Vet P.O.V. There’s a bear in the woods...and it’s not the bear (film attached))

Last Thursday arrived sunny and unseasonably cold here in Miami. My morning flew by in a flurry of surgeries and appointments and I was making good time. I had only two procedures left when my cell rang with the urgent message: “Bear on the way. Better be here before the media if you want in on the action.”

That was my boyfriend, intrepid veterinary surgeon Dr. Marc Wosar at Miami Veterinary Specialists. As the only veterinarian in South Florida with any experience treating bears, his hospital was the one they called when the second Florida Black Bear seen in Miami-Dade County in 30 years collided with an automobile on the Turnpike.

The Florida Turnpike is a long stretch of road that traverses most of our state’s North-South land mass. Throughout most of its length (further north), Black Bears happen. More than 2,400 reportedly reside in our state. They tend only very rarely to venture down into our parts. Consequently, the media was all over this.

Five networks, including Animal Planet and one Spanish language crew, stood vigil with cameras hoisted and ready as a bevy of veterinarians, veterinary technicians and Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission types circled the pen-trailer the latter crew had brought him in with.

Meanwhile, I had put my last two cases of the morning on indefinite hold so that I could add my comparably meager camcorder to the mix of lenses trained on the injured bear.

When I arrived, the bear was laying immobile in a corner within the dark and roomy trailer’s interior. As the Fish and Wildlife people prepped their tranq gun with Telazol, the cameras easily edged me out. Within fifteen minutes he was down and the action underway. Only Animal Planet and I were allowed complete access to the events that followed.

I've produced a seven-minute [very amateur] film for all of you who require a visual to accompany this prose.

This young, male bear was muzzled, laid out on a gurney and rolled into the hospital where he was fully examined. A gaping wound on his right haunch was the obvious injury. This was flushed and manually examined for evidence of foreign bodies. A physical exam revealed a sickening instability of his forearm.

After the bear was intubated (a lengthy process due to the inadequacy of our canine equipment) he was wheeled into radiology where he received an IV catheter...and his revealing pictures.

His right radius and ulna were both fractured in the middle of their shafts. Some comminution of the fracture was evident, as was the presence of bird shot--evidence that the bear had been treated to a pot-shot from a not-so-friendly human at some point. But this was a fixable injury. All would be made well, right?

While all the docs were running around looking for the right sized plates to treat this injury with, and the media glomming onto every word Dr. Wosar said, the Florida Fish and Wildlife folks were starting to hem and haw. Not all of them, mind you, just the ones in touch with the powers-that-be up in Tallahassee.

First they pronounced the dreaded word, “euthanasia.” They then asked Dr. Wosar if he could fix the bear so he could be discharged and released the same day. Of course, medical recommendations being what they are, Dr. Wosar explained that his personal recommendation was to intern the animal in a safe location for six weeks. But if the political decision must be made to release the animal immediately he admitted that the bear would have an excellent chance of recovery.

Yet a few phone calls later, the Fish and Wildlife folks pulled the plug. None of it is going to happen, fellas...it’s all over. The bear is going back and that’s the end of it.

Apparently, Florida may have more than 2,400 bears in its custody but, legally speaking, every single one of them belongs to the state. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission is their legal guardian.

It seems Florida has developed a strict stance of non-intervention regarding the Florida Black Bear, something every single one of the Florida Fish and Wildlife employees present pled ignorance to (and I believe them based on their red faces). Even the simple act of transporting a Florida Black Bear to a medical facility is “illegal” according to the mysterious phone caller, presumably a Tallahassee representative of all us Floridians.

It seems the bears can only receive interventions related to their capture and relocation in the event they prove a “nuisance.” They can be scooped up and meticulously counted as roadkill, but the rare merely injured animal cannot be treated under Florida law.

Not so for the Florida Panther, for example, a species which has received legal protections under the Endangered Species Act. An injured panther is considered an opportunity for saving the world. An injured bear is deemed one less dumpster diver.

So you understand a little better, my admittedly limited research on this issue tells an interesting story: The Florida Black Bear is a sub-species of the American Black Bear, which is the only species of bear that’s believed to have evolved on our continent. Sixteen sub-species have subsequently developed, primarily the result of extreme genetic segregation due to human encroachment.

Although the Louisiana Black Bear is designated as “threatened,” and two neighboring states’ bear populations legally protected (Texas and Mississippi) due to the visible similarity of their sub-species, the nearby states of Florida, Alabama and Arkansas offer no such legal niceties for their bears.

