User talk:SledDogAC

Edits on Iditarod

While I can understand your desire to have the controversy mentioned on Iditarod, the section you reverted to restore was a copyvio, copyrighted work that Wikipedia does not have permission to include (see the results of a Google search for At least 126 dogs have died in the Iditarod, for instance, and see Wikipedia:Copyrights.) It can't be included in the article. Feel free to write your own version, but note WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; it would probably best to put it under a section titled 'controversy' and limit it to quoting specific commentators on their opinions rather than trying to make arguments itself. --Aquillion 01:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What I've added doesn't violate any copyright, since I am the one who wrote the passages you quote. Wikipedia wants its articles to be scholarly and neutral. The article you want doesn't give any details about the cruelties the dogs endure. Without this detailed information, the article isn't neutral and it isn't scholarly. --SledDogAC, 4 May 2006

While I agree that injuries and deaths need to be covered to keep the article neutral, your information needs to be toned down. Cut out the loaded language. For example, the word forced in "dogs are forced to run 1,150 miles" is loaded. That statement is not neutral. On top of that, the distance is already ready in the article. When I read you section, I feel that someone's biased opinion is clearly displayed. The rest of article just presents information about the race with no positive or negative bias. --Coaster1983 13:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no "loaded" language in what I wrote. The dogs are forced to raced as evidenced by all the quotes on the Sled Dog Action Coalition web page, http://www.helpsleddogs.org/remarks.htm and on all the quote pages that link to it. In addition, the dogs have no choice about being hooked up to the tow line. Dogs are not machines. They don't want to feel pain any more than humans do. The article, to be scholarly, must comport with common sense. People who know dogs, know they love to sleep a lot. Regardless of their breed, dogs don't race 1,150 miles over a grueling terrain in 8 to 15 days. -SledDogAC, 4 May 2006

Can you explain to me how your section does not violate Wikipedia's policies on Neutral Point of View and Original Research? If not, I suggest that you edit it. Again, I think that you have relevant information that should be included in the article. If you could just edit it to be more neutral, there would not be a problem.

--Coaster1983 15:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I hook my dog up to a tow line every day. It's called a leash and it's required by law in our neighborhood. I guess you could say I'm forcing her to go on a walk with me. She doesn't help matters any by reminding me it's time to go when she brings the leash to me dropping it at my feet, wagging her tail in discust the whole time. You can't push a rope. Typically she stays in front the whole way and keeps the leash tight. Sometimes she'll drag behind after a awhile and it doesn't go so well, so we cut it short. You'll find the same thing with dog mushing. --Feyer 13:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You objected to my use of the word "force." I think I explained why I wrote that the dogs are "forced" to race. The article as a totality wasn't neutral. The information I'm adding about the cruelties is making it neutral. I added facts, yet you think the facts are controversial. What's the problem? Have you ever read the material on the Sled Dog Action Coalition website, http://www.helpsleddogs.org? - SledDogAC 4 May 2006

That was just one example. How about leaving out that the musher Gary Paulsen talks about was disquaified at the next checkpoint and banned at least until Paulson's book was published (1994)? How about leaving out that the Rick Swenson was forced out of the race by a well-meaning, but contraversial 1996 Rule 18? How about leaving out that USDA clarifaction the 1997 Final Rule on dog tethering specifically exempts dog mushers? This is why I object to you text. I have gone over your site several times over the past three years. The only thing worthwhile on your site are the some of the problems with the current rules. The rest of the site is filled with the opinions of sportwriters and sportcasters (none of which live in Alaska), misinformation, quotes that are taken out of context, quotes used in more than one section, and still photographs. The overall attitude of the site is that all competitive mushers are greedy and uncaring dog abusers, no exceptions! I am not letting that happen to the Iditarod page on Wikipedia. I'm not opposed to your information if you make NPOV, but I will not stand for the same stuff if it is not accurate. --Coaster1983 03:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong to think that the quotes on the Sled Dog Action Coalition website are taken out of context. They are all correct and verifiable. Go read the material on the pages that link to http://www.helpsleddogs.org/remarks.htm. The links can be found in the drop box or at the bottom of the page. There's a lot more on the site than articles from sports commentators. The USDA stands by the statement that tethering dogs is inhumane, and the permanent tethering of dogs is still illegal where the law applies. Mushers got upset when the USDA came out with the first ruling and had their US Senators lobby the USDA to make a clarification. That's why the clarification was made. The USDA told me that the law was never intended to apply to mushers, but it was intended to apply to a class of dealers that sell dogs to pet stores. However, the sentiment expressed about tethering is what's important. In fact, there is a nationwide trend to ban the permanent tethering of dogs. The PETA website has a long list of the jurisdictions and their ordinances. The state of California is now reviewing legislation to ban the tethering of dogs in the state. Do you know why Swenson was reinstated? It was because some people thought having him participate would make the race more exciting. Why was Jerry Riley reinstated? The Sled Dog Action Coalition website does not speak about "all" competitive mushers. It's a gross exaggeration for you to claim that. Where does it say anyting bad about the Pedigree Stage Stop, the Can-Am or any other race? It doesn't.

