Hurting or killing someone might make you a bad person. Being curious does not.

That's posted on my website at http://www.tworiversak.com/stardancer_history.htm

That's at http://www.tworiversak.com/stardancer_dog_...ion_criteri.htm

"Keep a big balance in my check book." (paraphrasing a quote from 5 time Iditarod champion and one of my neighbors, Rick Swenson)

Although that's tongue in cheek, in financial terms my team costs about $1,000.00 per dog per year. That's not bad when you consider that according to 2005-2006 American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA) National Pet Owners Survey, the average yearly cost of owning a dog is $1571.00.

I currently have 10 adults and 6 puppies in the kennel. 2 of the adults are semi-retired in that they do short runs for training puppies and to maintain their physical and psychological health, but they are no longer physically able to do the longer and faster runs associated with back-country touring.

My dogs are fed Dr. Tim's Momentum brand kibble, a very high quality corn-free kibble specially formulated for athletic dogs. They are also supplemented with raw protein (meat, fish or fowl), probiotic and salmon oil. Thus far this year nutritional expenses have averaged about $253.00 per month. Because of my work schedule at a remote industrial site I have to board my team with other mushers 2 weeks out of every month, which adds boarding fees of $300.00 a month to my mushing budget. If I were home every day like most mushers my nutrition budget would run about $500.00 a month, or $50.00 per adult dog.

Although I can do most of my own veterinary work (I'm a paramedic by trade and a quick study) veterinary expenses nonetheless average about $9.00 per dog per month. My vet expenses include spay/neuters, annual "well dog" physical examinations, cost of vaccines and of course the cost of veterinary services I am unable to do myself.

Thus far this year my equipment costs have been pretty minimal, only $50.00 per month or so. That will go up slightly over the next few months as I replace worn or chewed harnesses and lines, make repairs on my rigs and sleds, and so forth. Last year my total equipment cost was about $2500.00, but that included the purchase of a new sled along with new lines, snowhooks and other accessories.

Daily kennel chores are done in two sessions, while watering in the morning and feeding in the evening and scooping the entire kennel each session (a clean kennel is a healthy kennel). If I must rush through them to meet an appointment or something, I can have the dogs tended and the kennel scooped in about 30 minutes, but most of the time it requires closer to an hour and 1/2 each session as I use the additional time for behavior training sessions, trimming nails, grooming or just lovin' up on my buddies.

Since my litter was born there is an addition 2 hours or so each day, broken up into 10 or 15 minute sessions, for puppy socialization. During the "off" season each adult dog gets at least one 10 to 15 minute behavior training session each day, focusing on whatever behavior I am working on with the individual dog. Although that time isn't "necessary" to maintain a team of sled dogs, I feel it is necessary to maintain psychologically healthy and well-mannered dogs, which is very important to me.

So, this summer I've spent about 8 hours out of most days doing something or another relating to the team.

During the mushing season the time commitment increases considerably. While training on wheels during the fall we run relatively short distances and hours, but we run small teams so it takes more training runs to get all of the dogs done. Dur autumn I train with a partner or two so we are running dogs from everyone's kennels to spread the workload and the funload.

Once there is enough snow on the ground to run sleds our training group starts to break up a little bit, because we do different mushing disciplines. My primary training partner is a sprint racer, her dogs are bred, conditioned and trained to run as fast as possible over relatively short distances (8 to 10 miles in her class). For back country touring, my dogs just trot along at an easy pace, but do so while hauling about 150 lb of weight plus my heavy carcass for four to six hours at a time.

If you think that is intensive, keep in mind that I am just a recreational dog musher. Imagine the time and work commitment of a competitive long-distance racing musher who has anywhere from 30 to 150 (or more) dogs in the kennel, training their teams to run 100+ miles per day. Now THAT will knock your socks off.