In Florida, a “threatened” status for our sub-species was sought and denied protection under the Endangered Species Act in 1998 and 2004 “due to its adequate protection and management by the state of Florida.” [Reference.] It seems that 2,400 bears is a politically expedient number for a state in which the bear is feared and reviled as a “nuisance.”

Hence the sentence that was handed down on last Thursday’s bear, who we named “Turnpike” for his fateful run-in on that road.

This animal, clearly suffering a life-threatening injury, was fortunate enough to find itself in the care of the only veterinary surgeon in the lower half of the state who has plated bear bones with similar injuries. The bear is already under sedation. Life-saving surgery is easily within his grasp.

The surgeon has waived all fees, in case financial difficulties play into the state’s decision making process. From a basic animal welfare standpoint, he advocates for euthanasia in place of non-treatment, explaining that a bear accustomed to bottom-feeding from Miami-Dade County commercial dumpsters could not possibly survive in the wilds of the Everglades (where Fish and Wildlife intend to take him) without a functional forearm. He’d die of hunger...and in pain.

Nonetheless, the nameless, faceless representative of the great state of Florida remains firm on the other end of the phone line: No intervention on this bear’s behalf. He goes back to a “protected” area in the ‘Glades where no cement-mixing plant’s copious garbage can afford him an easy kill.

What would you say to the Fish and Wildlife man with the badge and the gun who’s physically repossessed your patient?

If you were me, you’d point out the lingering, salivating presence of the news media while harping on the the obvious suffering of this animal. You’d raise the issue of animal cruelty, regardless of species. You’d mention the animal lawyers waiting in the wings to tackle this case. You’d try to bribe the head guy to bring back the bear after all the cameras were gone for a hush-hush surgical intervention. Maybe, even, you’d toy with the idea of sneaking in a syringe-full of Euthasol before the IV catheter was extracted.

As the truck pulled out, sedated bear in its bowels, I had to take note of the obvious: This wasn’t about medicine. It wasn’t about welfare. No “adequate protections” were being afforded this bear. No, this was all about our very human politics...and the Tallahassee contention that bears are nasty creatures likely to eat your garbage and rip your lungs out as look at you.

2,400 Florida Black Bears. 19 million human Floridians.

As I dejectedly drove back to my waiting patients that Thursday afternoon, I couldn’t help but think: Yes, there’s a bear in the woods...but it isn’t the bear. It’s us.

How does this story make you feel? Contact the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission with your comments. Please reference the “Miami-Dade County Black Bear” in your subject line.

February 9th, 2009

Add Comment38 Comments

Wow, that's beyond unfair and stupid. Yes, euthanasia would have been a better option than setting him 'free' without treatment. As soon as I read "A physical exam revealed a sickening instability of his forearm." I thought, "Uh, that's not gonna be good." When I worked with wildlife, we'd occasionally have people (usually a kid and their mom) bring in squirrels that managed not to die immediately when HBC. The kid would always tearfully plead for us to save the squirrel, which, since the squirrel would never comply with treatment of any kind (cast on leg, taking anti-biotics, etc.), we couldn't do anything other than put it down. A bear, well, that's an bigger problem patient, for sure.

KateH February 9th, 2009 09:21:30 AM

KateH: Sure, it's a bigger problem patient, but they do quite well when their bones are plated. Dogs walk out of the hospital after platings. And there's no reason to believe a bear could not. The Fish and Wildlife folks were convinced that a bear would never make it six weeks in captivity but that hasn't been the experience of other rehabbers at the University of Florida and NC State University. They can be contained and effectively treated. (After all, how different would it be for a Florida Panther?) It's simply a matter of political will, it would seem.

Dr. Patty Khuly February 9th, 2009 09:30:49 AM

Dr. K., do they not need a cast/covering of some sort to keep them from getting to the incision or chewing while it heals? The vet I work for only does 'simple' break repair and sends on more serious cases to a specialist. All the ones I've seen (dogs/cats) have something to protect the site which sometimes gets chewed on (and sometimes even creates problems when it interferes with healing).

KateH February 9th, 2009 09:38:43 AM

I followed your suggestion and shared my thoughts with FWC. Of course, first I had to "create an account" and review their list of "stock" answers generated by the subject line (Miami-Dade County Black Bear). This incident is indicative of bureaucracy's placement of policy above any needs of the individual, and certainly above intangible values such as "mcrcy" or "compassion".