SledDogAC

So you need the USDA's orignal position, despite the fact that it does not apply, to justify that you think tethering is wrong? Tethering itself is simply a tool. It can be used correctly, with little or no detriement to the dogs. I have personally seen this during two visits to Nature's Kennel, run by Ed and Tasha Stielstra in McMillian, MI. Most of the thier dogs were very friendly and healt. A few of the dogs were naturally shy and none were dog or human aggresive. The Stielstra's lifestyle almost completely revolves around the dogs. I did not measure the length of the chain, but the chain looked to be at least 6+ feet. That said, I have heard of a few cases of mushers neglecting dogs and being convicted of animal cruelty. I have also heard of cases of neglented dogs that were tethered in my own area. The real issue is the neglect, but tethering was used incorrectly in those cases.

As I understand, Swenson appealed his withdrawal from the 1996 race to the ITC Board and won. He was listed as a finisher. That only affected the 1996 race though. There is nothing in the rule that banned him permantantly from subsquent races.

I will add more later --Coaster1983 17:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My mentioning the USDA's position is only a small part of the tethering story. There is a lot more material on http://www.helpsleddogs.org/remarks-abuseinkennels.htm#chaining . I suspect, though, that if I started a section about tethering being cruel and gave all the same details that are on the Sled Dog Action Coalition website, you'd delete it. If most people thought tethering was an OK practice why are so many jurisdictions banning it? I've had online discussions with recreational mushers, including ones in Alaska, who are exploring creating chainless kennels. How many dogs does Ed have? Most of the dog lots in Alaska have 100 to 200 dogs.

Regarding Swenson-- He did appeal and won. The Iditarod was happy to revoke the ban against Swenson, because they thought he made the race more exciting. I believe there's an article in the Anchorage Daily News archives that talks about it.

Margery - May 5

I retract my statement that I made late last night about your site. I over-reacted and I apologize for it? I still disagree with parts of your site though.

A little research indicates that Swenson was not happy to have been withdrawn (not disqualified or banned by the way) and indicated that he would not race in the Iditarod again. Thus, the ITC board caved into Swenson by approving his appeal. Given that Swenson was still competitive in the mid '90s, I can see why the ITC board would want him back. I agree with you there.

Speaking of the ITC board caving in, I feel that Rachael Scdoris should not have been into the race. While I admire her courage to run the race, I think she should have stuck to stage and mid-distance races. She is a major accident waiting to happen. I hear that she is going run again in 2008. I am not happy about that.

Regarding Ed - his kennel currently is at 110 dogs. I admit that I am somewhat concerned of that number. That said, the Stiestra's main kennel design, which looks like an H, is very efficient. It allows the Stielstras and their winter handlers to spend less time and more time with the dogs.