Most truly competitive long distance mushers earn they money at seasonal occupations during summer so they can focus their time on their teams the rest of the year. Actually, I think they work during summer in order to rest up for the mushing season. <BG>

When touring with the dog team on back country trails over relatively flat terrain, the intensity level on the musher is similar to that of downhill skiing. On very hilly terrain it is about the same as cross country skiing (striding vs skating) over similar terrain.

I run dogs one wheeled rigs as much as I can during summer, but they are short runs as dogs can't tolerate heat very well. They are at their best in temperatures between 40 above to 40 below zero.

During the mushing season just running the dogs keeps me in good enough shape to have fun. From mid-September through mid to late April I typically run my own team 4 days a week, and teams belonging to other mushers another 2 days. During the off season I have to work out on the recumbent bike 3 to 4 times a week an hour per session to maintain leg strength and aerobic capacity. Those workouts are with a high level of resistance but a moderate pace. If I weren't a big guy with 54 years of bad habits behind me I could get away with less. Unfortunately knee issues won't let me substitute running for the bike.

The dog powered sports of bikejoring and dog scootering are gaining a huge following, especially in the Lower-48 States. Either can be done with just one or 2 dogs and represent a nice workout for both dog and musher.

Skijoring (running dogs with cross country skis) is very popular in the north, especially in more urbanized areas where it is impractical to keep a kennel with multiple sled dogs. Canicross is essentially cross country running while being pulled by one or two dogs. It's an easy workout for the dogs, but brutal on the human. That'll get you in great shape in very short order.

Swanny

Save your Dixie cups, the south WILL rise again!!!!

Now, which Confederate flag are we discussing again? I can't keep track of them all.





or is it this one?


The arguments over the Confederate Battle Flag, the union of the third confederate national flag (NOT "the Confederate flag") is much like the arguments over Native American names and images associated with sports teams. It's a lot of hot air and manure spread around by liberal white people that means very little to the minority people they allege to represent.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

I wasn't aware that any liberals had been shot down over this issue. Have I missed something in the news?

Swanny

Yes he did, and those warnings were noted and reported to the "proper authorities". One of those authorities, allegedly a mental health professional, chose to talk Mr. Cho into accepting a voluntary placement rather than dealing with the inconvenience of paperwork and exposure to legal issues that are an inherent part of forcing an involuntary admission. Thus Mr. Cho was allowed to by-pass the system already in place to prevent mentally unstable individuals from legally purchasing firearms.

Perhaps rather than trying to enact more stringent gun laws, we should be looking at ensuring those who claim to be "professionals" make more appropriate decisions that take in consideration the need for public safety as well as the rights of their nut-case patients. Perhaps we should make it illegal for a mental health professional to recommend a voluntary placement in cases where a patient represents a potential threat to himself or others.

Once Mr. Cho chose to voluntarily admit himself into the "system", HIPAA regulations prohibited his care takers from sharing information, in this case potentially life saving information, with the other "proper authorities".

Now, I can't really blame a psychologist or psychiatrist from choosing the easy route. The more difficult route of involuntary placement does indeed require a headache inducing mass of paperwork and legal hassle. It truly IS inconvenient. It truly is difficult to show reasonable grounds to believe that a patient may be a danger to himself or others, and it really sucks to have the courts second-guessing your decisions. On the other hand, had this alleged "professional" accepted the inconvenience of his or her profession and admitted Mr. Cho involuntarily, we wouldn't be having this argument today.

Thank you for your generosity, but stroking my ego isn't likely to make me change my position.

Had the system that is already in place actually worked, there wouldn't be a need for "heroes ready to save the day". This situation created heroes who not only risked, but GAVE their lives to do their part to try to save the day. Had any of those heroes had the ability to return fire, maybe their efforts would not have been in vain.

You are assuming that the store owner only saw dollar signs, when in fact we don't really know what he saw. He reported that it was a routine transaction in every way.
I just learned that in 2005 Mr. Cho was was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice, who found he was "an imminent danger" to himself. That ruling made Mr. Cho ineligible to purchase a firearm, and should have been reflected in his Federally required instant background check. Why didn't it? Maybe we need very stringent laws to require "authorities" to do the jobs they are already expected to do, rather than further restrict the rights of law abiding Americans.

