Wanted: Healthy, happy dogs
From the beginning, animal-rights groups have pressured race officials about dog care

By Doug O'Harra and Natalie Phillips
Daily News Reporters
February 23, 1997

Mushers and dogs raced the first Iditarod over a trail with few rules, poor food, a single veterinarian and reports of 15 to 19 dead dogs. Rightaway, local animal protection groups expressed outrage.

Sponsors were contacted, and meetings held. Months later, the race passed new humane rules and secured a big corporate sponsor for the nextyear.

Sound familiar? It should. This all-but-forgotten controversy from the Iditarod's infancy blazed an uneasy trail that race officials and animalprotectionists have shared for more than two decades. Despite their abortive attempts to cooperate and outright antagonism, Iditarod dog care hasimproved greatly.

Paul Souders / Anchorage Daily News An Iditarod veterinarian draws blood from a dog as part of a pre-race checkup. Since the early days of the race, dog care has greatly improved -- but some animal rights activists still oppose the Iditarod.

Pointing to detailed rules governing everything from dog food to booties, mushers, vets and race officials say it was their focus on animalwelfare, not agitation by outside groups, that transformed a survival trip into a showcase of good dog care. ''I truly believe that the changes have come from within,'' said two-time champion Martin Buser. ''We have always been . . . concerned about thewell-being of the animals.'' Perhaps. But like a stubborn flea that wouldn't go away, animal protection groups have pestered the race since the beginning. Their members havewritten hundreds of letters, their leaders threatened boycotts. At least twice, such groups have pressured major sponsors to order the Iditarod towork with them or be denied tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. The latest episode involving the Humane Society of the United States lasted three years and ended with the Iditarod losing more than $750,000 innational support and receiving what one musher calls ''a national black eye.''

And yet, while under attack for its treatment of dogs, the race developed a wide range of new humane practices, from shipping straw tocheckpoints to strict dead dog procedures to pre-race cardiac tests. Mushers began holding symposia where they debated the formerly taboo issuesof puppy culling, dog deaths and drug use. A statewide organization called P.R.I.D.E., Providing Responsible Information on a Dog's Environment,was created to promote high standards for dog care among all mushers.

''I do credit the HSUS with being a catalyst for change,'' said Jay Steere, a spokesman for the Timberland Co., one of the race's biggest sponsors inthe late 1980s through early 1990s. ''There were things about the race that could be improved upon for the welfare of the dogs and mushers. Theyexposed that . . .''

Clouding the issue is the fierce animosity of Iditarod mushers toward the Humane Society, which they say never cared about dogs or acted in goodfaith.

''They used this sport, and specifically, the Iditarod, as a fund-raising tool,'' said defending Iditarod champion Jeff King.

''That's outrageous,'' responded Leslie Isom, the Humane Society's present Iditarod spokeswoman. ''The HSUS is the largest animal protectionistorganization in the nation, and it's dedicated to the welfare of animals. We have no ulterior motives.''

From the beginning, nothing has inflamed the issue more often than the specter of a dead dog on the trail.

Of roughly 20,000 dogs that have started the race over 25 years, at least 107 have died, according to newspaper accounts. (Race officials say theylack complete records of dog deaths. Executive Director Stan Hooley said he has records for the last six years, and older records may existsomewhere in race archives.)

Reports that as many as 34 dogs died in the first two races immediately sounded an alarm for animal welfare groups.

The Alaska Humane Legislation Council called the race ''a Bataan Death March of the North.'' The Alaska Society for the Prevention of Cruelty toAnimals also objected: ''We do not condone this race, do not sponsor it and intend to express our negative feelings on another running of thispointless, senseless, grueling contest,'' its president wrote in a letter to the editor in 1974.

''We didn't try to stop the race exactly, but we were trying to have more humane treatment,'' the former president, Lillian Detling, said recentlyfrom her home in Oregon. ''Some of the people were not feeding right to begin with, and then (the dogs) were overworked -- they didn't have achance to rest.''

The race's major sponsor, Atlantic Richfield Co., wanted Iditarod officials to work with Detling's group, she said.

''We had 25 or 30 things that we wanted to change, and they didn't change them all,'' she said, but ''they did try to make it more humane.''

Race officials developed a slate of 49 new rules, including an increase in the number of places a musher could drop a dog and a provision thatgave the race vet and marshal authority to pull a dog from the race -- a rule that has been present in one form or another ever since. The result? Only six dogs died on the trail in 1975, according to race founder Joe Redington, despite a pace that knocked six days off the record. Even with the changes, Outside groups continued to protest. The national Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals condemned the Iditarodin 1976. Soon thereafter, the major sponsor, Atlantic Richfield Co., withdrew its sponsorship, explaining it had cash flow problems.

