Mightybalto1925 wrote:
Just as a side note, I get a kick out of how the book says they claim that the real Balto is a Finnish Lapphund.
Then another part of the book says he was a Siberian husky.
This is due to a pathetic research job evidenced in another book which mentions Balto (as well as other great dogs of Alaska's gold rush and serum run past) -- "Gold Rush Dogs" by Claire Murphy and Jane Haigh. This book is one of those quick, slap-together pieces which demonstrates that any person can do shoddy research, make any claims they wish, and it will be perpetrated by others (we've seen arguments on this forum where one or two others have played that game in the very recent past, arguing against all reason and the good standards of historical research and documentation)...while they make a quick buck off their little book. The book is not ALL bad. It does get a lot of its basic material correct. But the whole theory of Balto as a Lapphund stems purely from an unsubstantiated physical resemblance to that breed (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Lapphund -- scroll down the page, and you will see what I mean in one photo; also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Lapphund), and a totally unsupported claim made in recent years. You can see the inference made even in the contents of the book. If you go to the Amazon.com page for the book and click the "look inside" thing, you'll see:
http://www.amazon.com/Gold-Rush-Claire-Rudolf-Murphy/dp/0882405349/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324995824&sr=1-1The authors seem to make the common mistake that, just because a certain dog resembles another in markings, it does not follow that the dog IS that breed in any way, shape or form. How many dog breeds have similar color or markings, or physical structure?
What it comes down to is lousy research. Period. And I've read the chapter (and the book) while waiting for a connecting flight while IN Alaska (in the Anchorage airport)...and I can tell you, the claim is unsubstantiated by the book, with no references that I ever recall seeing. And trust me, I looked. And the author of the book you talk about in this topic is following the same bad, lame writing technique.
It is also interesting to note that, if you take into account the physical standard for the Lapphund breeds, they are far too small to account for the size of Balto based not only upon descriptions of him, but very obvious photographs. Those photographs make it clear he was most certainly
not "46 to 52 centimetres (18 to 20 in) at the withers for a male". It's just so freaking obvious that even someone who is not a practiced eye in canine conformation could make that determination. Easily. In fact, Balto was larger than that...and bulkier (without the abundant mane and coat common to lapphunds).
It also supports the assertion you made that not everything that is published (either in print or on the web) is reliable or irrefutable. Especially if it goes against the accepted norms and standards established by reliable research and documentation elsewhere. I've encountered that numerous times in my research and, like I said, had many debates and even arguments (including on this forum) with people who think they know what the heck they're talking about, and who will make any claim (often without documenting it) just to try and look like they know what they're talking about.
Incidentally, I would
loooooooove to see you quote the sections of the book which refute each other.
Looks like it's time for yet another scathing review on Amazon.com!