Whether or not I might have seen something suspicious in Mr. Cho's behavior or affect is immaterial. I'm an emergency services worker with over 30 years experience in law enforcement, fire service and emergency medical services. I am trained and experienced in detecting nuances that I would not expect a store clerk to observe.

Once the bullets start flying that truly IS the best case scenario. There is no better possible outcome. When the system fails, the last resort is the ability of individuals to protect their own safety.

Of course you wouldn't endorse a system that might create inconvenience and headaches for you. It's much easier to contemplate the abolishment of a long established civil right than it is to accept personal inconvenience. If disarming me makes means you don't have to go through a metal detector to get to your office then my safety is clearly less important than your inconvenience.

Interesting that you chose to use the word "overkill" in this context. Having an unarmed student body and no significant security at all obviously contributed to a true "overkill" scenario at Virginia Tech.

I have no reason to trust the "authorities". Especially the "authorities" who have so consistently proven their ineffectiveness. The "proper authorities" had ample opportunity to prevent this massacre yet through a combination of incompetence, old fashioned laziness and maybe a dash of human error they failed to do so. 32 students and faculty trusted the "authorities" to look out for their safety, and we can see just how trustworthy those "authorities" proved to be.

Having served as an "authority" most of my working life, I can say with certainty that "authorities" make mistakes, sometimes those mistakes cost people their freedom unfairly. I can also say with certainty that some "authorities" are very much untrustworthy, just as some "mental health professional" are untrustworthy.

I have nothing at all against preventing gun purchases by a person with mental instabilities. The current gun laws in place are supposed to do just that. Mr. Cho's previous ruling should have been reflected in his Federally mandated instant background check. Creating new laws won't help solve the problem of FBI incompetence in maintaining their database.

Had everyone involved in this situation done their jobs a bit better, the current laws would have been, certainly should have been, more than sufficient to prevent Mr. Cho from purchasing the firearms he used in his horrific crime. Making new laws won't change that fact that the system only works when everyone involved, including those "authorities" you seem to think we such trust with our very lives, actually do the jobs they are paid to do.

No human system can be created that will prevent all violent people from acquiring weapons with which to express their rage. No new laws can possibly prevent all future massacres. In fact, there is a very good chance that the media attention focused on the VT massacre will incite other sociopaths to attempt to break the new record, and kill even more.

I don't have a totally closed mind. Show me a proposal that will actually prevent these types of crimes while ensuring that law abiding citizens can freely obtain and confidently keep and bear firearms, and I'll jump right up on the bandwagon. So far though, the only thing I've seen are proposals that restrict the rights of law abiding citizens but have no discernible impact on the rate or severity of violent crimes.

It is a fact, well documented, that the only gun laws that have had a measurable impact on violent crimes in the United States have been "shall issue" concealed carry laws that have liberalized the right of the people to freely bear arms.

Prevention should always be our first line of defense, but it should never be our only line of defense. In this particular case there were many opportunities to prevent the tragedy, yet apparently no one was willing to accept responsibility for doing so. Had Mr. Cho been convicted of stalking, he would have been ineligible to purchase a firearm. Had Mr. Cho's mental health worker followed up with an involuntary placement or sought a legal ruling of mental incompetence he would not have been eligible to purchase a firearm. Had the police officers who initially contacted Mr. Cho been able to show reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed and Mr. Cho committed the crime, he would have been ineligible to purchase a firearm. Heck, had any of the students who felt threatened by Mr. Cho sought a protective court order (restraining order), Mr. Cho would have been ineligible to purchase a firearm. Had the "authorities" responsible for maintaining the FBI's database used to conduct firearms purchase background checks done so, Mr. Cho would not have been able to purchase his firearm.

