Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Actual duration of trip

Actual duration of the trip, and some other issues
The original Boston Globe article mentions "the annual 12-hour family trek from Boston to Ontario." On that basis, virtually all articles on this subject (including this article) uncritically refer to the duration as 12 hours.

Swidey and Ebbert apparently heard that number from one or more people they interviewed. However, the number is probably wrong. According to Google Maps, the driving distance from Belmont MA to Beach O' Pines Ontario is 648 miles. (The distance from Boston would be a little greater, but they lived in Belmont, not Boston.) Google Maps indicates a driving time of 11:31. That implies an average speed of 56.3 mph. The route is mostly roads that are currently posted at 65 mph.

However, speed limits were lower in 1983. The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) of 55 mph was in effect. If a maximum legal speed of 65 mph implies an trip average of 56.3 mph, then a maximum legal speed of 55 mph probably implies a trip average of 45-50 mph. If the trip average is 50 mph, then the trip would take 13 hours, not 12 hours. If the trip average is 45 mph, then the duration would be 14.4 hours.

The claimed duration (12 hours) for this distance (648 miles) implies an average speed of 54 mph. But since the legal maximum was 55 mph, it's doubtful that an average of 54 mph would be achieved.

There are other reasons to be skeptical about the implied average speed (54 mph). This was an underpowered vehicle, by current standards. The vehicle was a third-generation Chevy Caprice wagon. It probably had 120-140 hp. The loaded weight was probably about 4800 lbs. This implies a weight-to-power ratio of about 37 lbs/hp. For comparison, note that a Prius has about 23 lbs/hp. A vehicle much less powerful than a Prius has a hard time maintaining high speeds. (All those numbers are easily documented.)

Also take into account that this trip is not flat. Google Earth can be used to show an elevation profile which indicates an elevation gain of 10,251 feet. That's a lot of climbing, which reduces speed. Also reducing speed are the poor aerodynamics of a dog crate (and possibly other items) on the roof.

So taking all this into account (the maximum legal speed at the time, the power, weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle, and the elevation changes) the average speed was probably 45-50 mph, not the 54 mph implied by the original article. Which means that the actual duration was probably 13-14 hours (or more), not the 12 hour figure that is widely reported. That's not an enormous difference, but it's big enough to be material, so it should not be overlooked.

A few related points. Everyone talks about the trip to Canada, but no one ever mentions coming home. Even though the dog exhibited signs of distress on the westbound trip, it was apparently subjected to another 13-14 hours of this treatment on the return trip.

Something else that's widely overlooked. 13-14 hours in a crate is abusive, even if the crate is sitting in a quiet room (let alone on the roof of a car at highway speeds). Notice: "an adult dog can be crated for as long as eight hours on occasion." So it's not just a problem that the dog was on top of the car. It's a problem that the dog was in a crate for 13-14 hours.

Something else that's widely overlooked. Because it's summertime, no one thinks the dog is cold, but wind chill and wetness need to be considered. (Yes, I know Romney said it was "a completely airtight kennel," but that's absurd; it that statement was true, the dog would have suffocated.) Assuming wind speed of 50 mph and air temperature of 50 degrees (F), the wind chill factor was 25 degrees (F). If the air temperature was 60, the wind chill factor was 41. 25-40 degrees (F) is pretty cold. Also, he washed the dog with a hose (using cold water, apparently). An Irish Setter has a long coat. Seamus was almost certainly still quite wet when he was put back on the roof to resume the trip. Putting a wet dog in a 25-40 degree environment is itself a form of abuse.

Something else. There was no reason the dog couldn't fit inside the car. This vehicle has a rear-facing third-row seat. It has seats for 8 adults. It was apparently carrying two adults and five boys, ranging in age from 2-13. This means there was a seat available for the dog. If there was excess luggage in the car, it could have fit on the roof inside (or instead of) the dog crate. By definition, the crate was able to hold a volume of luggage equal or greater in volume than the space required by the dog inside the car.

One more thing. If the car was too crowded, then they should have been using a larger vehicle, such as a full size van. A contemporary example would be the 1979-82 Ford Econoline Club Wagon Chateau (photo). This vehicle has at least 8 seats, and a much larger interior. Romney was a VP at Bain, and it was certainly within his means to buy, rent or borrow such a vehicle.

This story is supposedly about Romney's "crisis management" skills. What's remarkable is that this crisis could have been easily avoided (for example, by using a larger vehicle or by leaving the dog at home). Rather than demonstrating good "crisis management," the story reflects poor planning. Compounded by an inability to see, even in retrospect, that the "crisis" was highly avoidable and was caused by poor planning. This is aside from the issue of animal cruelty, and it's another important aspect that's generally overlooked.

Before editing the article I'm interested in hearing what people think of these various issues. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You bring up a number of good points. I will also address here the comments that you recently added to other sections of this talk page.


