Author: Jane Marks

Historic Iditarod Sled Dog Race suffers from global warming that threatens this piece of American History

Often called the “Last Great Race on Earth,” the Iditarod is a tradition that is ingrained in Alaskan culture and has become an integral part of American heritage, inspiring famous works of literature such as “Call of the Wild” and films including “Balto” and “Iron Will.” In recent times, this historic race is threatened by global warming and has supporters fighting to maintain it.  

Originating in 1973, the Iditarod race was inspired by the sled dog team that heroically delivered medicine to Nome in 1925 when an epidemic broke out in the small Alaskan town. This same trail then became the route used to carry mail and supplies along the coast until railroads and planes made this mode of transport obsolete. With the mission of saving the culture of sled dogs in Alaska, the trail morphed into the world-renown race it is today.

Nowadays, the race trail is often altered due to unseasonably warmer winters, forcing the organizers to move it further north. The 1,000 mile route originally went from Anchorage to Nome, but in 2015 the trail had to be moved by 225 miles because there was not enough snow to safely get the sleds across the area. Twice, the start of the race was forced to be moved to Fairbanks, Alaska, which is 350 miles further north. This helped to avoid the grass and gravel that was left exposed because of the lack of snow.

This year, the race attempted to follow more of its original course. However, organizers still had to adapt it in some areas because of other challenges presented by a warming climate. Where ice used to cover areas of lakes in the past, 20 temporary bridges had to be built in order to get the teams over the water that never froze.

Local volunteers and race organizers work throughout the year to try and handle these types of challenges. In the summer, the trail is analyzed and rerouted in order to avoid the most troublesome areas. When winter approaches, the volunteers help race organizers attempt to anticipate what the best route will be for that year.

All of this work can only go so far though, and even with efforts to save as much of the original route as possible, there is the very real possibility that the Iditarod might need to be moved to an entirely different location. With that, many mushers, race organizers and fans wonder if the race would still be the Iditarod if it did not include the historic trail that started it all?

The Iditarod serves as prime example of how climate change is not only introducing logistical challenges to many communities, but also threatening the cultural traditions. This race is part of the foundation of what makes up Alaskan history, and with the possibility that its integrity will be altered, will that affect the identity of Alaska?

Whaling has been a key environmental, political and moral issue that governments at the international level have discussed at length for over 60 years. Today, it remains a poster child for environmental causes, and with Japan having announced that it will resume commercialized whaling this July, the debates over the issue have been brought to the forefront once again (NYTimes, 2018).

Japanese whaling, at some level, has occurred for centuries in a range of different capacities. Japan was known for their large-scale hunting practices and the subsequent selling of whale meat until 1986 when the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the central institution that regulates whaling at the global scale, put a ban on commercial whaling.

At the same time, the IWC allowed whaling in places like Greenland and Finland so that locals could keep their cultural traditions alive. This whaling was at a much smaller scale and originally had a list of conditions from the IWC. An example of such conditions was that the meat from the whale would not be sold for monetary value (Freeman, 1993). Today however, whale meat is available for tourists to buy when they visit places like Greenland. Organizations like the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society have noticed the change and have said that this is is taking advantage of the system.

Trying to deal with their whaling ban without some of those same leniencies, Japan turned to other means, which included hunting the animals in the name of research. With guidelines set by the IWC, a set number of whales is allowed to be killed for research purposes, but this became a topic of much debate among other countries, including the U.S. and Australia in particular who argue that this is a ruse so that Japan could continue whaling at the highest level possible (Danaher, 2002). Others argue that the research is necessary as it has contributed to scientific findings used by the IWC. These findings include discoveries in the genetic stock structure of minke whales. In fact, the IWC Scientific Committee has concluded that other studies, including that on age, parasites and reproduction in females, could only have been obtained by lethal means (Danaher, 2002).

