From the Sled Dog Action Coalition, http://www.helpsleddogs.org
In the article, you'll read that a study about the Iditarod was conducted by a group of Oregon MBA candidates. The "study" concluded that few people think the Iditarod is cruel and included recommendations as to how the race could better market itself.
The "study" was not independent or legitimate, since the Iditarod paid the costs. The students concluded that it is unwarranted for national sponsors to be concerned about animal rights issues. Undoubtedly, the "study" results will be used by the Iditarod as a marketing tool.
Letters to the editor: letters@adn.com (225 word max)
http://www.adn.com/sports/story/8940455p-8840422c.html
Study concludes few people think the race is 'cruel'
By CRAIG MEDRED
Anchorage Daily News
Published: June 2, 2007
Last Modified: June 2, 2007 at 12:31 AM
On the heels of the Ramy Brooks affair, the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race got some good news on Friday.
Despite animal-rights activists who protest that the Anchorage to Nome race is cruel, apparently few Americans perceive it that way.
Only 4 percent of those polled in a national study done by the University of Oregon consider the race "cruel.''
The survey was conducted by a group of Oregon MBA candidates who last year approached the Iditarod about studying marketing possibilities for Alaska's largest sporting event.
Iditarod executive director Stan Hooley said his organization covered the students' cost to complete the project, but did not pay them any additional money. The results presented Friday at the Millenium Hotel appeared to surprise some members of the Iditarod Trail Committee.
The survey, completed after Brooks was disqualified from the race for beating his dogs, found that about 60 percent of the people in the country had heard of the race.
Among those people, 88 percent were unaware animal-rights activists considered the race cruel, and 86 percent had a somewhat or highly positive view of animal-related sports.
Even among the minority who thought the event cruel, the Iditarod was ranked more animal friendly than horse racing, greyhound racing, bull riding or the circus.
Oregon MBA candidate Brett Lentz said indications are that animal-rights activists are a small but noisy group. They can't be ignored, he said, but they shouldn't be overrated.
Lentz and colleagues suggested the Iditarod unite with other animal sports -- notably the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association and the national bull riders -- to push the idea that animals sports are good for both animals and people.
"Animal rights issues are a primary concern for national sponsors,'' the group noted in a written report to the board. "The results of the survey demonstrate that this concern is unwarranted.''
Overall, the group said, the Iditarod has a good national image and excellent name recognition. Both help make the race marketable.
Though the Iditarod already brings in about $2 million a year in sponsorships, that's chump change compared to the $8.84 billion spent on sport sponsorships in America last year.
Graduate degree candidate Ryan Maloney said it is time to recognize "the Iditarod as a sports property'' that isn't just selling a sled dog race, but the entire Alaska mystique.
Of the people attracted to the Iditarod in the Lower 48, the students reported, only about 25 percent have a keen interest in competitive aspects of the race. More are interested in dogs in general (42 percent) or Alaska (40 percent).
The students recommended the Iditarod:
• Broaden its sponsorship base by finding a travel or tourism partner interested in cross marketing;
• Ensure that businesses using the Iditarod as a marketing tool pay to do so.
• Find energy drink and energy bar sponsors. Both spend heavily on marketing to promote the idea they can help people through grueling challenges. The Iditarod is a perfect fit.
• Partner with a consumer electronics company. The Iditarod offers an opportunity for a manufacturer to highlight GPS-tracking capabilities, the students noted. Iditarod dog sleds could be outfitted with GPS units that would enable people to follow the progress of teams north on an interactive Web site. The Tesoro Iron Dog snowmobile race does this for its race.
• Contract with a name sponsor as Iron Dog did with Tesoro..
The board adjourned into a closed-door executive session to further consider the report, noting that marketing ideas could have a direct affect on the organization's business.
Iditarod executive director Stan Hooley said later the board found so many good ideas the biggest problem might be prioritizing them.
There are some indications from the Oregon study that the Iditarod might be underselling itself on the national stage.
"The Iditarod Public Perception Survey revealed that 42 percent of those who have heard of the Iditarod rank stories about sled dogs a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale of interest.
That may represent a pool of millions of untapped Iditarod fans. The Iditarod Insider -- a Web site fans must pay to access-- attracted more than 100,000 fans this year, but that's just the tip of what could be a very big iceberg.
The Insider is aiming for a quarter million subscribers next year.
SledDogAction is offline Reply With Quote
Full Version: Iditarod paid study concludes few people think rac
I'm going to have to come back to this one. I started to write, but I need to think a bit more. There's a lot to say, and it's late...
| QUOTE (allforgreys @ Jun 30 2007, 09:41 PM) |
| The "study" was not independent or legitimate, since the Iditarod paid the costs. |
I don't think this logically follows.
