Activists take radical stand in opposition to dog races
As this winter’s sled dog racing nears an end, it once again is escorted to a close by howls of protest from animal rights activists such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
At root, these organizations are attempting to shift profoundly the degree of risk to which we legally may expose animals under our control. It is not an easy task, because different individuals tolerate many different risk levels based on their own moral compasses.
As a well-known literary figure once noted, “it’s a dangerous business … going out your door.” Risk comes flying at you — moving objects, physiological stress, bad weather. But risk also arises from failing to walk out the door — poor health and behavioral neuroses arise.
Some moral compasses are so sensitive to the former type of risk that they point accusingly at any human action that would elevate it, even slightly, among animals under the control and direction of humans. PETA’s hypersensitive compass positively quivers in such situations. For most people, the needle wanders.
That’s because most of us are comfortable exposing our domestic animals to risk that we ourselves would accept, as we balance the risks of walking out the door with those of failing to walk out that door. Sled dog racing poses such acceptable risks.
The thousands of dogs that race in Alaska every year are phenomenally fit, happy animals. A few are injured and die from accidents, illness and overexertion, but not at a rate significantly different from that experienced by human athletes attempting similar feats of endurance.
Anyone who has spent some time observing or participating in mushing knows that the dogs in these races must possess a desire to run — they can’t be abused into doing so.
Thus, if there is no overt attempt to harm them, isn’t it right to let them risk a little for the joy of running? That’s a question every human endurance athlete answers with a resounding “yes.”
It’s PETA’s right to offer a different view, one that focuses on the fact that the dogs are not entirely free to choose their preferences. Of course, dogs and other domestic animals have almost no choice in any aspect of their lives (a situation to which many animal rightists also object, revealing just how radical their agenda is).
In any case, PETA’s voice is part of the messy process that eventually produces law. PETA’s representatives now suggest that the law was broken in the 2009 Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race.
Alaska statute says cruelty to an animal occurs when a person “with criminal negligence, fails to care for an animal and, as a result, causes the death of the animal or causes severe physical pain or prolonged suffering to the animal.” Because dog mushing sometimes causes such results, the key to understanding this statute lies in understanding the phrase “with criminal negligence.”
The law says a person acts “with criminal negligence” when the person “fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk …” The law goes on to explain that “the risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.”
Many reasonable people participate in sled dog racing across Alaska and the world. They care a great deal for their dogs, even while exposing them to some risk. Criminal negligence is not an inherent feature of sled dog racing.
The only gross deviation evident in this debate is the one that exists between PETA’s views and those of a “reasonable person.”