Dog Joins Swedish Adventure Racing Team

The Peak Performance adventure racing team from Sweden competed in an adventure race in Ecuador. The team of Staffan, Mikael, Karen, and Simon finished the race in 12th place -pretty good, considering they weren’t used to the altitude- and also came back with a new team member, a dog named Arthur.

The team first encountered Arthur on the muddy trekking – the second last stage. They tried to send him off a few times but he always showed up beside the team again as they made their way through the trekking. In the beginning it went well, but when it became muddy he was having problem and the team had to help Arthur through some of the deepest mud.

Arthur followed the team all the way to TA9 and waited with the team. But then he suddenly got very worried and stressed as he realized the team would get out on the water. The organization gave the advice not to bring dog Arthur out on the last leg – a dog in the kayak didn’t seem like a great idea – and the team was going to follow this advice.

Mike, Simon, Staffan and Karen put their kayaks down in the water and set off, but Arthur refused to be left and started swimming. This was too heartbreaking for the team, and Mikael helped Arthur up in the kayak. This led to standing ovations from everyone on the shore, seeing the five (!) team mates set off.

Later, they revealed that Arthur was their constant companion after they gave him a meatball. Swedish meatballs are powerful stuff. A translation from the group’s Facebook page says they are working to take Arthur home with them to Sweden. -via reddit

(Images credit: Krister Göransson)

Love cute animals? View more at Lifestyles of the Cute and Cuddly blog

Comments (0)

It is sad that such a creature may be doomed as we all are. We will have to face reality and if we wish, allot any money to those programs that will actually have an impact.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Why is it endangered? Would the species die if we stopped killing it, or will it die off because it is unable to adapt. I would argue if a species is unable to fend for itself against natural forces (such as the forces pushing cheetahs to extinction), then it should be allowed to die off, but we should save a sample of it's population's DNA. If however the species is dieing off because we hunt it for food, then the species could still be saved by changing our diet.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The right whale is endangered now because of human hunting habits in the past. And not because of food as much as for their oil and ambergris. "Natural selection" is not a valid reason, because humans have tipped the scales by changing the circumstances. And adaptations in most animals take eons, not a couple hundred years.

I think we should save them if we can, because they are a unique and incredible animal. Isn't that enough reason?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I think when there are species that come in a few varieties with subtle differences, and one of those varieties starts to struggle, then YES.

Taken from Wikipedia:
400 to 450 North Atlantic Right Whales live in the North Atlantic;
50-100 North Pacific Right Whales live in the eastern North Pacific and perhaps 200-300 more in the Sea of Okhotsk;
12,000 Southern Right Whales are spread throughout the southern part of the Southern Hemisphere;
9,000–10,000 Bowhead Whales (Aka Greenland Right Whale) are distributed entirely in the Arctic Ocean and sub-polar seas.

There will still be Right whales out there, if the North Atlantic Right Whales disapear. Save their genetic information as best we can, and salute them goodbye, IMO.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
We all have to agree that it takes massive amounts og resources to study and preserve the habitats of animals. If a species dies out because we can't take care of it then so be it. If any are left over after we straighten our own problems I'll give them a hand.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
If a species is going due to human meddling – direct, we're killing these things when we shouldn't – then we must make amends by trying to save them.

If a species is going extinct naturally, then we should let it die out – as attempting to stave off extinction of such a thing is as damaging to the natural order of things as killing off a species that is not dying out naturally.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I think that if we went back and imposed the policies and ideals we use today we would be doomed to remain one cell organisms floating in the ocean. The first time someone multiplied into a two cell organism all hell would break loose.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@ gdw3
Adaption tends to take little time as it is a change in populations actions. ( that is: Colonialist adapted to the new england climate in a generation, by changing their actions)

Evolution takes generations and depends on the speed at which a species generates new generations. So ecoli will evolve faster than a Right Whale.

@drake123
I don't think it's possible to say how we would have turned out if we imposed current policies and ideals on our past selves. One could argue if we had the feelings toward the whale as we do now we wouldn't have had appropriate lubrication for motors that drove the industrial revolution. But one could also argue that human are highly inventive and they would have developed other lubrication.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The real question: shouldn't we deny the unreasonable energy flow and posessions that the angry, irrational unwashed masses demand?

Conservation is the ultimate conservatism.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Email This Post to a Friend
"Dog Joins Swedish Adventure Racing Team"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More