MBA students at the University of Oregon conducted the study, not Iditarod employees. Yes, the Iditarod covered their costs, but unless the students were making their decisions on who to poll based on what they expected the answers to be, or let the people they were polling knew who was paying for the study, who covered their expenses is a non-issue.
The article doesn't give those details, nor does it have a link to the actual study results, so I don't think there's enough information to dismiss the results so completely.
-Shalea
Let me start by saying I love mushing, and I love competitive mushing. I watch the local sprint races, which are anywhere from 10 to 30 miles long, and I follow the distance races, which range from 300 to 1000 miles long. The dogs and people that participate, let alone finish, are incredible athletes, and for the most part, I admire them. When I had my two huskies I used to skijour with them (being pulled by the dogs while on cross country skis), so I have some idea of the physical fortitude necessary to compete in these events. But only an idea; I was a wimp. I only went out if it was -5 or above, and we only went 5 to 10 miles.
All that being said, my issue with competitive mushing, especially at the level of the Iditarod or the Yukon Quest, is the current unrelenting push to cut the completion time, regardless of the cost. I don't believe the mushers (with one notable exception) or the race is cruel; cruelty to me implies intent, and I don't believe the top shelf mushers are intentionally cruel to their animals. I don't believe they want to hurt them or kill them to win the race. But they're willing to.
People will talk about how it doesn't pay to mistreat the huskies, how much money goes into training and care, how an individual dog can cost anywhere from $2000 to $8000, or more. All of this is true. But a sponsorship for a winning team can run into the tens of thousands. Winning a big race can mean a big purse and a new dog truck. So you lose a dog on the trail. It's sad, but not the end of the world when you not only win, but take a few hours off last year's winning time.
I never want to see competitive sled dog racing go away, especially the distance racing. I just want to see it evolve into the sport I know it can be.
All that being said, my issue with competitive mushing, especially at the level of the Iditarod or the Yukon Quest, is the current unrelenting push to cut the completion time, regardless of the cost. I don't believe the mushers (with one notable exception) or the race is cruel; cruelty to me implies intent, and I don't believe the top shelf mushers are intentionally cruel to their animals. I don't believe they want to hurt them or kill them to win the race. But they're willing to.
People will talk about how it doesn't pay to mistreat the huskies, how much money goes into training and care, how an individual dog can cost anywhere from $2000 to $8000, or more. All of this is true. But a sponsorship for a winning team can run into the tens of thousands. Winning a big race can mean a big purse and a new dog truck. So you lose a dog on the trail. It's sad, but not the end of the world when you not only win, but take a few hours off last year's winning time.
I never want to see competitive sled dog racing go away, especially the distance racing. I just want to see it evolve into the sport I know it can be.
| QUOTE (simile @ Jul 2 2007, 10:53 PM) |
| Let me start by saying I love mushing, and I love competitive mushing. I watch the local sprint races, which are anywhere from 10 to 30 miles long, and I follow the distance races, which range from 300 to 1000 miles long. The dogs and people that participate, let alone finish, are incredible athletes, and for the most part, I admire them. When I had my two huskies I used to skijour with them (being pulled by the dogs while on cross country skis), so I have some idea of the physical fortitude necessary to compete in these events. But only an idea; I was a wimp. I only went out if it was -5 or above, and we only went 5 to 10 miles. All that being said, my issue with competitive mushing, especially at the level of the Iditarod or the Yukon Quest, is the current unrelenting push to cut the completion time, regardless of the cost. I don't believe the mushers (with one notable exception) or the race is cruel; cruelty to me implies intent, and I don't believe the top shelf mushers are intentionally cruel to their animals. I don't believe they want to hurt them or kill them to win the race. But they're willing to. People will talk about how it doesn't pay to mistreat the huskies, how much money goes into training and care, how an individual dog can cost anywhere from $2000 to $8000, or more. All of this is true. But a sponsorship for a winning team can run into the tens of thousands. Winning a big race can mean a big purse and a new dog truck. So you lose a dog on the trail. It's sad, but not the end of the world when you not only win, but take a few hours off last year's winning time. I never want to see competitive sled dog racing go away, especially the distance racing. I just want to see it evolve into the sport I know it can be. |
Good post simile. It is obvious that you put real thought into your views on dog sports in general, and I appreciate that.
The last paragraph of your post is the most critical. Where should the line be drawn with our use of animals, in sport, or for an end unto themselves? Should we not have ANY interaction with animals at all, no pets, etc, as the HSUS would recommend? Or on the other end of the spectrum, should we do anything we wish with the animals of the earth, and use them at our discretion? The vast majority falls somewhere nearly dead center of this debate, and that is what the real issue is-what IS the real middle ground?
