Well said, Mary. Thank you.

no one has to die to relize this race is dangerous. Everyone is aware of this. That is why they don't do it at another time of the year. How many dogs are killed in auto acidents, how many people are killed in auto acidents each year? Then how many dogs have died in all the years of the ididarod? How many people have died? These dog live to pull sleds. Taht is what they are breed for. All teams that make it are winners. The ones that don't make are still good dogs and mushers. Up in the north their is a need for these dogs and sleds. Not everytime a snowmobile or other equipment is able to go where these dogs can. Anyone can sit in ther nice warm place and critize those that go out and do.

This post is utterly ridiculous. Millions of animals die every year. Be it from euthanization, cars, dog fights, abuse, stupid kids, etc. Dogs dying from the iditarod is probably just under dogs dying from being hurled into space. If you're going to whine about the iditarod you're going to have to whine about all other animal death. However if those animals didn't die, if we instead let them roam around, they would form an ever growing swarm of wild animals that would be rife with disease and attacking people and other animals. Tell me please, without hurting any animals, how would you solve this problem.

Why don't they use snow mobiles? That won't hurt an animal, unless the rider falls off or hits a tree. The idea is that the Ididarod has seen its time and place. It's not needed. Like rodeos. Who really understands the background of those things? The original "Ididarod" at least had a reason: to speed medicine to those in need. But year after year, it gets more and more reckless.

How to solve it without hurting the dogs?  Stop the damn race.  
There you have it.  

Dogs love this job. They also will do anything to win. Just because a search for the dog wasn't reported in the "news" doesn't mean the dog owner didn't do everything they can to find it. There are many sports that involve animals that are dangerour. Horseracing and jumping come to mind. It does becaome a business after a while, but do we really outlaw things just for their inherent danger? That is a lot of governing for a few people's opinion. If you don't like it, don't p[articipate and don't support it finanlcally. If you think those dogs are loved and enjoy the sport of pulling in the snow (which they were bred for, being working dogs) then enjoy it. Try reading Akiak if you think dogs don't enjoy this sport, and if you think that people, especially the owners see them as "just dogs" and not thier own pack, you should probably think again.

Tom, I am indeed sorry about the hotlink matter. It's not my area of expertise, and the problems associated with it didn't occur to me. My apologies--and my thanks for alerting me. I'll take care of this.

Like you, I see little point in engaging too deeply in a debate in which neither of us is likely to change the other's mind. But as for your friend, although I disagree, entirely, with her decision to put dogs in her care through the Iditarod, this post was not and is not intended to be an attack on her personally (which is one reason I intentionally chose not to name her), and I don't doubt that she's distraught over the loss of Nigel, whether temporary or permanent. I do hope that her unfortunate experience, however, might open her up to looking at the race in a new way, for what it really is, not an expression of love for or competition with the dogs, but a competition at the expense of the dogs.

Tom, your defense here of this women is truly belied by her own actions: How does she define "love" and "care" and "fine animal" when she's willing to force them into this competition fully cognizant of the suffering?

Your argument is beside the point. Stephanie doesn't argue that she isn't a "nice person," as she understands it; but that's precisely the problem, she mis-understands "nice" and defines it blatantly self-servingly - hence Stephanie's critique.

"The Star-Tribune and my account on Flickr shouldn't have to serve the bandwidth of your post because you chose not to host the pictures on your own blog."

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought Flickr preferred that you hotlink to the photo on their site, along with a link to the photo page? This way, if the photo's not yours, the Flickr user can choose to make it un-available to you (by removing it from Flickr or adding privacy restrictions) at any time?

The community guidelines (http://www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne) only seem to explicitly disallow "host[ing] graphic elements of web page designs, icons, smilies, buddy icons, forum avatars, badges, and other non-photographic elements on external web sites."

When I blog my own photos, Flickr provides code which hotlinks to the photo in my account.

Of course, you can only hotlink photos with permission of the owner or if it's got a Creative Commons license.

And does this fine woman that you are defending chain her dogs?  Does she cull slow pups?  Or does she bring her team into the house on their off time and treat them like most of us treat our loved pets?  Or are they treated like commodities and tools that are necessary to win this race/prop up her ego?

I wonder if the women at Feministing have given the musher an award yet? bah.

Touche! :)

how can you compare bull fighting to dog sleding? Do you have a clue what is done in bull fighting? Dog sledding is a time old tradition still needed today in heavy snow areas. They can get to places equipment cannot. If there was no mushing these dogs would not be alive today. While i don't beleive there should be the race as done today but an indurance race with out a first place just that they complete would be just as good. But if you needed supplies the time factor might be more to your liking. Bull fighting is torture the bulls don't like being proded and pushed around in a ring that is why they attack the matador. Also horses that are used are tortured too. We need to blind fold the matordor and pickadors and have the bull plow into them to see what the hourse goes through. Nothing in comparason to sledding. These dogs love to pull its like herding dogs love to do their job and Livestock gaurdian dogs do theirs.

There's some incoherence in your position Ben.

You begin with what, a priori, seems to be reasonable. Like truly sustenance hunting, there are communities throughout our world, the Inuit for example, where moral dilemmas differ from ours. Without infrastructure exploiting nonhuman animals for travel or as a means to move supplies is defensible; indeed, how we define the limits of justified human exploitation would also change in such circumstances.

Your conclusion, however, doesn't follow Ben. The Iditarod cannot be explained in terms of "necessity," it is "sport," by definition, and sports are neither necessary nor fixed - they can be altered without significant harm. Therefore, your defense of this sport doesn't follow from your premise about need. You need, then, an alternative defense.

"Tradition" doesn't follow as an ethical defense, for if it did, gender oppression and bigotry along sexual orientation or religious lines would find an ethical justification.

The argument that "they wouldn't be alive without this" isn't logical as I articulated here:

http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/on_prior_existence_and_sophistry_nonexistence_not_a_rights_violation

What you have left is the observation that the dogs appear to enjoy the activity. However, let's imagine a situation where I am the son from a long line of human slaves. For several generations, my relatives were enslaved, and I am similarly born into such an environment. Our culture has been developed around this enslavement, my family takes a certain pride in doing the job of their ancestry well, as do I, and my body, because of genetics, takes the form of a laborer. For these reasons, and more, my work is done enthusiastically, and my body seems "designed" for the purpose.

Is my continued enslavement, therefore, ethically justified? I think now. Outward appearances and "tradition" to the contrary.

Ben, you need to find an ethical defense for the enslavement itself. In the case of the Iditarod, you need to argue that absent "need," continuing to exploit these animals for our entertainment alone, in spite of the inevitable harm, is ethically defensible.        

Your slave comparison is faulty on many levels. If your people have been enslaved long enough for you to be genetically adapted to a paparticular type labor and mentally adjusted to a point that your work is enthusiastic then freeing you mightbe the crueler thing to do. Perhaps you make Ben's point?

