White Mountain-Safety-Nome

This is a forum for general discussion of dogsled racing, with a special focus on Alaska, and is open to all. It is expected that this area will see the most activity during the months leading up to, and during the annual Iditarod sled dog race. Pictures from races can be posted here. Hosting is provided by the Bering Strait School District (BSSD), and the area is open all year. Care to be one of our volunteer moderators? Contact us!

Moderators: fladogfan, libby the lab, mira, mamamia, sc-race-fan

Re: White Mountain-Safety-Nome

Postby fladogfan » Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:13 pm

Just read about Michelle. What a terrible thing to happen to her. ITC supposedly all about protecting dogs but it's OK to leave them out in that kind of weather without shelter?! I think there should be more shelter cabins along the trail and IF ITC doesn't want dogs in them, then build some type of protection outside the cabins to shelter the dogs. AND make it big enough to protect several teams.
All my children have four feet and fur.
User avatar
fladogfan
 
Posts: 7388
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:08 am
Location: Central Florida

Re: White Mountain-Safety-Nome

Postby Breeze » Sun Mar 20, 2022 7:45 pm

Yeah, well, and so..., now we've seen Nordman and Urbach at the awards banquet.
How'd you like them apples ?
Breeze
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:50 am
Location: Bethel Maine

Re: White Mountain-Safety-Nome

Postby Leaddog » Mon Mar 21, 2022 4:51 am

Just to stir the pot some.....
It is widely understood that the PRIMARY responsibility for the safety and well-being of the dogs lies with the musher. There is adequate shelter for both dogs and mushers at each checkpoint, and if a musher elects to leave the checkpoint, it is understood that they believe they and their dogs will be OK on the trail. Sometimes, that decision is the wrong one and wrong decisions carry consequences (or should, IMHO). No one is suggesting that the dogs should suffer for the wrong decision made by their musher, which is why mushers have the ability to signal for help and SAR teams go out to do welfare checks even if no one has signaled that they need help. To suggest that the race officials don't care about the welfare of the dogs or worse is just as unfair as suggesting that the musher that made the unwise decision to head out of a checkpoint into the weather doesn't care about the welfare of the dogs (although there have been some individual instances when it is difficult to figure out how that decision was made). Bottom line is that I fail to see why a musher shouldn't be penalized for making a mistake that results in them having to break the rules in order to prioritize their safety and that of their dogs - making those decisions correctly is inherently the nature of this event. If the threat of a penalty would cause a musher making a mistake to risk the well-being of their dogs, then they don't belong on the trail. And that is entirely consistent with the statements made by many of the mushers who have been penalized - regardless of the threat of a penalty, they would place the well-being of their dogs first. And that is what they have done. I have no doubt there will be folks who disagree with me - and as is the nature of public discourse nowadays, will probably disagree with me in a manner that is disproportionate. But I figure that is the price to be paid for making this point.
Having said all of that, I would encourage folks to download and carefully read the posted rules, as many of you already have. But I would direct you to the very end of the document (Rules 49-51) and see if you can find in those rules a provision for altering the finish order. Because I can't. In fact, it specifically states that no time penalty can be assessed past White Mountain - only monetary penalties. Following the rules applies to both the participants and the officials.
User avatar
Leaddog
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:29 am

Re: White Mountain-Safety-Nome

Postby libby the lab » Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:47 am

Interesting about you take on 49-51. I need to read that section. I understand your point but what if a team heads out and trail report ahead is ok at the time they leave then weather changes. Not saying that is what happened here. Also wasn’t Mille at that shelter cabin with Michelle? Did she find a way to safely leave her dogs out?
Cindy, Anna Banana and Link-de
RIP Libby and Hank

http://www.dockdogs.com
http://www.chaseawayk9cancer.org
User avatar
libby the lab
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:18 pm
Location: Prairie Village, KS

Re: White Mountain-Safety-Nome

Postby flowerpower » Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:04 pm

I understand the "no shelter" rule and the reasons for it, and respect that. Whether it needs revision or a provision, I have no clue. I will leave that decision/discussion to those who actually do it, and I do appreciate hearing that perspective. Thanks LeadDog! so glad you are chiming in! What I find more disturbing is that it would be necessary for 4 mushers to report it. Did they make it in to Elim before she did? Maybe before she had time to find an official and report it herself? :?
"No matter how little money and how few possesions you own, having a dog makes you rich." - Louis Sabin
User avatar
flowerpower
 
Posts: 2340
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: White Mountain-Safety-Nome

Postby Alphashe » Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:12 pm

mira wrote:Wasn't Mille together with Michelle at that cabin? Or do I recall wrongly?


You're not wrong about Mille, and she got her time adjusted as well. At the Banquet she was named as #17 while the standings (still) shows # 14.
User avatar
Alphashe
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:15 am
Location: Bybrua/Norway

Re: White Mountain-Safety-Nome

Postby flowerpower » Mon Mar 21, 2022 4:06 pm

Seb made a comment from a race judge perspective on Michelle's page that basically said what Lead said, in a more "Seb" fashion. ;) It's also on the Iditarod Fan page, if anyone cares to hunt for it.
"No matter how little money and how few possesions you own, having a dog makes you rich." - Louis Sabin
User avatar
flowerpower
 
Posts: 2340
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: White Mountain-Safety-Nome

Postby Leaddog » Thu May 12, 2022 5:31 pm

And perhaps not unexpectedly, the appeals committee has reversed the decision to enact a de facto time penalty on Mille and Michelle and has restored their original finishing positions, stating that such a penalty was not consistent with the rules as currently written. They did get docked $1000, same as Riley, for violation of Rule #37. I imagine many folks can and will continue to debate whether a musher should be penalized for acting in the best interests of their dogs even when the adverse situation is arguably of their own making. But at least the penalties are now consistent across the field of competitors and within the written rules.
User avatar
Leaddog
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:29 am

Previous

Return to Mushing Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests

cron