I don't believe that they are forced to run, which is why I never said anything of that nature. You're absolutely correct.

I just wonder why, when motors exist, we continue to propel our payloads using sapient beings (purely for sport, no less) rather than allowing those beings to enjoy running freely and without strain. If they could speak, maybe they would tell us they prefer the challenge of pulling weight, but they can't, so I feel we should err on the side of ethics.

As for whipping, I don't doubt that the official governing bodies of the event forbid it, but the fact remains that any form of professional competition inherently encourages cheating. In dog races, cheating tends to involve animal cruelty.

You're not wrong, and I'm sure you know far more about Iditarod than I ever will... but your perception of animals and their value is very interesting to me.

You seem to base your disdain for animal rights activists off of a very understandble hatred of PETA, which is the polar opposite of an animal rights activism group.

Well, Exxon technically is sort of an animal abuse cult... look at photos from the Exxon Valdez spill, or any of their other numerous acts of environmental terrorism.

However, I never made that claim in my comment. I said that PETA was an animal abuse cult, which it is - evidence is plentiful.

As for sled dogs living to run sleds, I don't see how it's considered kind for a human to determine the sole purpose of another animal's life.

PETA is an animal abuse cult, as is every entity affiliated in any way with Iditarod. Two sides of the same coin.

Human athletes are aware of the risks, and have at least some autonomy in choosing to participate. Did the dogs ask to be pushed to their limits? Hmm...

Yeah, PETA is an irrefutably horrible organization. That fact has nothing to do with the inhumane reality of Iditarod and dog races.

My mistake, I forgot that this was /r/art.