Many of these dogs run TO their places in harness, as many marathon racers train mightily for their sport. Many of us consider anyone who trains to run 26 miles a little daft (many die each year) but we do not end their sport. There are rules in place to protect these dogs and just as their regular deaths in football, racing and many other sports, we do not end them. You can no more speak for all those dogs than I can speak for all those marathoners.

The Iditarod is wrong Ingrid because the interests of the dogs - fundamental as they are - in not suffering, are being trumped by the blatantly less-significant interests of the human animals - continuing the "sport." Therefore, unless you want to argue, in spite of what's implied in your comment, that the interests of these dogs are morally significant, that trivial human interests (e.g., entertainment) should trump all interests of nonhuman animals, no matter how fundamental, the Iditarod shouldn't be regulated but abolished. Ingrid, the suffering is inevitable - death even more inevitable - if this sport continues; the certainty is absolute given the nature of "sport." Therefore, if we want to maintain that the interests of animals, other than humans, are morally important, this "sport," and all others like it, are bad and should be ended.

Horse eventing, likewise, is inherently dangerous and should be abolished. Ingrid, your position is facially ethical, but actually quite self-serving. Taken to its logical conclusion, "horse sports," because they exist in a structure of exploitative practices that regard these animals as property to be created and used for a specific purpose, should be ended.

Large horse and dog populations exist; therefore, human companionship with these animals will not end. However, for the purpose of "sport," it's incoherent with your own position Ingrid.   

Your final position on choosing our words and actions carefully isn't at issue here. What did Stephanie suggest that would lead you to conclude that she wasn't cognizant of this problem? Nothing, of course. It seems to be a textbook example of an either/or fallacy: continue the exploitation, albeit with more regulation, or, as with the horse example, "dire consequences" await. That doesn't follow. There are alternative options. T&R programs for wild populations as described here for example:

http://thatvegangirl.com/2009/03/07/the-smart-solution-to-too-many-horses/

Ingrid,

Your point of view is well articulated, yet I would comment on your reference to the Bible.  Yes, we are given stewardship over the earth and the animals.  Many people misinterpret that to mean that we can rape and pillage as we desire.  They are sorely mistaken.  When God gave man (and woman) domain over the earth and its creatures, we were charged with the responsibility of caring for them, protecting them, safeguarding them for future generations and yes, raising and slaughtering them for our food (and yes, I agree, God is probably pretty ticked off at the mess we have made).  Many animals are used to help lighten our burden - horses (I'm a horse person, too), dogs, cattle, swine, camels, elephants, llamas, and many others.  That does not mean that God gave us the right to abuse them.  I have long held that the American Indians and many cultures like them had the right idea when it came to viewing our natural resources, including animals and even each other.  In our greed, we as a species have lost our connection to God (however we see him/her) and this precious home we have been given. Dog racing, horse racing, the way we raise animals for food and many other practices are born out of a real need (such as the way the Iditarod began) but we have disfigured these practices to the point where they are unrecognizable.  And while I agree that this abuse of animals needs to stop, I also feel as strongly that we need to address this same kind of passion for the human rights violations that abound in this world. 

It is absolutely wrong of you to justify and explain the starvation of horses and their abandonment with the shuttering of the horse slaughter houses. It is a FACT that, when slaughter houses close, fewer complaints are made concerning horse neglect and abuse. The slaughter houses only encourage irresponsible breeding and neglect because the cast offs can be sold to the killer buyer.

Additionally, it is the current economy that has resulted in the additional suffering and abandonment of ALL types of animals, not the closing of slaughter houses.

Finally, please read the post Alex (right above you) mentions regarding the fallacious argument that "those animals wouldn't be here" without the race. That is pure garbage.

Exploitation in ANY form to ANY sentient being is wrong. Period. We humans just happen to be quite good at rationalizing our abuses to our fellow Earthlings...and yes, that includes eating them. There is no need for any of it, yet it will continue unabated so long as man can rationalize regardless of how wrong it may be.

Alex, I think you are actually guilty of oversimplifying the issue of interests (3/13 12:08PM).  Since humans do not enjoy perfect communication with animals, we will always be guessing somewhat at their "interests" (or "nature" as Chris Lamke at 4:18 calls it). Why is it reasonable to assume a dog on a sled team's interest in avoiding suffering trumps not only a human's interest in sport but also the dog's own possible interest(s) in competition, physical challenge, obeying a master, and/or being with his pack?
Sure, it seems clear to most people concerned with  animal welfare and/OR animal rights that any sentient being has an interest in survival and avoidance of suffering.  But for you to assume that those interests trump all other interests that being may possess is to exhibit logic as flawed as you have accused other commenters of using.  Your confusion on this point seems to be demonstrated by your two comments below, which came from separate posts and are quite contradictory:

"What you have left is the observation that the dogs appear to enjoy the activity." (11:49 post arguing against taking such observation at face value)
"Labeling an action X, if it fulfills the qualifications for such a description, isn't anthropomorphic, it's reasonable unless we presuppose speciesist assumptions." (12:17 post)

So it's logically OK to suppose a dog DOES NOT enjoy an activity (and would therefore run away to avoid it), but not logical to suppose it DOES enjoy the activity, based solely on the observations available to us?

I am not prepared to argue one or the other side here (since I have not observed a sled team in person, and even if I did I am not sure that my observations would tell me all I need to know).  I just want to point out that you're being inconsistent, and it weakens your argument.

Your point that enslaved humans can become accustomed to slavery and appear to enjoy/tolerate their condition can be instructive as far as imagining an animal's "enslavement" to a certain extent only.  It serves to show that we cannot always trust our observation when it comes to imagining other beings' interests/nature.  However, I contend that humans are different from animals in some fundamental ways.  A human being, though born into slavery to enslaved parents, is almost certain to appreciate the injustice of his position, which is separate from any physical suffering his enslavement may incur (it is almost universally agreed that a very poor person working for his own gain is in a better position than a slave, regardless of how well "cared for" the slave may be).  This high regard for freedom is epitomized in Patrick Henry's passionate cry of "Give me liberty or give me death!"  Countless humans throughout history have chosen to perish in insurrection rather than live under another's thumb.  However, other animals have very different social systems and senses of "justice."  One might assert that democracy or an egalitarian social system is the only just way for human society to be organized, because humans have an inherent interest in equality.  However, is the same true for dog society or horse society?  Observation of nature suggests to me that social non-human animals in fact organize according to different principles, and hierarchy/dominance is a lot more common than egalitarianism.  Can we assume from this observation than non-human social animals have social interests more important than equality and freedom (such as security)?  Not necessarily.  However, it's worth considering that in making an analogy between human slavery and animal slavery that you may indeed be guilty of anthropomorphizing by assuming that freedom is as important to a sled dog as it is to a person.