--Coaster1983 02:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was away for the weekend, which is why I didn't respond sooner. I appreciate your apology. I am curious to know what part of my website you disagree with. Regarding Scdoris-- several of my sources had told me prior to the 2006 race that she can see better she lets on. I think we need to ask how well can Scdoris see. That's why I put the question on the website: http://www.helpsleddogs.org/remarks-greedfuelsiditarod.htm#seeing . Scdoris heavily markets herself and has hired at least two public relations firms. I think she is completely motivated by desires to be in the media spotlight. Would a terrible accident help achieve that end? Maybe. Regarding Ed-- maybe an H is more efficient. I think, though, that as more jurisdictions pass tethering bans, Ed and the others who have sled dog tour businesses will have to create chainless kennels. It's all a matter of money. Keeping dogs on chains is inexpensive. Sometime this week, I'm going to make edits to the Iditarod page. I'll be adding references and will be mentioning that animal protection activists don't think of the race as "The Last Great Race" but as the "I-killed-a-dog race." If you have problems with what I write, please let me know. Hopefully, we'll be able to work out of differences, so that both sides of the Iditarod story have equal weight on the page. Incidentally, what is your first name? My name is Margery.

8 May 2006

Could you possibly consider actually discussing the content of Iditarod before mindlessly reverting it? Wikipedia articles are formed through consensus, and you clearly don't have any for the changes you're proposing. Perhaps the article could give more weight to your viewpoint if you actually made an effort to compromise - and express yourself a bit more neutrally. - ulayiti (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR on Iditarod

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. - ulayiti (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your warning me. THAT was fair of you.

Please do not add text to Wikipedia which is copied from other sources. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others. Rhobite 02:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What I've added are either my own words or quotes. A person is allowed to quote as long as credit is given. That's what scholarly research is all about. 12 May 2006 SledDogAc

Please stop turning the article into an activist soapbox. The article is not about criticizing the Iditarod, it's about offering neutral information and you are overly focusing on dog deaths and the like. You also reverted an edit I made so as to prevent copyvio. Also, please stop taking quotes from activist websites and please maintain neutrality. Can you give a source from a non-activist web site? I must revert you, sorry. Эйрон Кинни (t) 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Link spamming

Please don't add indirectly related link to Wikipedia en masse, it is considered link spam, and will be removed. --Eivind^t@c 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The links that I added DO have to do with the person in question. There are quotes from articles about them on the Sled Dog Action website. Having the link helps make the article neutral, which is Wikipedia's ultimate goal, is it not? -SledDogAC May 13, 2006

The quotes on sleddogs.org aren't the original source. When possible, you should reference the original source.--Feyer 15:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The quotes on http://www.helpsleddogs.org aren't the original source, but the website does tell people how to find the source material. I have hard copies of every article quoted, because some of the original source material that was online at one time may be deleted or impossible to find at some other time. Unfortunately, many newspaper articles are either no longer online or can only be accessed for a fee in newspaper archives. I always say where the quote comes from, so that people can go to these archives. But for easy access to information, the quotes are all referenced and copied on the Sled Dog Action Coalition website. They can be accessed by first going to http://www.helpsleddogs.org/remarks.htm . The quote pages all link to this main quote page. 13 May, 2006 SledDogAC

Are you talking about people or dogs? I noticed you used the word "persons". Also, I replaced this paragraph you gave with something I think is more neutral:

• A short list of what happens to the dogs during the race includes death, paralysis, penile frostbite, bleeding ulcers, broken bones, pneumonia, torn muscles and tendons, diarrhea, vomiting, hypothermia, fur loss, broken teeth, viral diseases, torn footpads, ruptured discs, sprains and lung damage.

I replaced it with:

• The number of official dog deaths for the race's beginnings are obscure. A common cause for dog fatalities is pneumonia, while other causes range from hemorrhaging to ulcers.

So why are you reverting me and everyone else? P.S. Culling is against the official rules, that requires mention if you are going to say mushers cull dogs. Эйрон Кинни (t) 20:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How long the Iditarod takes

The article incorrectly states that the Iditarod is completed in LESS than two weeks. That has never happened. I am going to delete this incorrect information and ask that I am not banned for doing so. SledDogAC 13 May 2006

Please discuss article content on the article's talk page, not on your own user talk page (where people interested in the article can't see it). Also, you might want to sign any comments you make on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) after them. - ulayiti (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Editorials

Please do not write editorial content in articles. Do not use your own website as a reference. Rhobite 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it OK to have a section about airing dirty laundry, which is clearly written from someone's perspective? Why is not OK to mention the animal protection viewpoint and to document that there is an animal protection viewpoint on the issue by giving my own website? 14 May 2006

