Iditarod

[frozenchief]

Brent Sass won the Iditarod this year. Dallas Seavey was hot on his trail but just couldn't catch up. Came in about an hour later. Took about 8 ½ days for a winner to be declared. The next 12 hours will probably see another half dozen or so mushers come in. And they'll trickle in over the next few days. Last person to complete the Iditarod gets the 'red lantern' award.

One definitely unique aspect of the Iditarod: it's the only race I know of in which you might have to kill something:

https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/20...r-near-galena/

I like dogs and I've gone out with some friends who have teams, but a race of > 1,000 miles through the Alaska wilderness does not sound like fun.

But it's better than running the Iditarod trail myself. I have a couple of friends who are into long-distance running and she has this sled that she attaches to her waist. She has run the Iditarod trail to Nome in the past. She carries a sleeping bag, stove, food, etc., sleeping out on the trail at night. She said it took her a couple of weeks. Thanks, but no thanks.

Anyway, details about the race and standings, etc., are here:

iditarod.com

[frozenchief]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Ive always wanted to whip a dog

You wouldn't make a good musher, then. I've been to several Iditarod starts and have known a few mushers. Never seen a musher whip a dog and if it were ever established that a musher did whip a dog, that musher would be kicked out of the race.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by frozenchief

You wouldn't make a good musher, then. I've been to several Iditarod starts and have known a few mushers. Never seen a musher whip a dog and if it were ever established that a musher did whip a dog, that musher would be kicked out of the race.

That is good to hear. I thought that was a thing or maybe was back in the day.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by frozenchief

Even with that penalty, Seavey won this year.

As far as the penalty, the rules govern what you must do if you have to kill a big game animal, such as a moose or a bison. Killing a big game animal is obviously an option of last resort but the results require that if you do, the animal must be properly gutted/cleaned.

For those who do not know, gutting means cutting the animal open and removing its intestines and organs. This does two things, both of which help preserve meat. The first thing it does is to cool an animal quite quickly. The fur on these animals is extremely thick and dense to retain heat. By opening a carcass, air can get through the fur and cool an animal.

Similarly, most of the bacteria that speeds decay is in the intestines. By removing the intestines, it will cool the intestines slowing their rate of decay but it will also remove a source of contamination from the carcass.

The race involves various checkpoints that are roughly 50 - 90 miles apart. These dogs run at around 6-7 mph so there might be a delay of a few hours for a musher to get to the next check point and tell people what happened. Local residents will go out and find the animal and bring it back to town, cutting it up and distributing the meat so it wont go to waste. (about 80+% of the local diet will be game anyway) In such circumstances, it would be tempting to not sufficiently gut an animal to save time. This rule is designed to prevent people from doing that so that the meat can be salvaged. I expect that Seavey told them what happened, continued with the race, locals went to the carcass and realized it had not been sufficiently gutted and informed race officials.

The article says this, which confuses me:

The Iditarod can impose time penalties if a majority of the three-person panel agrees a rule was broken and that a competitive advantage was gained. Penalties can range up to a maximum of eight hours per infraction.


The 'and' is a key term here. What competitive advantage did he gain by not gutting the moose thoroughly? I guess it's a competitive advantage that he saved time by not doing it, but he obviously lost time by tangling with the moose in the first place and doing a gutting, even if it was insufficient.

Eh, maybe the competitive advantage is because he shortened the gutting time, but it still strikes me as odd. I'm sure he would have gone faster if he'd never tangled with the moose in the first place. So maybe instead of getting a competitive advantage, the penalty was for reducing a competitive disadvantage?

[Pennywise]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

The article says this, which confuses me:

The Iditarod can impose time penalties if a majority of the three-person panel agrees a rule was broken and that a competitive advantage was gained. Penalties can range up to a maximum of eight hours per infraction.


The 'and' is a key term here. What competitive advantage did he gain by not gutting the moose thoroughly? I guess it's a competitive advantage that he saved time by not doing it, but he obviously lost time by tangling with the moose in the first place and doing a gutting, even if it was insufficient.

Eh, maybe the competitive advantage is because he shortened the gutting time, but it still strikes me as odd. I'm sure he would have gone faster if he'd never tangled with the moose in the first place. So maybe instead of getting a competitive advantage, the penalty was for reducing a competitive disadvantage?

Yep. Id like to know this as well. Are they that picky about how you gut a damn moose? This was clearly a bad call. The lead dog should have thrown his red flag and sent this to the booth.

[Pennywise]

They took this story off the paywall it was behind. So cp has clearly drove traffic to this terrible call. I bet there is a rule change after the draft and im glad the guy won.

Jokes aside, what an awesome string of dogs that dude has. I love professional animals that have a job.

[frozenchief]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

The article says this, which confuses me:

The Iditarod can impose time penalties if a majority of the three-person panel agrees a rule was broken and that a competitive advantage was gained. Penalties can range up to a maximum of eight hours per infraction.


The 'and' is a key term here. What competitive advantage did he gain by not gutting the moose thoroughly? I guess it's a competitive advantage that he saved time by not doing it, but he obviously lost time by tangling with the moose in the first place and doing a gutting, even if it was insufficient.

Eh, maybe the competitive advantage is because he shortened the gutting time, but it still strikes me as odd. I'm sure he would have gone faster if he'd never tangled with the moose in the first place. So maybe instead of getting a competitive advantage, the penalty was for reducing a competitive disadvantage?

short answer: yes, he shortened the gutting time which gave him a competitive advantage.

Longer answer: I have very little doubt he did everything he could to not tangle with the moose but moose are moose. They do what they want. And if that moose is in a bad mood and standing in a thicket of trees and the dogs come too close because they're paying attention to the trail and just enjoying running, that moose could well charge right out into those dogs. And a 1200 pound moose flailing its hooves could seriously injure or even kill one of those dogs. In such a case, the musher absolutely would need to kill that moose quickly. And at that point, the rules state that you have to gut the moose properly so its meat can be distributed.

[Hydrae]

This article talks about the rule and how it has been needed more in recent years. I thought it was interesting that the other teams can't just continue on past the impacted team.

Also, he was not the first to tangle with this moose but by then the moose was pissed.

Race rules stipulate that “in the event that an edible big game animal, i.e., moose, caribou, buffalo, is killed in defense of life or property, the musher must gut the animal and report the incident to a race official at the next checkpoint. Following teams must help gut the animal when possible. No teams may pass until the animal has been gutted and the musher killing the animal has proceeded.”

https://craigmedred.news/2024/03/04/iditarod-collision/

[bdj23]

We did a report on the Iditarod in 6th grade. They all gave us a musher/sled to follow and we mapped out the course and kept tabs on the race.

It was really interesting for me as a kid. Then i kind of forgot it existed

[Rain Man]

I wonder if there's a similar rule in the NFL in the event that a large animal wanders onto the field. The refs have to stop the game until the animal is killed and gutted, and then the meat is distributed to the fans.