What about interests besides freedom?  Is it possible that beyond simply loving to run (freely, stopping to sniff blowing leaves), sled dogs actually love to run hard, to exhaustion?  Love to run side by side with pack members?  Love to obey commands from the pack leader?  I AM NOT ASSUMING THAT ANY OF THESE INTERESTS ARE IN FACT HELD BY SLED DOGS.  I'm merely suggesting the possibility that there are interests in a sled dog's heart that you and I cannot presume to understand.  How about human athletes who push themselves beyond all limits of health and safety, who in fact risk (and sometimes reach) death in the effort to reach their pinnacle of athletic achievement?  Most people cannot understand this kind of interest.  Most people would assume that a human's interest in life and avoidance of suffering would trump the interest in achievement.  However, we can't always know others' interests - even those of our own species.

In conclusion: I believe that a consideration of interests is the first step in advancing either animal welfare or animal rights.  However, I think we must always keep sight of the fact that none of us can fully know another being’s interests.  To assume we do is to be guilty of anthropomorphism at best and hubris at worst.  I don’t think it’s possible know without a doubt that sled dogs prefer freedom over their traces, relaxation over exhausting work, or a rug by the fire to the limits of a chain in the yard.

Incomplete knowledge does not exempt the moral human from acting according to her best assessment of interests.  But different moral humans may come to different conclusions of correct action.  What seems so obviously wrong to Stephanie, Alex, and others commenting on this blog is not so clear to others who may nevertheless hold quite thoughtful positions on animal welfare and rights.

Good post!

Horse slaughter is still going on so how can you even use the excuse that "because the slaughterhouses are closed there is more suffering going on" bit of garbage??  Next you're going to try to tell me it's only old, lame and unuseable horses that go to slaughter...am I right?  I will call you out on that if you even try to as I have two very useable, young healthy horses that were rescued off of a feedlot minutes away from the truck.  Horse slaughter was an convenient excuse for irresponsible owners to make a quick buck and dump a responsibility...period!

I forgot to add that horses are still being shipped to Mexico and Canada to be slaughtered and they were even when US plants were open.  So you really can't use that as an excuse for people abusing and neglecting their horses.

If you want to dis-analogize the Iditarod from human slavery by assuming an intrinsic human interest in freedom then I might accuse you of forming a conclusion from questionable metaphysical grounds. How does one ground anything "intrinsic" to a being? What you have to argue is that there exists extra-bodily interests for members of our species -- and our species alone, I suppose. One such interest is "freedom." But it's circular of course because the concept is defined such that only members of our species can appreciate such an interest. This is easily displayed by qualifying my analogy. 
Let's assume that the human slaves in question are infants with a particular aptitude for X. At the point they become cognizant of their enslavement, they are released; however, until that point, they are exploited for a purpose. Unless you want to argue that humans are born with a "desire for freedom" (How is freedom defined and why can't we assume other animals desire it?), then the enslavement of these children is acceptable on your own premises.  
My example was meant to challenge the argument that if a being show's enthusiasm for something, it doesn't go to justify exploiting them for that purpose. 
Furthermore, you have misunderstood my argument about "trumps." This was meant to display the non sequitur: justifying the Iditarod ( a "sport") by appealing to "dog's like to run and pull." Therefore, my argument does follow because you can provide an outlet for the dogs to run and pull outside the framework of the Iditarod, which is inherently dangerous given the nature of "sports." So, again, you need to justify trumping the dogs interests in not suffering for "sport."       

Alex, you have misunderstood or misrepresented my ideas. You say:
"What you have to argue is that there exists extra-bodily interests for members of our species -- and our species alone, I suppose. One such interest is "freedom." But it's circular of course because the concept is defined such that only members of our species can appreciate such an interest."
In fact, I suggested other potential "extra-bodily" interests for dogs (such as athletic/competitive desire).  And I never said it's impossible that dogs desire freedom.  Only that it's inconsistent to assume they desire freedom but not consider that they may have other non-bodily interests (beyond survival and avoidance of pain, such as competitiveness).
The problem I have with your arguments in a logical sense, Alex, is that you so passionately ascribe certain interests (freedom, avoidance of suffering, survival) to non-humans yet seem to totally deny the possibility of other interests that don't fit your argument to abolish sports where animals are used.  What if certain "sporting" animals actually have an interest in competing against other animals/teams, in pushing themselves until exhaustion to see what they can achieve, etc?  To discount the possibility of such "extra-bodily" interests is to commit the same error that you accuse me of making in asserting that only humans can desire freedom intrinsically.  Can only human athletes desire to win so much that they deny themselves normal comforts and push themselves even to death?
Let me add once again that I am not suggesting that sled dogs actually DO have these interests.  I have no idea.  But neither do you, and neither does anyone, really.  I am saying that it's a possibility that you deny out of hand in your argument, and that weakens your argument considerably for me.

I actually think that a stronger case for banning the Iditarod and other sports using animals can be made from an animal WELFARE standpoint than an animal rights perspective.  If you argue interests, as you've been doing, you ultimately run up against the fact that animal interests may in the end be contrary to your case, since (by your own argument, as well as my own!) we can't presume to know all an animal's interests.  However, if you argue welfare, you can insist on a ban because the sport endangers animals' bodily welfare (cockfighting and dogfighting have been banned on this basis).

Just another example: from the perspective of animals' inherent interests or rights, caring humans could not trap, neuter, and release feral cats (or horses, for that matter), since animals almost certainly have an intrinsic interest in reproducing, which is at odds with a presumed interest in avoiding suffering.  But from the perspective of animal welfare, TNR is a legitimate program since it eliminates some animal suffering (though by riding roughshod over their interests/right to reproduce).  Paternalism is not the problem (according to a post I believe you made earlier but I can’t locate now); it is OK to make choices for animals as long as we are protecting their welfare, just as it's OK to prohibit kids from doing stuff that's dangerous despite their wishes to the contrary.

I think your case is logically stronger if you stick with arguing welfare from a paternalistic basis rather than venturing into the decidedly murky territory of inherent interests.

Katherine,

Your argument doesn't follow. You disanalogy to human slavery explicitly turned on an assumption of our species' intrinsic desire for "freedom." I argued that anything "intrinsic" begs the question: How do you ground this interest? 

Any interest, including "competitiveness," doesn't have to be framed as intrinsic because it begs the aforementioned question. Therefore, I'm arguing that the human slavery analogy follows. If we defend the Iditarod, logically, we can defend human slavery because your assumption is erroneous.

I do not ascribe interests to nonhuman animals in this instance save for being forced to necessarily suffer within the context of "sport" or entertainment for another. I, likewise, do not discount an animals' interest in the activity out of hand. Perhaps they do enjoy it. I certainly do not speak of "inherent interests."

My argument is this: Since we know they will suffer - it has been documented - we need to come up with a justification for the suffering (because we could of course set up situations, outside of the "sport" context, where these animals run and pull) that makes sense.