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - ulayiti (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, which means that the animal protection viewpoint isn't supposed to be deleted, because it does tell another side of the story. 15 May SledDogAC

We talk about the issue, and what can be verified, and present both sides of the debate, yes, but we don't present it as fact, we present it in neutral language, and cover just their posistion. It's also proportional- minority viewpoints get less coverage then majority ones, which is Animal Rights criticisms dealing with the iditarod. -M^ask 04:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

All the material I've posted can be verified. Most people have common sense, so they understand that dogs simply cannot race 1,150 miles over a grueling terrain in 8 to 16 days without suffering terribly. Consequently, the people who hype the Iditarod are in the minority. The majority of people understand that the race is cruel to the dogs. 21 May SledDogAC

If a majority of people believe Iditarod is cruel to animals, it should be easy for you to find better references than your own website. Rhobite 16:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The references on my website are excellent and they are all verifiable. The reason why the majority of people understand that the Iditarod is cruel is that they know that dogs are not machines. 21 May SledDogAC

1,150 miles is usually an exaggeration, it's more along the likes of 1,049 to 1,100. And just how, exactly is racing going to cause diarrhea? And suppose some of your facts are correct, such as culling...we still must accept other facts, such as Rule 16 of the Iditarod Rules, which determine that practice is simply prohibited and inhumane. Don't delete that fact.

You are also turning Wikipedia into an op-ed, as a user said earlier. When you make blunt statements like "Dogs are beaten", "Dogs are killed and skinned for fur", and "Dogs live on chains", do you really belief that is NPOV? Surely not. Эйрон Кинни (t) 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to give people the facts. The statements about dogs being beaten, being skinned for their fur and living on chains are all correct and verifiable. The facts are neutral because they are facts. It's obvious that you don't want the truth to be told. The facts are neutral and can be verified. Take the Iditarod Challenge: read and verify the quotes on http://www.helpsleddogs.org/remarks.htm and on all the quote pages that link to it. Links can be found in the drop box at the top or at the bottom of the page.

Racing in the Iditarod causes diarrhea because the dogs get sick. When humans get sick with a virus, they get diarrhea. The same thing happens to the dogs. Dog are not machines. SledDogAC 4 June 2006

But that does not explain why you are reverting my verified facts. After all, they are neutral, and facts, because the rules say no culling. Obviously, you don't want that to be told. That's POV. Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What you want included are not facts at all. The Iditarod does not oversee what happens in the Iditarod puppy mills. In addition, mushers are excluded from Alaska's animal cruelty law. Read section Sec. 11.61.140. Why are you deleting all the material about how dogs die in the Iditarod? These are facts. The breeding and culling of dogs in Iditarod puppy mills is how the Idiarod mushers get good racers. SledDogAC 5 June 2006

AN/I discussion on your behavior

For you to note: I vave initiated a discussion of your behavior at AN/I. -M^ask 03:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop continually adding to the ADN article

It will continually get reverted. You are just making more work for yourself and others by doing this. If you wish to revise the article to address your concerns, considering your rather thoughtful and egotistical behavior here, you're only route at this point is going to politely disucss what you wish to do. Jarfingle 02:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You completely miss my point. I'll try to rephrase myself. I think there are two main ways in which you are rubbing people wrong here:

1. Your behavior and attitude towards editting.

As you may have noticed, all, or almost all, of your edits get reverted. Why do you suppose that is? I'll go ahead and do my best to answer a question you should ask yourself, and I'd say that you continue to add content which is opposed by a vast majority of Wikipedia editors. Not necessarily because we want to create an overly positive view of the Anchorage Daily News, but because you have shown little to no respect for other editors in adding content in what is an sensitive and delicate topic and have made no obvious effort to reach a consensus with any editors before you add your contentious content.

The result if your approach? You achieve nothing and all your edits get reverted. Perhaps if you change your style and work with other editors you might accomplish more.

2. The content of your edits.

First of all, your content is not in the style of Wikipedia. Simple things like italicizing the Anchorage Daily News title, differentiated between "its" and "it's", imbedding references, or leaving in an extended quote that is not entirely necessary, could be changed and would probably make you be taken a little more seriously by others. Also, you are adding material in which not everyone agrees with your point of view, so, for example, by using a civil tone and not making the section appear as a rant, you may encounter more success in the future for your efforts.

