Iditarod musher Dallas Seavey kills moose to protect his dogs during race
theathletic.com
theathletic.com
Does this rule exist in any other sports?
Let a herd of feral camels or pigs or what have you loose at the start of the archery and the javelin.
Gold medal comes with a side of ribs!
The entire race was bonkers, I like fourth place having taken a nap after eating rotten apples he stole from an orchard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1904_Summer_O...
This was, presumably, before they'd really figured out how to do doping.
They didn't.
You don't think people gave more of a shit about athlete lives, comfort, and longevity then, than now?
In sailing, boats are required to render help to a boat that is in problems, before continuing their race. Boats that render help are compensated for the loss in position/time in the race afterwards, by a jury.
Long-distance coastal or offshore races it would be somewhat more likely as race committee boats generally are only at the beginning and end of the race. But even then, after hailing mayday, a good samaritan motorboat is far more likely to reach you first than one of your sailing competitors.
It really is very rare. But then so is gutting a moose during a sled dog race.
Or do. Not my problem!
> If no attempt is made to salvage meat, the minimum fine is $2,000 and 7 days in jail. The more egregious charge, of wanton waste, carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $10,000 fine.
we even try to salvage meat, from roadkills but thats often futile if its been too long or the digestive organs are damaged.
> Seavey said he was mushing down a hill and around a blind corner when most of his team passed by the moose. He had to scramble to get his gun, a .357-caliber revolver he keeps in a pouch at the top of his sled bag.
> “I didn’t get it out until the moose was all the way to the back of the team. Right about that time, I thought, ‘This thing might just walk right by us.’ I mean, it was touching the dogs,” Seavey said. “And then all of a sudden it just started kicking.”
> Seavey shot the moose once at first, and the sound of the gunshot startled his dogs, causing them to lurch and pull the sled forward. Then he shot the moose four more times in the head, and it fell, first on his sled, then in the middle of the trail, he said.
> One of his dogs, Faloo, had been running in the wheel position, closest to the sled, and got the worst of the kicking, Seavey said. The 5-year-old dog had to be flown from the next checkpoint to Anchorage, where veterinarians were caring for her.
1: https://www.adn.com/outdoors-adventure/iditarod/2024/03/05/a...
Edit: off-body weapons can be used against you pretty easily, or you can forget them/get separated. It's a relatively uncontroversial point, except in the military, and even then my advise was eventually followed in Afghanistan.
Edit 2: oh yeah, he used 5 rounds, pretty good evidence for having a semi-automatic like a 10mm.
Somehow I don't think the giant ruminant is capable of firing a firearm. This race takes place in one of the most remote places on the planet. The firearm was for survival situations like this.
Increased gun prevalence is a strong incentive to escalate (and by "escalate" I mean someone getting killed in a situation where it would not be necessary or helpful for ANYONE involved), even if only one party is armed. It does not even matter which "side":
Police, criminals and victims are all more likely to fire because of perceived threat (compared to nations where it is vanishingly unlikely for anyone to be armed with a firearm).
That said, I also strive to be as introspective as possible and enjoy challenging my own biases.
> I am curious if carrying at all on average has a negative or positive expected value.
I've read studies showing both positive and negative net value, so it's not exactly clear from a data standpoint.
Anecdotally, I'd say it's highly dependent upon the person. I tend to avoid situations with the potential for escalation, and see the use of a firearm (to include brandishing, or even implying to the other party that I am armed) as an absolute last resort. In my mind, there is exactly one reason to employ a firearm against a person: to defend human life in a situation where deadly force has already been introduced by a hostile party.
I argue that someone who is predisposed to seeing a firearm as a means to force their will on others is going to be the type of person who would do so anyhow, and who is accustomed to being able to do so due to their physical stature relative to the people around them. They are also not the type to carry whether or not their actions are legal or ethical.
On the other hand, the type of person that buys a gun, trains to some degree, and spends the time and money to learn to be comfortable carrying it in public is not interested in hurting anyone.
> I wonder how many times it unnecessarily escalates a situation and causes additional harm to the carrier.
I'm 100% certain that it happens. The real world is chaotic, and outcomes aren't clear. Every action you take - and every time you choose inaction - is a roll of the dice. You can't know the outcome with certainty beforehand, and you can't know the outcome after the fact if you had made different decisions.
To put it in D&D terms, someone threatening you with a knife has rolled a d6, with the stakes being your life. Drawing a firearm on that person is like rolling a d20 with those same stakes. It's absolutely not a guarantee of the outcome you wnat - but it heavily influences the odds.
> My gut feel is carrying is negative on average, with enough positive anecdotes to make it seem good.
I can think of a few circumstances where a rational person with a firearm could end up in a situation worse than if they did not have it. I can think of more (but still not many) where it could improve things.
The vast majority of the time, the other person is never aware of its presence. The fact that you, as the carrier, are aware tends to cause you to recognize situations for what they really are. That influences your thinking about it.
I would never, under any circumstances, "fight" someone while carrying. I'm a 6'2" guy who is at least moderately capable of defending myself, but the only way someone would be able to get me to employ force is if they leave no other option available to me.
In my experience, this is the way the _vast_ majority of people who carry firearms for defense think about things.
I think this is dangerous framing. My personal impression is that every single person stops acting rationally when enough pressure is applied, and this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations.
For me, the biggest numerical contributor to negative value from firearm carry would be escalation of e.g. relationships arguments, or desperation/depression turning into murder-suicide or simply accidents.
I think its impossible to prevent those by selectively granting concealed carry permits or whatever, I believe that they outweight the positive outcomes where a firearm allows you to kill or fend off an aggressor.
