Bird Flu Cases In Humans: Here’s What To Know
Reply
South Dakota’s predator Bounty program
Noem, meanwhile, already had a history of bloodlust unparalleled among current U.S. governors.
Among her first actions as the then newly elected governor of South Dakota, her campaign propelled by the endorsement of Donald Trump, was to introduce a “nest predator bounty program” in 2019 with the stated goals of “diminishing the population of animals who eat pheasant and duck eggs, get youth and families outside together, and helping to ensure trapping remains a part of South Dakota’s outdoor heritage.”
Funded with half a million dollars per year, the bounty program targets raccoons, coyotes, striped skunks, badgers, opossums, and red fox, from April 1 through July 1, with a goal of killing 50,000 “nest predators” per year.
To collect the bounty, participants must turn in the tails of the dead animals.
240,000 “nest predators” killed
Through 2023, 240,000 “nest predators” have been killed for the bounties.
The number of pheasants shot increased from 2019 to 2022 by 371,000.
Nonetheless, the 2022 toll of 1.2 million was still 900,000 below the number of pheasants shot in 2007, when no bounties were in effect, but weather conditions and farm cropping choices were more conducive to pheasant abundance.
(For a detailed analysis of the failure of the bounty program, which is to continue at least through 2026, see South Dakota predator bounty program to continue despite opposition, by Bart Pfankuch and Abbey Stegenga of South Dakota News Watch.)
Bears move out of hibernation into Mission Valley, area residents warned to avoid bear traps
Stop printing fishing, hunting photographs
American Idol’s Will Moseley Faces Backlash for Hog Hunting Past, PETA Calls For His Elimination
Dolphin dead after being repeatedly shot in Louisiana, $20,000 reward offered for info
Hunters Livid Over Apparent ‘Thrill Killing’ Of Wyoming Elk Left To Rot
After a vegan blue cheese won the Good Food Award, panicked dairy cheese makers forced the foundation to disqualify it
MARK FRAUENFELDER 8:47 AM MON APR 29, 2024
Something stinks in the world of cheese, but this time it’s not the product – it’s the sour grapes emanating from the dairy industry as they try in vain to curdle the rise of a plant-based upstart that’s threatening to spoil their future.
In a story that has enough twists and turns and heroes and villains to be a Netflix documentary, The Washington Post reports on scandal at the prestigious Good Food Awards. A plant-based blue cheese was selected as a finalist, shocking high-quality artisanal dairy-based cheesemakers who felt it didn’t belong in the competition.
After initially being named a finalist, Climax Blue cheese was later disqualified by the Good Food Foundation, reportedly due to issues around one of the ingredients (kokum butter) not having GRAS certification. But Climax CEO Oliver Zahn accused the foundation of caving to pressure from the dairy cheese industry and changing the rules after the fact to disqualify his product. The foundation denies this, saying it was due to a complaint from someone in the community.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.637.1_en.html#goog_767177294
The traditional cheesemaking company is freaking out about Climax Blue, especially because the vegan cheese was so delicious that it had slated to win the overall competition before the Good Food Foundation caved to pressure.
Mateo Kehler, co-owner of the Jasper Hill Farm in Vermont told The Post, “One could make the argument that this is like a fraudulent cheese. As a cheesemaker, it’s a fraud. It looks like a cheese. It might taste like a cheese. But it’s not. It’s not connected to our historical understanding of what cheeses are.”
But Climax CEO Zahn argues that Climax Blue is cheese:
To Zahn, the method he’s using isn’t all that different from the one used for centuries. When it comes down to it, he notes, plants fuel the animals that produce milk — and so in concocting a milk made out of plants, Zahn says he’s just cutting out the middleman (or middle-bovine). In his analysis of traditional cheesemaking, a cow is essentially a processing machine — and not a very efficient one at that.
“There’s a lot of energy being used to turn something from one thing to another, and in the case of a cow, 90 percent of the inputs go to just processing,” he says. “There is no factory you could potentially devise that would come with that much processing.”
In the end, the dairy industry’s heavy-handed attempts to keep Climax Blue from the spotlight have only served to amplify its rise, proving the old adage that the more you try to censor or suppress something, the more attention you inadvertently bring to it. Just like the Barbra Streisand effect, the panicked reaction of the traditional cheesemakers has guaranteed Climax Blue far more publicity and notoriety than it ever would have received by simply winning the Good Food Award outright.
How do dogs think about their toys? Study offers insights into canine cognition
in Animals
(Photo credit: Adobe Stock)
Stay on top of the latest psychology findings: Subscribe now!
Ever wondered what your dog is thinking when it eagerly searches for its favorite toy? A study from the Family Dog Project at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest brings us closer to understanding the canine mind. Researchers discovered that dogs create “multi-modal mental images” of familiar objects. This means that dogs remember and think about objects, like their toys, in various sensory dimensions such as appearance and scent.