Michael February 9th, 2009 09:41:52 AM

Nope. No external devices are needed. Sure, it's always "safest" whenever possible to apply something for support, but internal fixation via plating is incredibly effective and external casting is not strictly necessary when there's a great surgeon at the ready.

Dr. Patty Khuly February 9th, 2009 09:43:16 AM

Dr K, thanks for the heads-up. I'm appalled, and I let them know. My letter to them is copied below:

As a taxpaying citizen of Florida, I am appalled to hear of the decisions made regarding the black bear in Miami-Date county. With veterinarians willing to do surgery without fee to the state and thus give this animal a chance at recovery, the state decided to instead remove this injured animal to the Everglades, away from its accustomed food sources, with only three good legs to attempt to forage for sustenance.

Your web site's mission statement says "Managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit of people." How is leaving an animal in pain and likely to starve to its "well-being"? This decision is nothing short of inhumane, and the state needs to understand that this is unacceptable. If you can't help creatures in this situation, euthanasia is preferable to a lingering, painful death sentence.

I have in the past supported FWC initiatives literally in my own back yard. Today I'm embarrassed to be paying taxes and supporting this kind of cruelty.

Feline February 9th, 2009 09:48:52 AM

Ugh, the whole story makes me feel ill. I can understand the philosophy that we shouldn't intervene with nature, even though it can be ugly (i.e. baby sea turtles getting picked off by gulls on their way from their nest to the ocean)... But in a case where there is such an obvious adverse human-animal interaction, we're outside the realm of "letting nature take its course". Humans have messed up that animal's life, and it's up to humans to either humanely end the suffering or fix the animal. No one benefits from an injured bear being released back into the wild- not humans, not the bear, not other wildlife (except maybe the mice that will eat the bear's carcass once he succumbs to his injuries).

The buraucratic mess is the whole reason I changed course from becoming a wildlife vet and decided to track small animal instead. Can't deal with the red tape.

Megan February 9th, 2009 10:00:40 AM

The idea that anyone could possibly view placing this bear back in the wild (in an environment he's unaccustomed to, nonetheless) sans treatment as acceptable- let alone beneficial on any level for the bear- is appalling.

Their decision was undoubtedly a death sentence for the bear, so why not just euthanize? Where's the benefit in forcing him to suffer until he eventually succumbs to needless starvation or infection?

In this case? Bureaucracy, 1... everybody else, 0.

Ramen Connoisseur February 9th, 2009 10:59:09 AM

I hate that this occurred to me...but maybe someone in government wanted a trophy. Take it away from those trying to help it, kill it, send it to the taxidermist, and voila...

Sorry, but I actually know of someone who did that with a HBC 12 point buck - and they weren't the one who hit it. I hope somehow this bear is monitored, but that's probably impossible in the Everglades.

KateH February 9th, 2009 11:15:57 AM

I am sickened inside reading the politics involved. How on earth can they justify a release? To me this was a cruel and excrutiating death sentence. The US Constitution gives us rights against cruel & unusual punishment. I guess it does not extend to animal welfare. At least euthanasia would have been humane and dignified ending, even though other options were available.

Holly Goldman-Craig February 9th, 2009 11:29:20 AM

I live in rural/coastal North Florida and Bear encounters are quite frequent, I see one every few weeks while driving in our town or running in the state forest. The last HBC I was involved with happened about a 1/2 mile from my clinic. The bear was initially unconcious and "came to". I was instructed not to intervene until the biologist in charge of the bears arrived. she was obviously injured in the forelimb, so all I could do is try to keep her in one place and not dragging herself into the nearby marsh for an hour. When the biologist arrived he asked me to examine her after she was tranquilized by pole syringe. by this time we had 100 specatators. Besides the broken forelimb she had a broken tibia as well, no evidence of internal injuries. The decision then was made to euthanise her. the biologist said that if her injuries were confined to just one leg, she would be relocated and released because in their experience, 3 legged bears have done well in the wild. If the soft tissue injuires heal well, maybe this bear will be OK. Mother nature is wonderful sometimes. I think the focus is to try to maintain the wild population of a protected species, Not sure why there are different rules for bear and panthers though. Not all State of Florida biologists are cold hearted, another recent episode nearby was when a bear wast darted for relocation, it wandered out into the bay and went under water. The biologist jumped into the water, swam out and recued the bear. This made the national news, the biologist even received accolades and even marriage proposals.