The arguments offered thus far turn on certain assumptions: "they enjoy it," "it's tradition." Now, my primary point should be clear: On this same logic, we can justify forcing human animals into certain activities. Does that follow, ethically?

Most would answer no. Therefore, why the inconsistency? You tried to assume an intrinsic quality, which I challenged as false on its face.

My argument Katherine is far simpler than the argument you seem to be arguing against here.    

Katherine,

I might add: What is welfare about accept fulfillment of interests? Therefore, how would we reason about welfare in the case of human children? I think we would first assume that exploiting them for our entertainment would be precluded from the outset. Of course someone could argue: We don't fully know what is in their interest, so maybe enslavement is. We must be reasonable or our reasoning becomes self-serving.   

Second, if you are going to allow for the assumption that the dogs cognitively function to the level of understanding the concept of "sport" and what "competition" entails, within the context of sport, it seems that in this assumption alone is a suggestion that exploiting them in any way we wouldn't exploit a member of our species is unethical. If they are beings of the kind whom you are allowing for this assumption, the idea of an Iditarod should take on some degree of moral repugnancy - as should "pet" ownership.  

Alex, you're right that my argument against your analogy to human slavery hinged on an assumption of inherent human interest in freedom.  I admit that my argument is flawed from a logical p.o.v. since I failed to prove that animal slavery is any different from human slavery without using prima facie assumptions.  However I do stand by my assertion of inherent human interest in freedom b/c ultimately, in the real world as opposed to the philosophical realm, observation (coupled with logic) is the best way to make judgments...even if we've already shown that observations can lead us astray if we misinterpret them.

However, my main point I think does stand up, which is that many of the issue we're addressing depend deeply on subjective observation.  Logic alone leaves us with as many questions as answers, and we have no choice but to base our understanding of the issues on observation to a certain extent. Which is why the root of most of the argument on this thread is over people's differing observations or interpretations of a similar observation.  Do the dogs really enjoy mushing?  Do they perform out of fear or joy?  Are they forced?  See, you say "I do not ascribe interests to nonhuman animals in this instance save for being forced to necessarily suffer within the context of "sport" or entertainment for another."  Well, you don't see your assumption of "force" as being a subjective observation, but consider that other people commenting see the same scenario and interpret not force but something else.  I think you must accept that a certain amount of your argument comes from observation as well as logic, for better or for worse.

Alex says: "Now, my primary point should be clear: On this same logic, we can justify forcing human animals into certain activities. Does that follow, ethically?"

Well, yes, it does.  We force human animals into certain activities all the time.  We force kids to go to school (despite the observation that it causes them suffering, that they would not choose to attend); we force criminals into jail.  These examples fall into 2 categories: 1) paternalism (wherein people are forced to do things "for their own good"), and 2) social contract (wherein people are forced to do things for society's good).

Paternalism and social contract can be justified to force non-human animals to do things, too, both within animal society and in animal/human shared society.  Animal parents, like human parents, prevent their young from playing in ways that may be excessively dangerous; this is paternalism in action.  Comparable examples of humans forcing non-humans on the basis of paternalism are easy to find: TNR programs, using fences to keep wildlife/domestic animals off dangerous roads, etc.  On to social contract: individual interests must sometimes be sacrificed to society’s.  Ethnological observation in societies from chimps to wolves to ants shows that all social animals enforce a social contract.  Failure of the social contract usually results in failure of the society.  In multi-species societies, such as the one ancient humans created with the domestication of some animals, the same applies.  Regardless if a dog pack is led by an alpha canine or human, the welfare of the entire pack depends on allegiance to the leader.  Failure to enforce the contract (by either the leader or the other pack members) leads to chaos and potentially the destruction of the pack.  So an argument for leadership by force can be extracted from the idea of social contract too.

I think there are actually 3 separate questions at the heart of this Iditarod discussion.  1) Are the dogs being forced to perform or are they acting according to their own desires?  2) If they are being forced, is this ethically permissible?  3) Regardless if they are being forced or not, is it ethically permissible given that injury and death do result?

I don’t think there is a purely logical resolution to Question 1, since it revolves around whether or not the dogs’ desires are being fulfilled or ignored, and the answer to that is subjective observation.  We cannot reach common ground on this question, because different observers come to different conclusions based not on logic but observation.

Question 2 is easier to approach via logic.  On the one hand, paternalism/welfare says “yes,” it is OK to force a child to attend school on the basis that it is in the child’s ultimate (though not immediate) interests.  It is OK to prevent animals from reproducing on the basis that it avoids suffering in the future.  However, on the other hand, a concern for rights would say “no,” it’s never ethically permissible to force any being to do anything; every being should govern itself.  So welfare and rights are at odds for Question 2.

How about Question 3: Forgetting for a moment the issue of whether force is involved or not, is it ethically permissible to allow another being to do something that results in bodily harm?  This can also be approached from welfare vs. rights.  Concern for welfare says no, we cannot allow harm to occur if we can prevent it.  (This can be out of concern for the individual, society as a whole, or both, as can be seen in seatbelt/helmet laws, the illegality of suicide, to take examples from human society.)  Concern for rights says yes, we must allow individuals to make their own choices, even if it results in harm to the individual.

Given that Question 1 revolves around observation (which we’ve determined to be unreliable or to yield different conclusions for different observers), we can’t come to a failsafe conclusion on it.  Therefore, in order to argue to ban the Iditarod, you have to answer both questions 2 and 3 in the negative.  You do, but I think your arguments come from RIGHTS in the case of Question 2 vs. WELFARE in the case of Question 3.  And I think that’s a little sticky, because at the extreme application, the doctrines of RIGHTS and WELFARE contradict each other.

The reason you're not seeing a contradiction in your argument is because I don't think you are accepting my starting premise here, which is that Question 1 is not answerable without resorting to subjective observation.  If you can answer Question 1 unequivocally as "yes, the dogs are being forced," then you can answer Question 2 in the negative ("It is NOT ethically permissible to force an animal to do something") and be done with it, quite neatly.  But as soon as you accept that Question 1 is not as easily resolved, then you have to address Question 3, and then you get into the welfare vs. rights swamp.

To rephrase: the way I see it, paternalism comes from a concern for welfare (“What’s best for animal X”).  If you believe that animals have the right to self-determination, then welfare is irrelevant.  An animal must be allowed to choose its own path in complete independence, regardless of whether the outcome is suffering or death.  So paternalism, or welfare, is in conflict with the concept of RIGHTS.  That’s why I think to argue successfully you have to pick  one or the other as your basis and stick with it.

(BTW, I don't think we can toss out observation entirely; reason = logic + observation.  I just mean to say that observation, though it should inform our personal determination of what is ethical, can't be depended upon so faithfully to inform a discussion amongst others whose observations will be different....)