The chance that the research could be legitimate did not stop Western nations from demonizing the Japanese for these hunts too. In United States, there was even a popular television show of an extreme activist group, the Sea Shepherds, in their quest to interfere with Japanese whaling efforts. The show,“Whale Wars,” focused on the villainized Japanese whaling ships and framed them in a very negative light. With seven seasons on the air, the show collected a following and now the group itself has branches of their team in a multitude of different countries. This negative outlook on Japanese whaling not only shaped its viewers’ opinions on the subject, but represents a culture in the United States where whaling is seen as a villainous act, but only in select circumstances it would seem.

This is not to advocate for whaling, and I do believe that the topic is worth debating. However, there seems to a level of inequity, with Japan being condemned for the practice on one side of the equation, while other countries are given the “ok” to whale based on cultural purposes.

To provide some equal footing, I think the reasons whaling is being debated in the first place should be considered. For instance, is this debate a question of morality? If that is the case, how would it be morally just to allow any country to kill the animals at all? Why would the number of whales matter?

If it is not so much a question of morality and is more of a conservation debate, then wouldn’t monitoring efforts, like the ones in place for whaling in the name of research, apply as well? Or couldn’t a whale fishery be seen as a fishery like one of cod or sea bass?  

In order to have a fair debate about this issue, it seems prudent to take these questions into account, especially when it comes to something as politically charged as whaling. As we inch closer to July when Japan will supposedly resume its commercial whaling, these debates will becoming more frequent more emotionally charged and it will then be more important than ever to have these discussions in a fair and measured manner.

When reporting on shark encounters, whether it is on Cape Cod, Australia, California, or elsewhere, many journalists seem to have fallen into the trap of alluding or making direct comparisons to “JAWS,” the movie set in a summer beach town in which a killer shark is maliciously attacking swimmers. While this makes for exciting headlines, it also has the effect of demonizing sharks in the view of the public, which also has the potential to hurt the funding and support of shark research and conservation efforts.

Looking at Cape Cod specifically, with its dramatic increase in great white sharks in the last 30 years, the temptation to connect their shark scenario to “JAWS”  is almost too juicy especially since the movie itself was filmed in local waters. Growing up on Cape Cod myself, “JAWS” was often used as a casual cultural reference, however with an increase in shark-human interactions, in addition to the tragic fatality that occured last summer, the references are no longer casual at all.

Headlines reading “Real Life JAWS Fears,” and “In the Land of JAWS” expound on the fear that people have and throughout most articles journalists also use the phrase “shark attack” which can be misleading. The perceived threat associated with the word “attack” elicits thoughts of a gruesome assault that does not accurately represent all shark encounters, which can include no injuries at all or can consist of minor scrapes. In addition, the phrase “shark attack” implies a level of predetermined malice in the animal’s actions instead of labeling it as an act of nature (Neff and Hueter, 2013).

This demonization of sharks didn’t start with the media however. With the creation of the 1950s  “rogue shark” theory, it was suggested that the only sharks that attack people had developed a “taste for human flesh,” while normal sharks that had not would not attack (Neff and Hueter, 2013). While this theory was later disproved, it paved the way for movies like “JAWS” to paint a picture of sharks as potential man-eaters.

People do have a valid reason to be cautious when entering the ocean, however the level of fear of sharks seems extreme when looking at other water related activities that are even more likely to kill a person, but that are not as feared. In a study conducted in 2011, it was found that people in a survey in Australia were more concerned about a shark “attack,” than they were of drowning (Crossley et al, 2014). This is despite data telling a very different story, with sharks having been responsible for an average of 1 death per year while drowning killed an average of 95 people per year (Crossley et al, 2014).  

This is not to say at all that people should not take sharks into consideration when entering the water. Everyone I have grown up with goes into the ocean in some capacity whether its in the form of surfing, swimming, boogie boarding, or anything in between. Being “shark smart” and taking the proper precautions is important and can help to minimize the risk of a shark interaction. However at the same time, I think that the demonization of sharks by the media is also something to be wary of, especially when it can directly cause more unnecessary panic.