The answer to that debate lies in the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, ie, animal husbandry. Many activist groups tend to lend human attributes to the group they are trying to "protect"-something that is far fetched at best, and potentially catastrophic to the rights of the American public at worst. Animals are just that-animals. They do animal things, and think animal things. Never have they asked or insinuated that they, too, wish to have the rights of their human counterparts. It is OUR job-no, DUTY-to make decisions that are in the best interest of the animals AND humans involved. We have been given the capacity to reason, and we must all face the consequences of our actions.
Use your animals for what they were put on earth to do-whether it be pulling a plow or chasing prey (or racing, it's modern day replacement)-but know when to hold back, and when to push harder.
QUOTE (prefontaine @ Jul 3 2007, 08:47 AM)
| QUOTE (simile @ Jul 2 2007, 10:53 PM) |
| Let me start by saying I love mushing, and I love competitive mushing. I watch the local sprint races, which are anywhere from 10 to 30 miles long, and I follow the distance races, which range from 300 to 1000 miles long. The dogs and people that participate, let alone finish, are incredible athletes, and for the most part, I admire them. When I had my two huskies I used to skijour with them (being pulled by the dogs while on cross country skis), so I have some idea of the physical fortitude necessary to compete in these events. But only an idea; I was a wimp. I only went out if it was -5 or above, and we only went 5 to 10 miles. All that being said, my issue with competitive mushing, especially at the level of the Iditarod or the Yukon Quest, is the current unrelenting push to cut the completion time, regardless of the cost. I don't believe the mushers (with one notable exception) or the race is cruel; cruelty to me implies intent, and I don't believe the top shelf mushers are intentionally cruel to their animals. I don't believe they want to hurt them or kill them to win the race. But they're willing to. People will talk about how it doesn't pay to mistreat the huskies, how much money goes into training and care, how an individual dog can cost anywhere from $2000 to $8000, or more. All of this is true. But a sponsorship for a winning team can run into the tens of thousands. Winning a big race can mean a big purse and a new dog truck. So you lose a dog on the trail. It's sad, but not the end of the world when you not only win, but take a few hours off last year's winning time. I never want to see competitive sled dog racing go away, especially the distance racing. I just want to see it evolve into the sport I know it can be. |
Good post simile. It is obvious that you put real thought into your views on dog sports in general, and I appreciate that.
The last paragraph of your post is the most critical. Where should the line be drawn with our use of animals, in sport, or for an end unto themselves? Should we not have ANY interaction with animals at all, no pets, etc, as the HSUS would recommend? Or on the other end of the spectrum, should we do anything we wish with the animals of the earth, and use them at our discretion? The vast majority falls somewhere nearly dead center of this debate, and that is what the real issue is-what IS the real middle ground?
The answer to that debate lies in the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, ie, animal husbandry. Many activist groups tend to lend human attributes to the group they are trying to "protect"-something that is far fetched at best, and potentially catastrophic to the rights of the American public at worst. Animals are just that-animals. They do animal things, and think animal things. Never have they asked or insinuated that they, too, wish to have the rights of their human counterparts. It is OUR job-no, DUTY-to make decisions that are in the best interest of the animals AND humans involved. We have been given the capacity to reason, and we must all face the consequences of our actions.
Use your animals for what they were put on earth to do-whether it be pulling a plow or chasing prey (or racing, it's modern day replacement)-but know when to hold back, and when to push harder.
I needed to add a little something here...
The race marshal for the Yukon Quest (1000 mile race) was just in our office the other day, and we started talking dogs as soon as he saw Jack and Chloe. One thing led to another, and he mentioned that one of the dogs that died in last year's race died because he had chewed some nylon webbing from a lead or harness and a very small piece lodged in his intestine. The dog had been vet checked multiple times before and during the race and came up clean each and every time. Was eating and running well, then suddenly dropped dead. This was one of the deaths that was attributed to the race itself. The cause wasn't discovered until the race was finished, but death by nylon webbing doesn't make big news.
I still have issues with the distance races, and what mushers are willing to do to get the big sponsorships, but it would be nice if we'd get the whole picture, too.
The race marshal for the Yukon Quest (1000 mile race) was just in our office the other day, and we started talking dogs as soon as he saw Jack and Chloe. One thing led to another, and he mentioned that one of the dogs that died in last year's race died because he had chewed some nylon webbing from a lead or harness and a very small piece lodged in his intestine. The dog had been vet checked multiple times before and during the race and came up clean each and every time. Was eating and running well, then suddenly dropped dead. This was one of the deaths that was attributed to the race itself. The cause wasn't discovered until the race was finished, but death by nylon webbing doesn't make big news.
I still have issues with the distance races, and what mushers are willing to do to get the big sponsorships, but it would be nice if we'd get the whole picture, too.
I think it is totally amazing that man and human can race in sub-degree weather. I like to watch but I couldn't do it.