Hobson February 9th, 2009 12:08:46 PM

Thanks for making the public aware of the inhumanity and stupidity of FWC. I sent off my thoughts to them as well. I wish I could tell you it's better out west, but in Utah it's even worse.

How do these people live with themselves?

Caroline February 9th, 2009 12:56:08 PM

I'm so sorry for those of you who worked on this bear! While I understand what the law is attempting, clearly there was a major human intervention (HBC) that instigated the need for treatment to, at a minimum, reverse the human "impact" (for want of a better term, no pun intended) on this wild bear; to restore the status quo prior to release. "What would you say to the Fish and Wildlife man with the badge and the gun who’s physically repossessed your patient?" I'm afraid I might have done something prior to the repossession that would have landed me in jail.

PS: Hope that's not the end of the story but certainly understand why we may never know.

PJBoosinger February 9th, 2009 01:01:27 PM

Suggestion to contact FFWCC taken. Just sent my note of disappointment and outrage. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Somyr February 9th, 2009 03:58:10 PM

Dr. K - Brilliantly written. Somehow you managed to remain cool and collected while writing this (although I KNOW there was blood in your mouth from biting your tongue) and you evoked an emotional response in me I can't describe.

I am shocked, saddened, angered, furious and frustrated. I fight city hall every day regarding animal welfare and animal by-laws in my city, and the who-gives-a-damn attitude never gets easy to swallow. But to see it flaunted with such obvious disregard while CAMERAS ROLL...

Tell me, is Animal Planet going to run with this story??!

Kim February 9th, 2009 05:48:48 PM

Kim: I think they will...they're just waiting to see how the dust settles. btw, I found this crew to be so knowledgeable and compassionate. It raised my opinion of Animal Planet by a lot.

Dr. Patty Khuly February 9th, 2009 06:11:10 PM

Here is the response I received from Florida Fish and Wildlife. Did any of you receive the same?

Unfortunately, vehicle collisions with wild black bears in Florida occur regularly, with 135 bears hit and killed in a typical year. As a result, FWC biologists and officers have gained experience with injured bears. Our experience shows that bears are extremely resilient animals that do best when left to heal on their own. In and around Ocala National Forest, the FWC found that 13% of the bears captured have had healed injuries consistent with vehicle collisions, which is a testament to the animals resiliency and tremendous self-healing abilities.

It is our experience that attempts to rehabilitate wild adult black bears tend to cause the animals tremendous stress and more harm than good. Wild bears taken into captivity for injury-rehabilitation risk further injury to themselves as they attempt to escape captivity, resulting in broken teeth and claws or worse. In addition, animals attempt to remove casts or other protective materials applied to their wounds, which results in further injury. Likewise, wild bears that receive pins or other implements to stabilize fractured bones will not favor the injured area and tend to put their full weight on the area, which increases the risk of re-injury or may cause worse damage during the healing process. Bears that are injured and left to their own devices are able to lay up and let the injury heal on its own.

A final concern regarding keeping wild bears in captivity, even for a short period, is that this contact with people can cause the bear to learn to associate people with food, which can reduce its chances of surviving in the wild. Wild bears that have lost their fear of people can become a human-safety risk, which cannot be tolerated. FWC does not want to put wild bears in situations where they might be further injured or become a problem in the future.

If you see an injured bear, please contact the FWC Wildlife Alert hotline 1-888-404-FWCC (3922) and let staff assess whether to do a rescue or recovery of the bear from the area.

Thank you for your concern for Florida's black bears.

Dr. Patty Khuly February 9th, 2009 06:21:04 PM

I just sent them my letter of complaint and received the same canned response.

While I understand that 3-legged bears may often survive, this isn't a case of a bear who was hit and then escaped. He'll be released into an area unfamiliar to him so his injuries may cause truly life-threatening difficulties. Humans were responsible for his injuries (although that was accidental); humans are responsible for his relocation. We should have been responsible enough to either give him a fighting chance by repairing the leg, or to give him a peaceful death.

I hope the commission gets SWAMPED with complaints, and this triggers a change in policy. A sensible change - we're not saying that all injured bears need to be kept in captivity for months of rehab. Treat and release is usually the best solution. But they need to be treated humanely - even a policy of just euthanizing seriously injured bears would be an improvement. It won't help this bear, but hopefully it will help the next one.