 * 1. If Tagg was sitting back there for 13-15 hours without a seat to sit on, then Romney was committing not just dog abuse but also child abuse. It would also be exceptionally stupid for someone with a large family to buy the 2-row model when they could obviously afford the 3-row model.
 * In the past, families routinely jammed a large number of people in a car for family vacations. It not entirely clear what model of station wagon the Romney's owned, but we could add to the article that they were driving a Chevy Caprice Wagon.


 * 2. Also, GM cars were equipped with seat belts for all passenger positions starting in 1971 or earlier. So if this car had the 3rd row seat, it had seat belts for (at least) 8 passengers. (Some GM wagons of the era had seat belts for 9, which meant an additional passenger position in the center of the 3rd row.)
 * In 1983, most cars had seat belts, but a lot of people didn't wear them. I can remember growing up that my family insisted that I always wore a selt belt, but many other kids did not.


 * 3. An observer might be able to notice that there's a crate up there, but they wouldn't know what's inside. According to Romney it was "a completely airtight kennel." That means I can't see what it contains. If I saw you drive by with such a thing on your roof, I would assume that you're transporting an empty crate, or that the crate is being used as a container for inanimate objects, such as your luggage. It would not occur to me that you actually put an animal in there.
 * We really don't know what the crate looked like. You make a good point though.  I never understood Romney's "air tight kennel" comment.  I'm now thinking that he may have meant that it was enclosed.  We really don't know, but perhaps it wasn't possible for an observer to see the contents of the crate, and so nobody realized that they were transporting a dog on their roof.


 * 4. I wish someone would show another example of anyone, ever, transporting a dog this way. I've looked, and can't find any such example. I think that's because normal dog owners have enough sense to never do such a thing. And also have enough sense to know that they should never talk about it or brag about it, if they ever did it. This is true now and it was also true in 1983.
 * Normal pet owners did not transport dogs on their car roofs in 1983. I have heard about people years ago transporting their dogs for short distances (e.g., driving to the store) in the bed of pickup truck, but I have never seen or heard of anyone other than Romney transporting a dog on the roof of a car.


 * 5. Boston Globe article: "She [Jane] says he was such a social dog that he often left Mitt Romney's Belmont home to visit his dog friends around town. He kept ending up at the pound, she says. They were worried about him getting hit crossing the street. So a few years after Seamus's ride to Canada, Mitt sent Seamus to live for a time with Jane and her family in California. We had more space, so he could roam more freely, she says." It should be pointed out that allowing a dog to wander near traffic is itself an indication of significant neglect. Get a fence. Also, a dog that often left the owner's home could be an indication that the animal is being abused and is trying to escape. The one documented instance of abuse probably indicates that there were other incidents (of this form of abuse, or other forms of abuse) that are undocumented (especially since they cheerfully admit that this wasn't the only time they did this). Also, in the normal course of events a family doesn't give their beloved dog away (especially to someone who lives thousands of miles away). Giving a dog away usually indicates that for one reason or another the family was incapable of caring for it properly, or just didn't like the animal. Trouble is, it's irresponsible to own a dog if you're not committed to caring for it properly and forever. Sending Seamus away is another indication that something is wrong with this picture.''
 * Agreed. I'm thinking they got that dog, and then realized that they don't have the time to take care of it.  I had not seen the story before that Romney gave Seamus to his sister because the dog kept ending up at the pound, but if you want, add that to the "supplimentary information" section of the article.


 * 6. So taking all this into account (the maximum legal speed at the time, the power, weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle, and the elevation changes) the average speed was probably 45-50 mph, not the 54 mph implied by the original article. Which means that the actual duration was probably 13-14 hours (or more), not the 12 hour figure that is widely reported. That's not an enormous difference, but it's big enough to be material, so it should not be overlooked.
 * I'm not sure on this one. In 1983, few people actually observed the 55-mph speed limit on major highways. We'll never really know, but  Snopes states that Romney made it clear to his sons that there would be no unplanned bathroom breaks, so I'm figuring that he probably drove around 60 mph for most of the trip with a few stops, resulting in a 12-hour trip. All our references say 12 hours, so unless there is evidence to the contrary, I think we need to stay with the 12-hour time span.


 * 7. Everyone talks about the trip to Canada, but no one ever mentions coming home. Even though the dog exhibited signs of distress on the westbound trip, it was apparently subjected to another 13-14 hours of this treatment on the return trip.
 * Excellent point. I have never seen anything about how they transported the dog when coming home, or on any other trip.  Don't be surprised if some reporter asks Romney this at some point this year.


 * 8. Something else that's widely overlooked. 13-14 hours in a crate is abusive, even if the crate is sitting in a quiet room (let alone on the roof of a car at highway speeds). ASPCA reference: "an adult dog can be crated for as long as eight hours on occasion." So it's not just a problem that the dog was on top of the car. It's a problem that the dog was in a crate for 13-14 hours.
 * Good point.