Stephanie's original post, although not containing much information, fortunately succeeded in getting the attention of a large group of people and specifically focused on whether dogsledding is humane.

   To put my comments in context one must accept the following statement: the use of animals for food, fuel (dung) and transportation has been a part of human history since before we were humans (I believe in evolution) and is very intertwined in the way humans exist on this planet.  In fact our ability to harness animals is what got us to where we are today - for better or for worse.   So just saying we should stop dogsledding - and once on that path owning pets and a whole list of ways we directly or indirectly use animals - is a lot more complicated due to entire cultures that still exist based on relationships humans and pre-humans have had with animals.    
That said, we can’t expect to carryon on this planet the way we have done for generations (and certainly not for the last century) if we plan to survive as a species.  Change has to come for environmental reasons but I also believe for humane reasons.  The way animals are treated in our industrial systems is a red flag that we are expecting to consume and exist on far more resources then is possible.   
Back to dogsledding, I replied to Ingrid's post because her point about "need better rules, guidelines and controls that keep all safe, sane and happy" is a doable first step to most quickly get rid of the worst of the suffering.  I think we can and should all unite behind this basic point – regardless of how far individuals think we need to take this.  Stephanie's blog did well to get people engaged, but this mostly emotional and somewhat violent (“I was ready to wring some necks”) posting does more to polarize than to make change.   
The statements about dogsledding goes against what I’ve witnessed in my travels.  I personally know people that raise sled dogs (not at the Iditarod level) and these dogs are VERY well maintained and cared for and their owner’s fall more closely into the category of “cares more about her dogs than people”.  I have been to their kennels and these are healthy dogs that do a lot more than get chained to a post.  So it can be done right.  The extreme examples that are given to end the sport are indeed extreme. I’ve seen where dogsledding can be respectful to the animals and an amazing pursuit for humans.  I say we focus on the extreme examples where we can form a larger opposition.   
On the consideration of whether the inhumane part is the act of having dogs pulling sleds, nothing that has been presented here nor from what I’ve seen suggests that this act itself is the problem.  I am an ecologist and studied animals (including humans) in many forms throughout my career.  The most common mistake among well meaning activists is to anthropomorphize human qualities on an animal.  It is without a doubt true that starving an animal or working it to the point of near death is inhumane, but to say that pulling a dogsled in general, or in the case of horses a carriage or sleigh is inhumane then it gets more complicated.  The fact is, these animals have been bred for thousands of years to do these jobs and indeed can be measured to be "happy" while doing them.  Again, what humans consider happiness (or pain for that matter) is in some cases radically different than for other animals.  I frequently have to make this case to cat owners who say their cat is "happier" when it goes outside - even though it kills birds and other wildlife.  First, whose happiness is more important the cat or the wildlife, second how is this cat owner measuring the happiness of their cat?  Surely not by all the diseases the outdoor cat gets or the greater likelihood of getting hit by a car.  I bring this up to point out that this whole discussion is a lot more complex than the argument that "Ban all dogsledding" allows   
I appreciated Katherine's post.  She asks a lot of really good questions that I think people forget to ask when criticizing practices.  There is good reason that humans domesticated the animals that they did - dogs being one of the first - and why most animals were not domesticated – not for a lack of trying.  Certain animals have traits that work well for domestication.  In dogs their apparent desire to please their leaders has made them ideal from early on.  All dogs are descended from wolves, but they are now very diverse in both appearance and genes.  Not all dogs make good sled dogs.  Only dogs that like to run, that can follow a lead dog and are strong enough to pull a sled will work.  A Doxen or a black lab does not work.    
Again, I don’t think it is productive to argue whether sled dogs like to run or pull sleds – we may never know the answers to this nor agree on a standard to measure.  Instead we can and should very easily agree on standards are needed to prevent the extreme abuses highlighted in these posts and then go to work together to get them instated.       

whaaat? you can make the argument that shutting down slaughterhouses was bad because it skyrockets the number of starving horses no one cares about (slash they are just being shipped to mexico and canada), but prop 2? Come on! It's not like those chickens are being displaced. Horses are a "luxury item" so to speak - chickens are a business commodity. It's not like there are now going to be starving chickens because they are required to have bigger cages. If somehow that caused a chicken surplus, they would just be eaten; they're going to wind up eaten anyway.

Chris,

Labeling an action X, if it fulfills the qualifications for such a description, isn't anthropomorphic, it's reasonable unless we presuppose speciesist assumptions. Exhibitions of "sadness," "friendship," and "love" as displayed by nonhuman animals often are characteristically similar to those actions of human animals. However, because we assume that animals, other than human, couldn't possibly do X, Y, and Z, your argument finds some traction generally. But it isn't valid.

What evidence do we have to ground such an assumption? What scientific evidence can you cite Chris? Those functions, the limbic system, that are characteristically "emotional," for example, in human animals pre-date our species and are found in other mammals. It isn't, as you claim, a "valid dismissal"; it's a reaction resulting from human arrogance.  

To Chis: Please try not to confuse "anthropomorphism" with compassion and FACT that animals suffer and have a will to survive. FACT. Not anthropomorphism. FACT.

This is the reason I ultimately stopped identifying with the animal rights movement - most of them don't actually understand animals. sure animals can suffer and some of them are capable of feelings, but it seems like they start there and then take a flying leap into assuming an animals thoughts, talking about what an animal wants, whether or not an animal is "free", as if any animal but us gave a fuck about that (although i reserve that it is possible that a select few species may think on that level)... That really is anthropomorphisation it just makes you all look, well, stupid.

Alex-
Respectfully, I believe you may be missing my point. I didn't say non-human creatures can not or do not exhibit behaviors similar to what we would call sadness/friendship/love. I just feel that it's not helpful to assume they do so. It's the humane thing to do to care for creatures whether or not they exhibit these human-like traits. To sort all living creatures through a "like-Homo sapiens" filter is human arrogance...

And from a scientific standpoint it would be impossible for me to prove no animal has the human-like emotions you mentioned (science can not prove a negative). It is, on the other hand, up to those who claim the positive to prove such.

Haley-
The original author put you, I, and herself in the place of the dog and spoke of feelings that a human might have in that position... regardless of your stated facts regarding animal suffering and will to survive, that's pretty much the definition of anthropomorphism. Again, I feel my point is being missed. Compassion and realistic care for living creatures whether or not they have/show seemingly human emotions is my goal.

I'm just trying to point out that the Disneyfication of all living creatures that some animal rights proponents engage in can be counterproductive.