Barb February 9th, 2009 06:43:07 PM

Wow! This story really spoke to me - I have sent off my email to the FWC. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Erin February 9th, 2009 06:53:36 PM

Is it just me, or does this sound like a public health problem? It is not in the interest of the public's safety, health, or welfare to have an injured bear released to the wild. My first choice would be surgical repair, but if not, euthanasia would be the only other option in my mind. It doesn't even make sense that they would simply release the bear untreated.

Ridiculous.

Julie in OH February 9th, 2009 07:25:05 PM

Dr. K., I'm impressed (again) by you. Many vets would not have the guts to speak out and tell others about this situation and suggest the FWC be contacted. As usual, you show the best of your profession - and Dr. Wosar and all the other vet staff involved are, of course, included in the kudos. Thank you all for doing the best you were allowed to do.

KateH February 9th, 2009 09:18:37 PM

I can absolutely understand not wanting to keep the bear in captivity for any length of time. A bear who loses his fear of humans is a potentially dangerous bear.. and that doesn't bode well for the bear or the locals. But from what I see, nobody was advocating holding onto the bear.. and I'm still not seeing the rationale for withholding surgery. If the leg were repaired and the bear were to re-injure it, would he honestly be any worse off than he already is at the moment?

Additionally.. I'm sure many wild bears have successfully recovered from all manner of nasty injuries in the wild without medical intervention. Perhaps this one will, too. But for me, the issue is the fact that, unlike those other bears, this one had better options.

Ramen Connoisseur February 9th, 2009 10:40:48 PM

wow, talk about ingnorance about an issue. Not only have they sent an injured and in pain wild animal back into the "woods" but they have also let it loose on an unsuspecting public. Maybe they did release the bear a zillion miles from any person. But to release an animal back injured when they could have done something, I hate to say this, but even a quick bullet would have been kinder.

sad state of affairs. if their policy is hands off, why not just leave it in the road where it was hit? why bother to bring it in at all.

Got to love those asslicking cluelss politicians. Tax dollars at work.

LorriM February 10th, 2009 03:59:48 AM

I emailed the FWC and received the same generic response as many on this blog did - very disappointing.

Laurie February 10th, 2009 10:20:58 AM

This from Barb, reprinted (in part) from today's post:

Speaking of the bear, maybe the Florida Fish & Wildlife commission is feeling the sting... they sent me ANOTHER response today.

This one included a dig at your boyfriend: "The auto-response below was written by our bear management leader. Unlike the vet, he has worked with bears for many years and expects this bear to survive. If you have additional questions or concerns, please contact us again. FWC is looking out for the best interest of the animals and people of this state."

Dr. Patty Khuly February 10th, 2009 02:04:55 PM

"The auto-response below was written by our bear management leader. Unlike the vet, he has worked with bears for many years and expects this bear to survive."

OK, so my hackles are up. Two points in response:

1) With all due respect, the "bear management leader" is not a veterinary surgeon. He was not even present to view the radiographs. Who is best equipped to establish whether this bear is likely to survive or not? I'd say the medically trained guy who happens to have physically evaluated the animal.

Sure, the "bear management leader" may have seen a lot of re-injured bears with previous fractures. Yes, many of them do heal. But where's the science here? Were any of them devastating radius and ulna fractures? How many? No one really knows, not even the almighty "bear management leader."

2) Is survival the primary issue here? Considering that Dr. Wosar recommended euthanasia in lieu of plating, I'd say it's not. Welfare is the issue. And this case clearly demonstrates that the state's not a good steward for these bears in that respect.

Dr. Patty Khuly February 10th, 2009 04:05:23 PM

I've made my comments to the State and I'm crossposting this url to all my FL contacts. I'm ashamed to be a resident of Florida. I don't see how these people can sleep at night.

Mary February 10th, 2009 07:06:04 PM

The decision makers should be shot and left in the woods to die. The bear has more sense and is more valuable to our state!