Bill Roth / Anchorage Daily News Jerry Riley motions to one of his dogs near the checkpoint of Cripple during the 1990 Iditarod. Riley, the 1975 champion, was banned for life after being accused of striking a dog with his snow hook later in the race.

In 1977, the Humane Society sent a telegram to Joe Redington demanding he cancel the race immediately. ''The dogs are subjected to cruel andunnecessary exploitation and abuse in the race. Driving dogs to exhaustion, bleeding feet, lameness and hunger are senseless and cruel.''

Redington responded that the Humane Society didn't know what it was talking about. ''We probably have the best conditions for dogs that we'veever had.''

Some local animal protection groups defended the race.

Mushers and vets pushed for reforms on their own. By 1978, a squadron of vets was examining dogs before the race and staffing checkpoints. Forthe first time, the first 10 teams into Nome were tested for steroids.

In 1980, race officials quickly disqualified a California rookie named Landon Carter after he left a dead dog under a cross in a snowbank along thetrail outside Nancy Lake. When several dogs in a team driven by former champ Jerry Riley died, the dogs were autopsied and accusations ofinhumane treatment openly discussed. Riley was banned for one year and put on probation for two.

Over the next decade, race rules continued to evolve, though little was heard from animal advocacy groups. Based on newspaper stories, reporteddog deaths ranged from nine dogs in 1985 to zero in 1986.

In 1985, race officials disqualified musher Wes McIntyre after he kicked a dog that nipped him and the animal died. In 1990, Riley was accused ofstriking a dog with his snow hook. The Iditarod board banned him for life.

These developments, according to mushers, all occurred without pressure from outside groups. ''I feel that we have always been our own bestpoliceman,'' said race manager Jack Niggemyer.

The Humane Society returned in 1991, sending then-vice president for investigations David Wills to Alaska to watch the race. Wills issued a letteroutlining a list of rule changes, including many ideas originally suggested by mushers. When the Iditarod didn't respond to the Humane Society'ssatisfaction, the society approached sponsors, who insisted that the Iditarod begin working with it.

The situation was exacerbated by several events, including developments outside the race.

Chugiak musher John Suter had tried to mush poodles in the race -- one was filmed by TV crews frozen to the ice in McGrath in 1989 (the dog wasfreed unharmed), another died of hypothermia in a 1991 blizzard. After Iditarod board members passed a rule limiting the race to "northernbreeds" and rebuffed Suter's efforts to get them to reconsider, he attacked the race, fueling a nationwide letter-writing campaign and boycotts byanimal rights groups.

Other events, not directly related to the Iditarod, raised the issue of sled dog abuse in 1991. Anchorage musher Frank Winkler was charged with 14counts of cruelty to animals after he tried to kill unwanted puppies with an ax handle and several were discovered alive. Fifteen dogs died on asled dog expedition across northern Canada, attracting nationwide headlines.

Led by four-time champ Susan Butcher, several mushers and vets began urging the sport to take the initiative in dog care education and policing. Asymposium, the first of several on dog care, was held in Fairbanks.

The Iditarod board tightened its rules again -- increasing mandatory rest stops, increasing the minimum amount of dog food sent to checkpoints,altering the number of dogs per team, increasing the authority of race vets and officials to protect dogs.

Under pressure from sponsors, in 1993 the Iditarod board gave the Humane Society a seat on the dog-care committee, with veto power over theselection of the race's chief veterinarian. ''I don't want any dogs dying this year,'' Wills said that fall, ''and I don't want to see any dogs abused thisyear, and I don't care how the Iditarod does it.''

The relationship ended in 1994 when Wills condemned the race on national TV after one of Butcher's dogs died. The Iditarod board severed allconnections with the Humane Society.

But even without active agitation by outside groups, dog-care issues have lost none of their power over the Iditarod.

When race officials were criticized for being slow to report one of two dog deaths in 1995, a new rule stipulated quick release of information aboutany death. When five-time champ Rick Swenson, widely admired as the race's premier musher, had his first dog die in harness last year, raceofficials withdrew him from the race.

In the end, it may not matter whether pressure from animal protectionists pushed the Iditarod or whether the Iditarod pushed itself. The care ofIditarod dogs has steadily improved, and scrutiny of the race remains as intense as ever.

Previous Story | Next Story

The History | The Mushers | The Dogs | The Technology | The Father | The Enterprise

Home | Iditarod Portfolio | Iditarod Hall of Fame