Stating that animals experience emotions and thoughts--which has been documented and which isn't difficult to see when you stop refusing to see it--is not "Disneyfying" them. I don't refer to all animals as cuddly, innocent, so-adorable, angel-like beings--and it bothers me enormously on the rare occasions that I do see animal rights advocates and vegans present them in this patronizing way. I merely remind people that animals other than humans do have thoughts, do have emotions, do have an interest in their own lives and experiences. You presume that certain characteristics are unique to human animals and likely not held by nonhuman animals without any proof of that. Holding on stubbornly to that presumption may help you justify the ways in which our fellow animals are exploited, disregarded, and killed, but you're wrong.

And "compassion and realistic care for living creatures whether or not they have/show seemingly human emotions is my goal" is a goal of animal rights advocates as well, except that we don't presume emotions to be "human." Acknowledging when animals do obviously experience familiar emotions does not mean we don't advocate equally for animals who we are not sure experience those same emotions.

I appreciate the clarification, Chris. I have to agree with Stephanie. And, dude, "Disneyfication" is so NOT what Stephanie was doing in the post.

And what's the big deal with anthropomorphizing (not DISNEYFYING) anyway? EVERYONE does it with their pets when they say, i.e., he's not "just a dog, he's a member of the family," "my baby," etc.. You don't have to go out into the wild to see that animals FEEL, THINK, EXPERIENCE. Anyone with a pet in their own home KNOWS that. Again (ugh) FACT.

The definition of anthropomorphisation is projecting human qualities onto animals THAT AREN'T THERE.  And it makes you look bad to logical people.  I assume you want to use logic to change minds, so I suggest not use a tactic that offends logic.

And I suggest you stop assuming that certain qualities are solely "human" when there's ample evidence that you're wrong. It makes you look bad to logical people who've actually investigated the issue.

Wow, what did you do to investigate the issue of anthropomorphizing? Where is your data?
Didn't realize you wer an ethnologist too (hint: enthnologist is a scientist who objectively views animal behavior over long periods of time, like Jane Goodall.)

For god's sake, read the comments and do some research of your own, rather than just assuming you know all and automatically disagreeing with everything animal rights advocates write here. Mary Martin recently commented in the broader thread on what Marc Bekoff--a renowned ethnologist! (yes,i know what that is, thanks)--has to say on this issue. Look him up.

Ok, so if a dog runs up to it's owner and kisses her all over, we can assume he loves her and is happy to be reunited with her and is NOT being abused by her in any way?

If a domestic violence survivor runs up to her abuser and "kisses him all over the face" can we assume that she wasn't abused?

Being a survivor of repeated domestic abuse (by parents, so no I could not leave, although I tried repeatedly) I can assure you I have never run up to any of my abusers and kissed them in gratitude.

I have met plenty of house dogs that did not greet their owners warmly and would surely have preferred to stay at the vet clinic than go "home."

Abuse it quite obvious. It does not need to be inferred.

Thank you for this clarifying post. It seems like many Americans are willing to pass laws that govern issues around "animal welfare" even when they don't completely believe in the "animal rights" positions.

I completely agree with Andrew.  It's funny that some of the most well cared for dogs in the world are the object of such vhement ire, when in the city of St. Louis there are thousands of dogs per year who are killed by stupid kids as pranks, stupid neglectful owners who get the dog and can't pay to care for it (or got it for the kids as a gift, and when the kids don't take care of it they forget about it too) or owners who are forced to put a dog down because they were too lazy or broke to get it trained / socalized and it bites someone.

Is it more humane to allow that kind of idiot to own an animal than it is to allow a dog that was bred for the climate and the work load to do what it was designed to do? 

Stick to your own back yard lady, and let the Alaskans deal with their dogs.  In Fairbanks, the people love their Iditarod dogs. 

So to your way of thinking, being chained up all day, every day (except when they are being trained) is a good life.  It would be interesting to see how you would fare mentally if that were the way that you are treated.  There are actually some places in the States that I believe are banning the chaining of dogs.  What's more, it seems that you figure, that as long as there is someone else on the block who is mistreating their dogs worse, then to mistreat a little is ok.  Interesting way of looking at things.  Maybe that is how child abusers look at their activities, i.e. "the other guy is worse, so I'm not so bad".

you know, ironically, this is an extremely anthropocentric view on things. only humans care about vague ideas like rights and exploitation. dogs only want to be fed and happy. ergo, if a sled dog eats well, is healthy, and loves to run, it is, well, selfish of us to call its life wrong.

Likewise with human babies Kristen, who don't understand or "care about vague ideas like rights and exploitation." However, any reasonable conception of "happy," for example, would surely include not suffering in various ways; our paternalistic efforts to this effect may actually run up against what the baby thinks she wants to do, however, it's still often right. That's not selfish. Protecting against these forms of suffering are called "rights" then even if the human baby doesn't understand. 

That's my point - the dogs aren't suffering at all if they are healthy and love their job (and anyone who has ever worked with a working dog can tell you that dogs love to do a job they are well-suited for). Where's the suffering?

Also, if you are arguing from an animal rights standpoint as opposed to an animal welfare standpoint, then isn't paternalism actually a great injutice to a dog's free will and right to self-determination? Not that sled racing would necessarily fit that standard, but paternalism and rights never go hand in hand. Ask a feminist.

I can't believe you started out showing compassion for animals and then went on to state "we need only respect our food.  To kill it honourably....." and then back to "feeling a human life any heavier on my heart than I feel this sweet dogs."  Nice to animals, not nice to animals, nice to animals.  Totally inconsistent.

You are missing the point that the average house dog gets just as excited when you go and get his leash out to take him for a walk so pointing to a sled dogs excited behaviour when the harness gets taken out is neither here nor there.  Any dog, confined to the end of a chain and bored out its mind, would get excited in those circumstances.  And like the husky owner above posted, her dog might like to run for a mile or two, but would likely get distracted along the way to go and investigate stuff along the way.  The sled dogs are pushed to run mile after mile.

Similarly, some human athletes exhibit these same signs; consider children who display above average aptitude for certain sports. This is true, however, moving this into the arena of the Iditarod, we would have to argue that it is therefore okay to force these excelling child athletes to perform, often at great harm to them. So we are moving beyond simply letting "a dog run and pull because he enjoys it" to the framework of a "sport" - inherently dangerous due to its competitive core. A "sport" where the child doesn't govern, as in human sports, but someone else is forcing the child into action.   
Sara, you need to defend the use of force. 

What if I were to disagree with laws allowing women to work outside of the home because it runs counter to very deeply held cultural traditions. Indeed, what might be called "foundations" would necessarily be altered by allowing women to have employment. Would my argument be legitimate Blake, or do I need to look beyond "culture" and "tradition"? 

Just because something is "cultural" or "traditional" doesn't make it right.

I agree that tradition is not an excuse for anything, but I think the poster does raise the valid point that we should perhaps be spending more of our time and energy on helping suffering humans.