Good luck. Jarfingle 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't like my tone, but I can't help but wonder if you simply don't want people to know that some people are critical of the Anchorage Daily News for its failure to tell both side of the Iditarod story. It's a fact that people are upset. Why shouldn't this fact be mentioned on the Anchorage Daily News page? What I added had a civil tone. I didn't curse. I simply said that people are critical of the paper. 9/4/06 SledDogAC

You say "I can't help but wonder if you simply don't want people to know that some people are critical of the Anchorage Daily News for its failure to tell both side of the Iditarod story." I said, before you wrote this: "Not necessarily because we want to create an overly positive view of the Anchorage Daily News, but because you have shown little to no respect for other editors in adding content in what is an sensitive and delicate topic and have made no obvious effort to reach a consensus with any editors before you add your contentious content." To answer your question more directly, I see no reason why that shouldn't be on the ADN page (although other editors may disagree with me), however, based the highly unencyclopedic nature of your edits, your behavior, I have no patience to de-emotize your contributions and add them to the page.

I can't understand the third to last sentence of your message, but I think I get the jist of it. If you believe that your contributions are non-combative, non-sensationalist, and not emotionally charged simply based on the fact that you "didn't curse," I recommend that take in a long, healthy dose of common sense. Also, while's it's true that I "don't like [your] tone," to write it off as one person's opinion when your edits are getting reverted by the community at large might allude to a bigger idea...

I'll say it again. You are accomplishing absolutely nothing with your efforts. Nothing. Perhaps you should try a different tact? Jarfingle 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You can sign your edits automatically with four tildes (~~~~).

Why am I being banned for telling the truth?

Why am I being banned by AKMask, Ulayti and Feyer for telling the truth and documenting it? What's wrong with what I've published below. Time and again this threesome has deleted this, but has yet to say what's wrong with it.

The answer, at least from my perspective is above. No need to ask the question when the answer is right in front of you! Jarfingle 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism from animal rights groups

Animal protection activists say that the Iditarod is not a commemoration of the 1925 serum delivery. The race was originally called the Iditarod Trail Seppala Memorial Race in honor of Leonhard Seppala. According to statements made by Iditarod co-founder Dorothy Page, the media perpetuated the false notion that the race was established to honor the drivers and dogs who carried the serum. . Animal protection activists also say that the Iditarod is dog abuse, and therefore it not an adventure or a test of human perseverance. They are also critical of the race because dogs have died and been injured during the race. The practice of tethering dogs on short chains, which is commonly used by mushers in their kennels, at checkpoints and dog drops, is also criticized. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals spokesperson Jennifer O'Connor says, "We're totally opposed to the race for the cruelty issues associated with it". The ASPCA said, "General concerns arise whenever intense competition results in dogs being pushed beyond their endurance or capabilities," according to Vice President Stephen Zawistowski. The Humane Society of the United States also opposes the Iditarod for various reasons . Dr. Paula Kislak, President of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, has been very critical of the care the dogs receive.

Dog deaths:

At least 130 dogs have died in the Iditarod. There is no official count of dog deaths available for the race's early years. In "WinterDance: the Fine Madness of Running the Iditarod," a nonfiction book, Gary Paulsen describes witnessing an Iditarod musher brutally kicking a dog to death during the race. He wrote, "All the time he was kicking the dog. Not with the imprecision of anger, the kicks, not kicks to match his rage but aimed, clinical vicious kicks. Kicks meant to hurt deeply, to cause serious injury. Kicks meant to kill."

Causes of death have also included strangulation in towlines, internal hemorrhaging after being gouged by a sled, liver injury, heart failure, and pneumonia. "Sudden death" and "external myopathy," a fatal condition in which a dog's muscles and organs deteriorate during extreme or prolonged exercise, have also occurred.