 * 9. Something else that's widely overlooked. Because it's summertime, no one thinks the dog is cold, but wind chill and wetness need to be considered. (Yes, I know Romney said it was "a completely airtight kennel," but that's absurd; it that statement was true, the dog would have suffocated.) Assuming wind speed of 50 mph and air temperature of 50 degrees (F), the wind chill was 25 degrees (F). If the air temperature was 60, the wind chill factor was 41. 25-40 degrees (F) is pretty cold. Also, he washed the dog with a hose (using cold water, apparently). An Irish Setter has a long coat. Seamus was almost certainly still quite wet when he was put back on the roof to resume the trip. Putting a wet dog in a 25-40 degree environment is itself a form of abuse.
 * I have never seen an exact date listed for the trip, but the National Animal Cruelty Registry says that it took place in June 1983. The Beach O' Pines cottage is in Grand Bend, Ontario, and based on what I've read, average June temperature might be 75F in the day, and 55F at night.  Regardless of the ambient temperature, I'm sure it was very unpleasant for the dog.


 * 10. Something else. There was no reason the dog couldn't fit inside the car. This vehicle has a rear-facing third-row seat. It has seats for 8 adults. It was apparently carrying two adults and five boys, ranging in age from 2-13. This means there was a seat available for the dog. If there was excess luggage in the car, it could have fit on the roof inside (or instead of) the dog crate. By definition, the crate was able to hold a volume of luggage equal or greater in volume than the space required by the dog inside the car. This story is supposedly about Romney's "crisis management" skills. What's remarkable is that this crisis could have been easily avoided (for example, by using a larger vehicle or by leaving the dog at home). Rather than demonstrating good "crisis management," the story reflects poor planning. Compounded by an inability to see, even in retrospect, that the "crisis" was highly avoidable and was caused by poor planning. This is aside from the issue of animal cruelty, and it's another important aspect that's generally overlooked.
 * Totally agree. Any normal person would have put the luggage on the roof, and the dog in the car.  Even if Romney made a mistake by Seamus on the roof, after the dog got diarrhea, he should have then let the dog ride in the car, and put the luggage on the roof. To this day, Romney sees nothing wrong with what he did in 1983.  Romney's book is titled 'No Apology'.  While it's not about the 1983 trip, I think it explains his mindset. Debbie W. 11:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think we should stay away from doing original research. The analysis is interesting, though it made a few bad assumptions. (For instance, windchill temperature is only defined for temperatures at or below 50 °F, and the dog probably wasn't experiencing the 55 mph wind directly anyway.) For the purposes of this article we should stick with what's reported in the sources. This analysis, though, would be good material for a personal blog or the like. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides Wikipedia's prohibition against original research, I don't think we know enough information to make any such calculations. We know that the trip was in June 1983, but we don't know the exact date, so we can't know the weather.  We know the station wagon probably travelled at 50-60 mph, but we don't know the configuration of the crate.  However, based on Jukeboxgrad's comment, I think we can add the type of car, and the information about the dog frequently escaping from their house. Debbie W. 17:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The type of car is listed as a station wagon in the article, which is what I've seen in the few articles I've read. Are you suggesting make and model? The running away bit might be good in the Supplementary information section, but note, the dog isn't notable for running away frequently, he's notable for being strapped on the top of a car in a carrier. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Debbie and Adjwilley, thank you for your prompt and thorough responses. I hope the consolidated answer that follows is not too much of a jumble. I'm also starting over at the left margin so the nesting doesn't get too crazy.

"The type of car is listed as a station wagon in the article, which is what I've seen in the few articles I've read. Are you suggesting make and model?"

The make and model is easy to know. A photo of the Romney car (the "white whale" referenced in the Snidey article) is here. (I don't know how to do it, but maybe that photo could be displayed as part of the article here, because it's quite relevant.) See here for hi-res scans of a 1979 Chevrolet Caprice brochure. See here for the page that includes a photo of a Caprice Classic Station Wagon. Compare this to the photo of the Romney "white whale." The match is obvious. For example, notice the distinctive badge at the base of the C-pillar. Another large and helpful photo is hosted by Wikipedia here. On this photo, notice the chrome trim going across the gas filler door, and compare this to the same detail on the "white whale" photo. For another large photo extremely similar to the "white whale" photo, see here.

A 'car person' (especially of a certain age) can simply look at the "white whale" photo and know that this car is a Caprice Classic Wagon. These other photos make the identification possible if you're not a 'car person.'

"In the past, families routinely jammed a large number of people in a car for family vacations."

I think the important thing to notice is that this was almost certainly an 8-passenger vehicle carrying only 7 humans, which means there should have been a seat available for the dog.