Rita Carroll February 10th, 2009 09:54:47 PM

I want to weigh in here as an advocate of there are 2 sides to every story. Before I do, let me state that in my opinion I think that this bear should have been allowed to undergo surgery and then been released immediately back into the wild. It was no skin off the State of Florida's a@%* for this to happen. I don't understand the objection, and wish they had been more flexible in this case. However, I work with biologists on a regular basis, I do wildlife first aid in my clinic and work with the red wolf breeding program on St Vincent's Nation Wildlife refuge, performing the health care on these animals. I have worked with biologists involved in bear management. These folks are not the cold hearted monsters that many of you seem to think. They care about the creatures they manage and study, they own pets like you and I. The rules for wild animals and the rules for pets are different. Their whole existence is different. It is hard to understand the biologists' line of thinking from where many of you stand. But I believe that their policies and decisions are based on scientific evidence and dealing with beings in their natural state. Like it or not, defined in human civilized standards, nature is very cruel: billions of animals are torn apart and eaten by other animals every day. We all kinow that 3 legged dogs and cats function quite well, they can outrun anyone on this post. Bear's feeding habits don't require them to run fast. a 3 legged bear will do just fine in the wild. I am quite familiar with wild bears. We have bears wonder into our small towns around here on a regular basis, nearby Carrabelle, Florida even has a bear festival in the fall. I am a distance runner and encounter them face to face on the forest trails all the time. They usually casually amble off, people ask me if I am afraid and I tell them I still feel safer running in the woods than I do in town.

Hobson February 11th, 2009 08:39:45 PM

Hobson: Interestingly, I have been softening my stance after having been in communication with Dr. Mark Cunningham of the FWC. He seems to truly care about bears. The problem seems to lie in the lack of evidence for success in treatment of these types of injuries. However, it's also clear that a policy that relies on older medical models will never change if newer modes of treatment are not adopted.

FWC's current position is that bears do not do better with surgery. But then, that policy is about ten years old. When, then, does it become appropriate to push the envelope and allow for modern veterinary medicine to gain a foothold?

It's an interesting question. Thanks for the perspective, Hobson.

Dr. Patty Khuly February 12th, 2009 07:01:25 PM

DR. STEVEN ROSEN PRES. ANGELS IN DISTRESS ANIMAL RESCUE A 501C3 NON PROFIT.

Thank you for your message in support of wildlife everywhere. Sorry about deleting your comment but I have a policy about hostile language.

Nonetheless, I want to offer you another opportunity to make your case.

Dr. Patty Khuly February 18th, 2009 06:16:15 AM

شات

amal May 22nd, 2009 04:41:10 AM

قلبي

bnt aboha May 22nd, 2009 12:37:13 PM

The official site of Don Ed Hardy shoes. Find the latest Ed Hardy fashion footwear here.

hood July 24th, 2009 07:43:38 AM

[url="http://www.cartierwatches.us/Rolex/GMT/"]RolexGMTreplica[/url]

<url="Louis'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Louis-Vuitton/">Louis Vuitton replica</url>

movado watch for sale November 11th, 2009 02:00:36 PM

“Marriage bridal gown world pictures pictures of wanted to plan a happy surprise, a number of wedding photography studio is the purpose of holding more money ‘Kengren’, they set a ‘trap’ let you keep track of.” Wedding photos has just finished a small selection mother told the journalists, was originally a good original price 7999 yuan Zhao Shuren said that the wedding package, less than 2,000 yuan only to 5999 yuan.

bridal November 24th, 2009 12:31:05 AM

Jimmy Choo Handbags

Jimmy Choo Shoes

Jimmy Choo Handbags November 25th, 2009 12:10:46 PM

To edit Panasonic AVCHD, edit Canon AVCHD, edit Sony AVCHD, edit JVC AVCHD, this software is your best choice.Nowadays, AVCHD is the popular hd(high-definition) video format for DV(Digital-Video)like panasonic, sony, canon, JVC, etc.Panasonic AVCHD Editor is currently the most superior edit panasonic AVCHD software, which can edit your avchd video at your will. Panasonic AVCHD Editor is such a powerful editing software that it provides the intuitive editing function such as trimming, cropping, adjusting effect and adding watermark. No matter you are a professional or not, you can master it soon. So just download Panasonic AVCHD Editor to have a try.Friendly tips: AVCHD is a format for the recording and playback of high definition video. Video is compressed in MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 format, and audio is recorded in Dolby Digital.

xiaoxi December 29th, 2009 08:30:44 PM

Add Commment

Log In

E-Mail:
Password:
Register
Reset Password

E-Mail:

Daily Vet

Careerists

Did you always want to be a vet or vet technician? Thinking about it? Working on it? Need some Help?

"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

- Mohandas Gandhi