- 2005 Iditarod dog deaths -

Paul Gebhardt's dog Rita, a three-year old female, died of anemia which was caused by gastric ulcers. [1]

Doug Swingley's dog Nellie, a two-year old female, died of pneumonia. [2]

Jason Barron's dog Oakley, a four-year old female, died about eleven miles out of the Safety checkpoint. A necropsy was to have been conducted, but the Iditarod has not released the results. [3]

Michael Salvisberg's dog Tyson, a three-year old male, drowned in the Bering Sea. [4]

- 2006 Iditarod dog deaths -

Noah Burmeister's dog Yellowknife, a four-year old male, died of acute pneumonia. [5]

David Sawatzky's dog Bear, a three-year old male, died. A gross necropsy was to have been given, but the Iditarod has not released the results. [6]

Dr. Jim Lanier's dog Cupid, a four-year old female died as a result of regurgitation and aspiration as a result of the presence of gastric ulcers. [7]

Ron Cortte's dog Jack, a five-year old male, died at the White Mountain checkpoint after being examined by veterinarians thirty minutes prior. [8] A gross necropsy performed on Jack revealed no abnormalities. Microscopic evaluations and cultures were to have done, but the Iditarod has not released the results. [9]

In the 2001 Iditarod, a sick dog was sent to a prison to be cared for by inmates and received no veterinary care. He was chained up in the cold and died. Another dog died by suffocating on his own vomit.

Other ways dogs suffer during the Iditarod:

A short list of what happens to the dogs during the race includes death, paralysis, penile frostbite, bleeding ulcers, broken bones, pneumonia, torn muscles and tendons, diarrhea, vomiting, hypothermia, fur loss, broken teeth, viral diseases, torn footpads, ruptured discs, sprains and lung damage.

On average, 53 percent of the dogs who start the race do not make it across the finish line. According to a report published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, of those who do cross, 81 percent have lung damage.[10] [11] Another study found that dogs who were tested after four months rest, which was the last check the dogs received, still had lung damage [12] The A report published in the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine said that 61 percent of the dogs who finish the Iditarod have ulcers versus zero percent pre-race.[13]

Dogs are beaten:

Tom Classen, retired Air Force colonel and Alaskan resident for over 40 years, tells us that the dogs are beaten into submission:

"They've had the hell beaten out of them." "You don't just whisper into their ears, 'OK, stand there until I tell you to run like the devil.' They understand one thing: a beating. These dogs are beaten into submission the same way elephants are trained for a circus. The mushers will deny it. And you know what? They are all lying." -USA Today, March 3, 2000 in Jon Saraceno's column

Beatings and whippings are common. Jim Welch says in his book Speed Mushing Manual, "I heard one highly respected [sled dog] driver once state that "'Alaskans like the kind of dog they can beat on.'" "Nagging a dog team is cruel and ineffective...A training device such as a whip is not cruel at all but is effective." "It is a common training device in use among dog mushers...A whip is a very humane training tool."

Dogs killed and skinned for fur: Mushers believe in "culling" or killing unwanted dogs, including puppies. Many dogs who are permanently disabled in the Iditarod, or who are unwanted for any reason, are killed with a shot to the head, dragged or clubbed to death. "On-going cruelty is the law of many dog lots. Dogs are clubbed with baseball bats and if they don't pull are dragged to death in harnesses....." wrote Alaskan Mike Cranford in an article for Alaska's Bush Blade Newspaper (March, 2000).

Jon Saraceno wrote in his March 3, 2000 column in USA Today, "He [Colonel Tom Classen] confirmed dog beatings and far worse. Like starving dogs to maintain their most advantageous racing weight. Skinning them to make mittens. Or dragging them to their death."

Dogs live on chains: Many kennels have over 100 dogs and some have as many as 200. It is standard for the dogs to spend their entire lives outside tethered to metal chains that can be as short as four feet long. In 1997 the United States Department of Agriculture determined that the tethering of dogs was inhumane and not in the animals' best interests. The chaining of dogs as a primary means of enclosure is prohibited in all cases where federal law applies. A dog who is permanently tethered is forced to urinate and defecate where he sleeps, which conflicts with his natural instinct to eliminate away from his living area. The American Veterinary Medical Association said, "Confine your dog in a fenced yard or dog run when it is not in the house. Never tether or chain your dog because this can contribute to aggressive behavior." [14]