The study, published in the journal Animal Cognition, is a significant step towards understanding the cognitive processes of our canine companions.
Previous research into canine cognition has increasingly shown that dogs possess a surprisingly sophisticated ability to process and interact with their environment. Studies have specifically explored how dogs can discriminate between different objects and react to human language, revealing a complex cognitive landscape. For example, some dogs, known as “Gifted Word Learner” dogs, have demonstrated the rare ability to learn and recall the names of dozens of objects, suggesting they associate specific verbal labels with physical items. This ability hints at a form of mental representation similar to how humans think about the world.
However, despite these advances, questions remained about the extent and nature of these mental representations. Did dogs form detailed sensory images of the objects they interacted with? How did various senses contribute to their understanding and recall of these objects? Previous studies provided insights into the sensory modalities dogs might use, such as vision and olfaction, to identify their targets. Researchers observed that while dogs could rely on sight to distinguish between objects under well-lit conditions, they would switch to olfactory cues in the absence of visual information.
Motivated by these findings, the researchers from the Family Dog Project aimed to further investigate the sensory integration processes in dogs’ brains. They were particularly driven by a desire to ascertain if typical family dogs, as opposed to only the unusually gifted ones, employ multiple senses to form these mental images and how these images might assist in object identification under different sensory conditions. The researchers conducted two experiments.
The first experiment examined the sensory modalities that dogs use to recognize and retrieve a familiar toy under varying conditions of light. The participants included 14 dogs: 10 typical family dogs and 3 Gifted Word Learner dogs.
Initially, each dog was trained to retrieve a specific toy from a set of distractors. This training involved the dog’s owner playing with the designated “target” toy and the dog, which was encouraged with treats and praise to choose this toy over others. This training phase was designed to create a mental association between the toy and its reward. After this, the experiment tested whether the dogs could recall and select this toy under two conditions: with lights on (light condition) and with lights off (dark condition).
In both conditions, the toys were placed in a room different from where the dog and its owner were. The dogs were then instructed by their owners to retrieve the specific toy. The researchers observed the dogs’ ability to find the correct toy, noting the time taken and the sensory cues used—visual or olfactory—to locate it.
The findings revealed that all dogs could successfully retrieve the toy in both lit and unlit settings, though they were quicker to do so when the lights were on, indicating a primary reliance on visual cues. However, in the dark, the researchers noted a significant increase in the time dogs spent sniffing, suggesting a shift to olfactory cues when visual information was unavailable.
These results imply that dogs are capable of using multiple senses to form a comprehensive understanding of their environment. They adjust their sensory reliance based on the availability of sensory data, showcasing a flexible cognitive process.
The second experiment was specifically designed to delve deeper into the cognitive processes of Gifted Word Learner dogs, focusing on how these dogs recall and search for toys using verbal cues under varying sensory conditions. This experiment included the three Gifted Word Learner dogs from Experiment 1, along with an additional female Border Collie.
In this experiment, each dog was tested in familiar environments, either at their homes or a known lab setting, to ensure comfort and reduce variable stress that could influence behavior. The setup was similar to that of Experiment 1 but adjusted to cater specifically to each dog’s familiar setting. The experiment involved the dogs’ existing vocabulary of named toys. Each dog had a collection of familiar toys that they had previously demonstrated they could identify by name.
The procedure was straightforward: the owner would ask the dog to retrieve a specific toy by name, both in a lit environment (light condition) and in complete darkness (dark condition). The aim was to see if the dogs could use their multi-sensory mental images of the toys to find them without visual cues. As in Experiment 1, the toys were placed in a separate room, and the dogs had to navigate to this room to select the correct toy.
The Gifted Word Learner dogs successfully retrieved the correct toys by name in both light and dark conditions, demonstrating no significant difference in success rates between the two. This finding suggests that the verbal label of a toy triggers a recall of a robust multisensory mental representation of the toy, which the dogs can rely on even in the absence of visual information.
Additionally, the experiment showed that while the dogs spent more time searching in the dark, indicating more effort needed to locate the toys without sight, they were still able to perform effectively. This extended searching time in the dark was paired with increased sniffing behaviors, illustrating a switch to olfactory cues when visual cues were unavailable.
The study, while revealing, has limitations. The sample size was relatively small, and the study only included a few dog breeds. Future research could expand to include a broader range of breeds and larger numbers to verify these findings. Additionally, exploring how dogs use other senses like hearing and touch in object identification could offer deeper insights into canine cognition.
Nevertheless, the study provides compelling evidence that dogs, like humans, form complex sensory images of the objects around them. While Gifted Word Learner dogs may represent the upper echelon of canine intelligence, typical family dogs also possess the ability to perceive and remember their world in a rich, multi-modal way.
The study, “Multisensory mental representation of objects in typical and Gifted Word Learner dogs,” was authored by Shany Dror, Andrea Sommese, Ádám Miklósi, Andrea Temesi, and Claudia Fugazza.
Exposing the Big Game 