The legal means to prevent Mr. Cho's massacre are already in place. That they didn't work is because people don't always work and new restrictions on firearms ownership won't do anything to prevent laziness or incompetence.

So long as there are lazy or incompetent "proper authorities" in "the system", that last line of defense must remain an armed populace.

Swanny

Since you asked, I do have a thought. If any single person other than the perpetrator had been armed, the killing spree would have ended with only one or two victims, max.

You're right, the arguments have been made before. They can and will be repeated as often as necessary.

Swanny

So, if the child is merely being raped, but her life isn't being threatened, then John Q. should merely step back and call the cops? I don't think so.

I scan the sex crime registry for my community and surrounding area every few months. In our State, the registry lists the specific crime the person was convicted of.

One on our local list is a lady, who in 1983 at the age of 19 years was convicted of "Sex Abuse Minor". Her crime was "being 18 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual contact with a person who is 16 or 17 years of age and at least three years younger than the offender."

When I compare the offenders date of birth to the date of the crime, the age difference that defined the crime could have been no more than a couple of months.

Nearly 25 years later, she is still branded with the electronic equivalent of the Scarlet Letter, and is ineligible for a huge range of jobs at which she might have been very good, and very safe.

I have no problem with the original intent of sex offender registries, but being good old-fashioned Americans our criminal justice system has once again taken things to the extreme. Instead of reserving the registry for those who truly do represent a danger to society, we seem to use it as a tool to perpetually punish as many people as possible, regardless of the actual severity of the crime. Doing so is an effective way of inflating numbers for statistical purposes, making it easier for congress-critters and damnedbureaucrats to promote ever more intrusive and draconian laws and regulations while justifying the expense of hiring bureaucrats and functionaries to maintain the registries and enforce that ever growing plethora of laws that hobble our nation.

Like most laws, a good idea was turned into a job security program for those sucking at the public teat while doing very little to actually promote public safety. Ain't "civilization" grand?

Swanny

???

I'm not sure I understand your question, Nova. I was asking Maisky to provide documentation for his alleged "fact", which he has not yet done. It may be intuitive to think that most "illegal" firearms were stolen from private residences, but I'm not willing to accept "intuitive" at face value.

Interesting "fact". Would you please provide a reference to document it?

According to the BBC, crimes of violence have been increasing significantly in the U.K. A 2004 article on the BBC's website reported a 14% increase in violent crimes in a single year. "Offences of violence against the person rose 17%, serious violence such as killings were up 18%, and serious wounding and sexual offences rose 8%."

During the year reported, the BBC article noted a 34% reduction in gun crimes, but a 46% increase in crimes involving imitation guns. Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/d/

A bit more recently (September 2005), an article in Times Online noted that Scotland is the most violent nation in the developed world, with a per capita assault rate that is three times that of the United States. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-...1786945,00.html

"The study, by the UN’s crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent."

Apparently in the U.K., knives, swords, ice picks, screw drivers, rocks and common household items have taken the place of firearms as tools of choice in the hands of the violent.

Swanny

A firearm is nothing more nor less than a machine for throwing a projectile. The use of that machine it totally contingent upon the operator.

My firearms are most frequently used recreationally in target practice, to help develop a high degree of concentration and hand-eye coordination. I also use my firearms frequently to harvest food. Once in a great while I use my firearms for defense against dangerous or potentially dangerous animals. Thus far in my life I've never had need to use it to protect myself against humans, though one can't say how frequently the presence of my openly carried sidearm has deterred some one from initiating an assault.

Would you prefer the term "intentional misinformation" to "lies" in reference to the Brady Campaign? A common trait among many activist groups is to misrepresent information to paint a situation in the worse possible light. When information is taken out of context, statistics are intentionally inflated or data is gathered by including groups that are not applicable to the issue at hand (i.e. describing people between 18 and 26 years of age as 'children'), it might not be a "lie", but it certainly is misinformation and in the case of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, it is certainly intentional.

Swanny