly lifted her off the ground by the day pack she was wearing and then dropped her.

She tried to call 911 on her cell phone, but couldn't get a signal. Other hikers in the area responded to her cries for help and managed to get through to emergency officials.

Marylyn Matayoshi told rescuers that the couple surprised the sow, its cubs nearby — one of the most dangerous situations possible for humans encountering grizzlies. Park officials believe the grizzly had two six-month-old cubs, based on previous sightings in the area and cub tracks where the attack occurred.

"All indications are that this was a defensive attack," park spokesman Al Nash said. "In such cases, the park's policy is to leave the bear in the backcountry."

The bear had never been documented before, never been tagged, and there was no reason to believe it had interacted with humans before, Nash said. They said the way the attack happened indicated the bear didn't intend to eat the couple.

Marylyn Matayoshi escaped injury and was no longer at the park, and officials declined to reveal her whereabouts.

In Torrance, neighbor Kathy Hester said Matayoshi and his wife kept their house immaculate and recently had put in a new lawn. "They are the sweetest people you'd ever want to meet," Hester said.

Park officials called the mauling a "1-in-3-million" encounter.

While many visitors Thursday morning were unaware of the attack, many seemed to know about it by the afternoon. Desk clerks at hotels inside the park told new arrivals that there had been a bear mauling. Worried relatives called or texted other visitors.

Some were surprised that rangers didn't let them know when they entered the park that there had been an attack and that some trails were closed.

"They didn't say one word about it at the gate," said Leslie Finch, visiting with her husband and two children for two days from Missoula, Mont. "I would have thought they'd say this area is closed. But they didn't say anything."

Park officials said the attack shouldn't condition the sow to attack again. They also collected DNA samples from fur at the attack site, so they can determine if the bear is involved in another attack, Gunther said.

"We don't believe that this defensive action by the bear would make any future action more probable," park superintendent Dan Wenk said.

Decades of research has established that grizzlies, while dangerous, rarely get aggressive with people except under very predictable circumstances, said Mark Bruscino, a Wyoming state bear biologist who has investigated some 40 attacks.

Grizzlies become aggressive when they are harassed, taken by surprise up close, are defending a food source or are defending their cubs, Bruscino said.

"You can almost explain every incident that occurs with a grizzly bear around those four," he said.

Bruscino declined to weigh in on the decision not to track and kill the Yellowstone bear.

A bear that fatally attacked a man and seriously injured two people at a campground east of Yellowstone last July was killed in part because the circumstances didn't neatly fit into predictable bear behavior, he said.

Hunger and internal parasites afflicted that grizzly, but investigators said they could not explain its late-night rampage through the crowded campground near Cooke City, Mont. That grizzly was captured and euthanized. Its three cubs are now in a Billings, Mont., zoo.

Wednesday's mauling was the park's first fatal grizzly attack since 1986, but the third in the region in just over a year amid ever-growing numbers of grizzlies and tourists roaming the same wild landscape. In June 2010, a grizzly just released after being tranquilized for study killed an Illinois hiker outside the park.

Grizzlies are an omnivorous species with a diet of berries, elk, fish, moths, ants and even pine nuts. Officials routinely urge visitors to take precautions: Stay on designated trails, carry bear spray, hike in groups of three or more, and make noise in places where a grizzly could be lurking.

The decision not to track and kill the Yellowstone bear isn't unprecedented. In nearby Grand Teton National Park, officials decided not to intervene with a grizzly that wounded a man in 2007. Rangers determined that female also was defending its cubs and didn't pose a general threat to humans.

"This is bear country," said Elizabeth Hoffman, a tourist from California who agreed with park officials' decision. "It's got babies. If someone came after a human mother, I don't think that we'd take her from her children."

__

Associated Press writers Mead Gruver in Cheyenne, Wyo., and Greg Risling in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Makes me laugh every time

At least one cat likes to dress up

Or, is this a trick?
;-)

Swan Lady of Monticello

'Swan Lady' created a haven for trumpeters
Article by: KEVIN DUCHSCHERE
Star Tribune Updated: April 5, 2011 - 8:13 PM

Sheila Lawrence, who died Saturday, fed more than 1,500 swans each winter near her Monticello home.

Sheila Lawrence, shown in this 2007 photo, began feeding a pair of trumpeter swans that showed up near her Monticello home in 1988. The number grew to 1,500, at an annual cost of nearly $20,000.
Photo: Jerry Holt, Star Tribune

It was typical of Sheila Lawrence that she didn't take her leave of Monticello until after her beloved trumpeter swans, nurtured and fattened all winter long on the Mississippi River below her house, were on their way north once again.

Lawrence, 65, died Saturday after an eight-month battle with cancer. She left a legacy for her river town in the large graceful birds that now winter there, thanks to the "Swan Lady" who fed them for more than 20 years.

"Maybe she was the bird whisperer. Some people have it," said her husband, Jim, who took over the feeding for his wife this winter when she became too sick to continue.

"I don't know when she became the Swan Lady, but it kind of fit. She accepted it as a badge, and it worked for her and everybody else."

Carrol Henderson, nongame wildlife program supervisor for the Department of Natural Resources, said that Lawrence "single-handedly speeded up the recovery of this threatened species in Minnesota." He called her "a great conservationist."

Sheila Lawrence's daily feedings of shelled corn have regularly drawn more than 1,500 swans to Monticello in the winter months, making the community of 13,000 northwest of the Twin Cities a destination for hundreds of tourists from Minnesota and outside the state.

"She has put us on the map," said Sandy Suchy, director of the Monticello Chamber of Commerce & Industry.

The Wisconsin native graduated from high school in Somerset, Wis. After a stint as a beautician, she worked in several manufacturing plants before joining Medtronic in Fridley as an assembler. There she met Jim Lawrence, whom she married in 1980.

While still working for Medtronic, the Lawrences in 1984 built a house in Monticello above a stretch of the river that remains open in the winter due to the water discharge from the nearby power plant. Sheila began feeding the ducks and geese that stayed over the winter.

Four years later, the first few pairs of swans arrived.

"She said 'Wow, look at these big things,'" Jim Lawrence said.

The more swans she fed, the more came.

She worked hours moving buckets of corn from a grain hopper in her driveway down to the shallows where the swans rested. In recent years, the couple rigged a conveyor system using an auger that empties the feed into a tub near the water.

Sheila was quiet and didn't seek attention, her husband said, and years went by before her efforts became widely known.

As more tourists came to watch the growing number of swans, the city set aside a vacant lot next to the Lawrence home to accommodate them and dubbed it Swan Park. The chamber published a brochure with directions, a history of Monticello's swans and a food and lodging directory.

In recent years, Sheila was feeding the birds 1,200 to 2,000 pounds of corn each day. More than 2,200 birds were fed this winter, at a cost of nearly $20,000, but Jim Lawrence said that he plans to continue. "That is my intention. I'm not going anywhere," he said.

Besides her husband, she is survived by a daughter, Tracy Ford, of Big Lake, Minn.; three stepsons, James and Jason, both of East Haddam, Conn., and Chad, of Kings Bay, Ga.; her mother, Mabel Shay, of Monticello; and a sister, Sandra Simma, of Somerset. Services will be at 2 p.m. Monday at Peterson-Grimsmo Chapel, 250 E. Broadway, Monticello, with visitation at the funeral home from 5 to 8 p.m. Sunday.

Kevin Duchschere • 612-673-4455