But I still think that you should have the right to carry even if its mostly net-negative...
As you might imagine, I've had this discussion many, many times over the years. This is the most common opposed argument by far. I believe it reveals more about the person making it than anything else - which, to be clear, is not in any way intended to be an insult or a slight.
I've come to the conclusion that people handle stress in very different ways. For me, if I'm in under critical stress, I "go cold". It's not that I don't have emotions - they're there, and I'm aware of them, it's just that they feel like just another data point to me at the time. It's as if I defer processing them until the crisis has passed.
Maybe that's an extreme example of my own ADHD mind, or maybe it's a genetic thing that gives some evolutionary advantage. I honestly don't know.
What I do know is that I've been depressed in the past to the point that I earnestly just wanted to die. I had access to many firearms during that time and I never once had the urge to turn one on myself.
> this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations.
I accept that this is a real issue for some people. I don't have any data to even begin to have a feel for whether that's the vast majority of people or a tiny minority. Intuitively, it must not be "the vast majority" in the US, or there would be a lot more murders and suicides than there are.
> For me, the biggest numerical contributor to negative value from firearm carry would be escalation of e.g. relationships arguments, or desperation/depression turning into murder-suicide or simply accidents.
For me and everyone I know personally, it's the opposite - having the real capability to escalate a disagreement to a lethal outcome causes people to be unwilling to allow those disagreements to get heated.
I'll be the first to say that this could be selection bias.
I can only speak really vouch for my own experience. While I could refer to studies that have been published on defensive gun use to support my position, it would be equally easy to point to studies that show the opposite. That conversation always devolves into comparing the minutiae of their respective methodologies, which isn't helpful in this context.
---
For what it's worth, I recognize that I feel very strongly about this topic. I believe that every adult should have the ability to defend themselves with the most effective weapons possible for that purpose. While I believe that is a strong net positive for society, my position is deontological; the "net benefit" isn't actually relevant to why I hold the right to be absolute.
I like to be challenged on my beliefs. I don't hold them unless I believe I understand the arguments of those who hold opposing views: "iron sharpens iron".
About half of the time these discussions end with both of us gaining a slightly better understanding of each other's views. I think that's great. Sometimes they end when the other party gets heated about it. I disengage in those cases, as it's not my intention to invoke anger.
I _have_ changed my beliefs in the past as I've gained understanding about things. I've managed to change a mind or two over the years as well (though that's sadly rare).
Now that I think about it... this sort of thing is the closest I'm willing to get to mutual combat :)
This thread has been great so far. Let me know if you want to talk about economics or religion sometime!
In any case, I agree this is a great thread but the initial question you were responding to I think is asked in error. The "average" situation doesn't exist. Each person is a person. Should you personally own a firearm or carry one in any given situation? I obviously can't tell you the answer, but I can tell you the answer shouldn't depend on what the answer is on average. At some point, you're going to die, and it's very likely that, when it happens, there will be at least one thing you could have done differently that might have extended your life a little bit. By all means, avoid the obvious unnecessary risks, but you shouldn't live like a min-max video game speedrunner trying to micro-optimize every decision you ever make based on its expected contribution to your lifespan or healthspan. Try to get the obvious, well-known, big rocks right. On everything else, you're going to make mistakes. One of them will probably kill you. Make peace with that and live anyway.
That's cuz you haven't watched enough cartoons!
Why would him shooting 5 rounds be good evidence for a 10mm handgun? The article explicitly says he shot a revolver (chambered in .357).
But depending on the time of year and that particular moose, they can be aggressive, just like any other wild animal.
In better news, the injured dog seems to be recovering after surgery: https://www.adn.com/outdoors-adventure/iditarod/2024/03/07/i...
Conventional wisdom says not to treat working dogs as pets because it makes them soft, but in the experience of both hunters and mushers that I know, the stronger the bond with the dog, the better the dog performs. I wonder if the same may be true of code monkeys.
Thankfully, it doesn't have the modal pop up (unlike the archive.org one).
The last two paragraphs are shaded to a lighter gray though, but are still readable. At least on my monitor.
I was relieved when it just continued on its way as if I didn't exist.
Just reading the headline it sounded like the moose attacked, which sounded strange.
A bunch of dogs and a sled speeding around is definitely a good way to provoke one.
But yes, if you see a moose, stay the hell away. If you see a calf, get the hell away faster (before mom finds you). To be clear, while I wouldn't call them docile, moose aren't really stalking around for fresh victims. But there are things which can instantly set them off and it's best not to roll those dice if you can avoid it because they straight up aren't afraid of you.
https://coloradooutdoorsmag.com/2018/10/15/moose-attacks/
https://www.wildlifexteam.com/about/blog/moose-attacks-more-...
Reading the above, it seems they do have a special hatred of dogs though.
It's possible you may be mixing them up with elk, which do have a healthy fear of people and dogs, and would certainly make me question my ears if I heard that one had attacked a bobsled.
Source: The huge beasts that live in our neighbourhood forest in southeastern Norway
I’ve lived around moose most of my life and don’t mind getting close, but you have to read their body language.
The plural of moose is meese, similar to goose -> geese.
As a sort of PSA: moose are frankly more likely to attack if you have a dog. It’s honestly a risk factor for being attacked by a moose here in Alaska for much of the year (besides the presence of calves, of course). They have strong instincts against anything reading like a wolf. Moreover, they are more likely to opt for fight over flight when in deeper snow because it is tiring to traverse and they won’t be able to run as well. They’re exhausted, grumpy, desperate.