You are right, puppy mills are an atrocity that must be stopped and if everyone quit buying pups from pet shops that would end it.  But that is another story and this one is about the Iditarod.  The one connnection that I do see in your remarks is that these people who breed these dogs for racing must breed how many to find that one that has the right makeup, physically and mentally to continue training.  What happens to the hundreds of pups that don't make the grade Elizabeth?  Do you honestly believe that these people who see animals as commodities are going to find forever homes for each slow pup that comes along or is it going to be a shot to the head?

When you can show me a book that is verifiably "written" by a dog, not a human, than your pointing to it in a discussion like this will have merit.  As far as your pointing at rock climbing, once again, these are humans who make a choice to do this activity and are fully aware of the dangers.  They made the choice.  The dogs never made a choice.

One more time, humans making the decision to engage in athletics with danger inherent is  - a human decision!  The dogs didn't make the decision.

And I moved across Canada at retirement, so that my two old horses, who were bought for our young daughters long, long ago, could live out their lives on grassy fields instead of in a dry, dusty little paddock.  Many others would have just sold them when the kids were no longer interested.  So it is very nice that we are in the position to take care of our large pets, but that doesn't change the fact that dogs, both sled and greyhounds, are being used to bolster egos and make some money and at the risk of their health and safety and they were never asked if they wanted to participate, nor are they asked if their puppies who aren't up to standard, can be killed in the endless search for a faster dog. 

Ingrid, well said.  I agree with many points, summed up well in your closing lines: " Ethical use is a far more challenging and a far greater accomplishment than banishment of use.  Banishment of use is an admission that we are not capable of being humanely human. I'd like to think we are better than that."

Brava for a thoughtful and well-articulated post.

I agree that it's rubbish to make an analogy between forced participation in sports and chosen participation.  However, I also think it's not 100% valid to extrapolate from the fact that the dogs are in harness, that they are being forced to participate.  Certainly, the excerpts from mushing training manuals seem to indict the methods used in training and racing as forceful and cruel.  However, I am also willing to entertain the possibility, suggested in the comments on this blog mostly by people with personal experience with mushing or training other animals for sport, that the dogs are elective participants in the sport.  Please hear me out.  I don't have a lot of experience training animals, but many with such experience agree that most animals refuse to perform if they don't desire to on some level (whether it's a tangible reward they get, or the intangible desire to please their "master"/pack leader, or whether the performance is its own reward).  If the animal doesn't perform in early training, s/he is not going to be chosen to continue training and compete.  Of course, if the animal performs out of fear (of being beaten or verbally chastised), then she's not a truly elective participant.  And there's the issue of where the animals (whether racehorse or sled dog) go who don't "make the cut."  Insomuch as training animals for performance/sport results in unwanted non-performing animals being killed or abandoned, there is no excuse for that.
(Also, I realize that those who train/use animals for sport have a vested interest in convincing others that the animals are elective participants.  Having never participated in or followed any sport using/partnering with animals - whether pigeon racing or bullfighting - I can say honestly that I have no vested interest in convincing myself or others of anything, instead merely being interested in getting closer to the truth.)
I just want to say again (harping on my same old theme) that it is NOT CLEAR to me that we can ascribe certain desires and interests to non-human animals with the kind of utter certainty that you claim.  Before I would even be willing to issue an opinion on the interests and desires of sled dogs, I would want to spend some time with the dogs and their human pack leader/trainer/"owner" and see if my observations yield any understanding.  Even so, as I've said before, we can't necessarily trust our observations exclusively since they're tinted by our anthropocentric understanding of the world.

I applaud your bringing this topic under discussion and hope that some of the arguments brought up here have helped you hone your ideas and beliefs.  I know they have mine.

Unless you can prove,beyond your personal speculation, that all these dogs are being "forced" to run, stop stating it as fact and we will not compare it to human endeavour. These dog complete to be on a winning team. Every musher is not Simon Legree. Get a grip.

I quote this from you, Elizabeth:

"Maybe you will understand how dedicated these dogs are to this challenge"

And I quote this from you:

"Saying the dogs are FORCED to do it IS ANTHROPOMORPHIZING."

And I modify in square brackets:

"Saying the dogs are [DEDICATED] to do it IS ANTHROPOMORPHIZING."

I personally don't have a problem with anthropomorphizing. As you can see, it's very difficult not to anthropomorphize because our very language is human. Our experience, our observations, are human.

You can't say these dogs are dedicated without anthropomorphizing. But you ACTUALLY can say these dogs are FORCED without anthropomorphizing because that's observing the human part, the human intention, in all of this.

Change both sentences from passive to active and you get the following: Humans force the dogs; The dogs are dedicated to the [human] sport. Seriously, who's doing the anthropomorphizing here?

So, really it's just grammar. Anthropomorphizing Shmanthropomorphizing. You're the one (with all due respect, really) who's doing the anthropomorphizing.

"Dedicated" I challenge anyone who disbelieves this to hitch a trained dog to a sled, lie down in it and do nothing other than whisper "mush" then decide who's "dedicated" - after you arrive whatever destination the dog decides is "Home"

You're right, Haley, that "it's very difficult not to anthropomorphize because our very language is human. Our experience, our observations, are human."

With that admission, that all of our observations reflect our anthropocentric bias, I don't actually follow your next sentence: "You can't say these dogs are dedicated without anthropomorphizing. But you ACTUALLY can say these dogs are FORCED without anthropomorphizing because that's observing the human part, the human intention, in all of this."

How CAN we actually be sure that the dogs are not elective participants (i.e. are being forced to run)?  If you agree that our observations are unreliable, don't you have to agree that ALL our observations are to some extent unreliable?

Of course, we have to make decisions even if they're based on imperfect observation/information, and not knowing exactly what animals experience is no excuse for failing to do our best to treat them humanely.  So by all means agitate to ban the Iditarod...but it's a lot cleaner logically to agitate based on welfare (bodily danger/harm, which is more clearly documented) than supposed interests (which are very difficult to document).  If we argue interests, we're arguing based on our individual observation (or imagination) which we've established is both anthropocentric and personal...and therefore destined to result in continuous disagreement without helping to find common ground!

I'm merely pointing out the language, that we can't speak about the animal's part in this *on either side of the debate* without anthropomorphizing to some degree. We can only speak about our own actions that way -- about our "forcing" them, our putting them to work for our own enjoyment,  regardless of what they're feelings, thoughts, choices are (which, again, neither side cannot speak about without resorting to some extent to our inevitably anthropomorphic language and understanding).

(Puppies that aren't fast enough? Well, given that there are greyhound rescues, there are probably also husky rescues. Here's the thing though...those puppy mills, they breed and sell dogs greyhounds too. Any beed they can make money on, so thinking racing dogs are only bred in loving homes, not puppy mills, is pretty nieve).


I am amazed that you use the existence of breed rescue organizations to justify the over-breeding of animals!  Shocked in fact.  So puppy mills breed greyhounds, so what?  If we are going to bring greyhounds into this discussion, which we might as well as they are a breed that is used to stroke ego's and make money in a competitive sense, the dogs that are bred are coming from inside the racing industry.  Only the fastest will get bred, the rest are culled/killed.  So again, we have a case of dogs being bred for a single purpose and killed if they don't measure up.  And while some get adopted out, I'm sure that there are many unscrupulous breeders who quietly eliminate their "losers".

Saying a dog is dedicated, by the fact that it contiues a race without being asked to do so, on it's own time and with freedom, is an observation of it's behavior. Use whatever word you like.

Saying a dog is forced, is an interpretation that the dog does not want to do it. You are presuming to know a dog's thoughts, and therefore anthropomorphizing it's feelings about the siuation.

I have not seen any evidence thatthese dogs do not enjoy the Iditarod. Those that want to stop, do. Those that want to continue do. Even the dogs that were kicked and bitten by their owner, continued. That shows me you cannot force a dog to race.
(And the man was under investigation by the Iditarod Officials as was stated in the quotes, so they clearly are not allowing dog abuse.)

You cannot assume force, when all observations point to the ineffectiveness of force.

Woah there, you misunderstand. Nobody here is saying any cause is more important than another. That is so far off base. Many of us have many causes that INCLUDE animal rights.

Of COURSE you would believe that, Elizabeth. That's because you believe in YOUR causes. If you didn't think they were more worthy than other causes, they wouldn't be your causes.

You have causes and I have causes.  Everyone's entitled to their own causes. Nobody's are more worthy than anybody else's. We're all doing our best here.

To extend this notion to horse racing, I suggest you take a look at this race: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN2bG90Qxdc

An veteran racer named Gander loses his jockey in the beginning, but he puts himself just off the pace anyway, conserves his energy till the end, and then makes a move at just the right time to actually WIN riderless.

I assume the dogs are like the horses - the best ones WANT to win.

You claim to know horses right.  Then you should know that horses hate to loose the herd and with stirrups and reins flapping wildly, that horse is responding to being driven on by that movement, fear of losing the herd, and a level of panic that would be natural after a sudden change in the environment (i.e. losing the jockey).  This horse didn't say to itself "by golly, I don't care if Henry did fall off, who needs him anyway.  I'm just gonna run til I win".  Get real.  Who's anthropormorphizing now?

Actualy I know that the reason most horses compete to be first is becuse of a natural instinct to lead the herd. This is why most racehorses are stallions. They all want to be first, be the lead horse which means being the fastest and the strongest.

Has NOTHING to do with fear.

many do just run to the side and look for the exit back to the barn when panicked. Which is pretty much what Nigel did.
They found him near the beginning of the race, and he would only come to the females of the search party (yes there was a search party of many people out looking for Nigel, all Iditarod lovers and/or workers, as the article states.)
He was left behind, got loose (as knots sometimes do come untied) and went looking for is owner (which is why he only responded to the women) and greeting her with love and enthusiasm.

You have no idea what your talking about.  And mares and geldings race, not just stallions.  I used to board at several barns in BC that had racehorses of both genders.  And I've fallen off a few times while riding my own horse and the reins and stirrups flapping scared her tremendously until I could get through her fear and calm her down.  And when a horse is scared, their first inclination is to get away from whatever it was that frightened them.  Generally a dash of 400 feet or so and to them that feels like a safe distance to turn and look back at the situation and re-evaluate. 

There are some horses that do well out in front, and there are some that are just as happy to be behind, just like in people, but to suggest like Kristen did, that this horse just wanted to win, yada, yada, yada, is goofy to say the least and totally ignoring all the details of the scenerio that she presented.  Aside from losing the jockey and being suddenly without guidance, that horse was also responding to the sounds of the crowds and the sound and movement of the field and the desire to stay with the herd. 

I have been training and riding since I was 15. I do know what I am talking about. Most horses, when they loose a rider, do look to run home, as I have found myslef walking back to the barn with a sore hip once or twice to retrieve a very appologetic horse. (Appologies being nickers and snuffles.) I also know that a jocky saddle has stirrups that are very short, perhaps 5 inches at most, and the reins are very firm and tight (which is why the horse never stepped on them, or tried to "run away" from them, as common riding horses do. That horse clearly followed his training, and stayed with the group until the last furlong, then put on the gas, as if the rider asked him to and finished the race 4-5 lengths ahead of the other horses. He was not staying with the pack. He was usiing the strategy he was taught to win. You can also notice, that the horses with riders have a much smoother gallop, in that their backs are much flatter as they run, whereas the horse without rider, is really using his haunches, and condensing the length of his back at each gather of his stride, which would be very difficult to ride. He knew there was no rider and so was able to really enjoy the race without having to be concerned about stabilizing himself for his rider. It is obvious if you "know horses" that that is what he is doing.

someone whos got some damned sense!

Thanks for sharing this, Mary. Marc Bekoff's take on anthropomorphizing often comes to my mind in these kinds of discussions.

So when I take my dog to the vet to get his teeth cleaned, and he is tense and his eyes are bugging out and he is trying to burrow under my arm, then I am wrong to assume that he is anxious?  So if your dog whimpers Elizabeth, do you give him a kick because he's annoying you?  That is assuming that you have a dog of course. Or do you check to see what is "making him anxious"?

You could call it fear, yes. Perhaps it is your anxiety though that he is responding to? Perhaps there is a bad smell? Perhaps he smells other dog's fear? Dogs live in the moment. You cannot tell me you know why he is afraid, without presuming to read his mind.

Aren't you a ray of sunshine!  And if the people that you think animal rights people care less about than the animals, are the people like you, than you might just be right.

Yeah, I'm going to stand with Debby here. That comment is so not worth responding to, but it's just too easy. Here's a thought: THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT IS NOT ABOUT YOU. It's about animals, their rights and welfare thankyouverymuch. I, personally, don't care one iota what you do with your time because clearly you're a lost cause.

i never said its about me !  but where it does concern me is when you whack jobs try to change a law!   case in point. in 1988 the animal right movement had a ballot question on the general election here in Massachusetts, and part of that question had to deal with selling veal and how it was raised. i for one love veal  and your not going to take away my right to have a piece of meat.  if you don't want to eat it, DON'T EAT IT!  DON'T TELL ME I CANT!

Very intellegent points you make, Tommy. *sarcasm*

I'm not even going to try to persuade you to be compassionate. As Haley said, you are a lost cause. People like you make me very sad.

Personally, I think that the pre-born deserve the same mercy that all human and non-human animals deserve.  However, I think that in a discussion on any given subject, it is always acceptable to question the veracity of anothers statements and opinions, as there are a multitude of points of view but referring to those whose opinion may differ from yours as an idiot is hardly conducive to continued discussion.

But silly and goofy is ok.

Notice Elizabeth, Jen didn't argue that this is "how she trains her horse," simply that it is possible. Which is the point of contention here.