"the dog isn't notable for running away frequently, he's notable for being strapped on the top of a car in a carrier."

But there's a connection, as I explained. The dog running away could be an indication that it's being abused. Also, a dog that's allowed to run away is a dog that's being neglected. Get a fence. Train and supervise your dog properly.

"windchill temperature is only defined for temperatures at or below 50 °F, and the dog probably wasn't experiencing the 55 mph wind directly anyway"

This is a fair point. I agree. If the crate was almost fully sealed, then maybe the wind didn't matter much and the dog being wet didn't matter much, especially since these are summertime temperatures.

"Even if Romney made a mistake by Seamus on the roof, after the dog got diarrhea, he should have then let the dog ride in the car, and put the luggage on the roof."

This is a key point that deserves emphasis. Anyone can make a mistake, but a mature person admits the mistake and corrects it. What's remarkable is that even all these years later there is still no admission that a mistake was made. Refusing to admit mistakes is a serious character issue.

It was a mistake to put the dog back on the roof, post-diarrhea, but I think there's a tendency to overlook an earlier mistake: the failure to use a larger, more suitable vehicle (like a van). True crisis leadership means using proper planning to prevent the crisis in the first place.

"All our references say 12 hours, so unless there is evidence to the contrary, I think we need to stay with the 12-hour time span."

I think it's pretty clear that there's only a single ultimate source for that number: the Swidey/Ebbert Globe article of 7/27/07. The number is accepted as a solid, confirmed number because it's been repeated so many times, but those repetitions don't tell us anything about whether the original claim makes sense. I understand the importance of avoiding original research, but I think it's probably OK to simply state certain known facts. For example, the distance (648 miles), the national speed limit at the time (55 mph), and the average speed implied by the 12-hour claim (54 mph). A careful reader can look at those numbers and decide for themselves if they should be skeptical about the 12-hour claim.

Accepting the 12-hour claim is tantamount to Romney admitting that he counted on speeding to get there on time, and that he didn't mind letting his boys witness him doing this. Animal abuse is infinitely worse than moderate speeding, but the question of speeding (and teaching your kids to speed) is still relevant, since POTUS is supposed to be someone who respects the law.

I think it's also probably fair to make a statement observing that there is no original source for that claim (12 hours) outside of the Swidey/Ebbert article.

By the way, here's my speculation about why his source said '12 hours' to Swidey: the national speed limit was 55 mph during the period 1974-1995. Swidey published his article in 2007, probably soon after talking to his source. I believe that various family members still travel to this same destination, even now (after all, it's a family tradition that started with George). Since 1995, they have been traveling there on roads posted at 65 mph. Therefore they now think of this as a 12-hour trip. Trouble is, it was almost certainly not a 12-hour trip in 1983, when the speed limit was lower.

I'm open to suggestion about how to handle these various issues, and I think there's no hurry. Even if there are no changes to the article, I think it's helpful that these issues are now documented on this Talk page. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a suggestion. Drop it, WP is not a fourm and your original research is never going to be put into this article.   Arzel (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's rules on original research and sourcing were pretty confusing to me when I started here... Basically, Wikipedia is supposed to follow what reliable sources say, and not go out on its own saying stuff they haven't said (even if it's true). In other words, if there's not a major newspaper saying that the trip took more than 12 hours, we can't say that it took more than 12 hours. If there aren't major newspaper reporting on experts who accuse Romney of speeding, than we can't do it here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "if there's not a major newspaper saying that the trip took more than 12 hours, we can't say that it took more than 12 hours."


 * I understand that. I agree that we shouldn't say that the trip took more than 12 hours. In fact, we don't know whether or not the trip took more than 12 hours.


 * However, I think there's certain factual information that's relevant and currently omitted. For example, the distance traveled is relevant. I see a source here that reports the distance as 650 miles (which is close to the 648 miles that can be verified with Google Maps; I think the difference is caused by using Boston when it would be more accurate to use Belmont). There should be no question that referencing that distance via this source is not original research. This source and others are expressing a concern about the length of the trip, and the distance in miles is a fact that's obviously relevant to that concern.


 * Also relevant is the national speed limit at the time (55 mph). This is obviously verifiable via reliable published sources, so it's not OR. It's also a relevant fact that does not promote a particular POV. After all, someone could argue that a low speed limit indicates that the dog was not subject to the greater distress of higher speeds.


 * We are citing articles that claim the dog experienced distress. Facts regarding speed, distance and time are relevant to that claim. When we can cite reliable sources providing facts regarding speed, distance and time we should do so. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's no original research policy is confusing, but Wikipedia does not prohibit the use of primary sources, insofar as the information is from a reliable source and the material is presented with a neutral point of view. Even if no secondary source, such as a magazine or newspaper has published a piece of information, it's sometimes possible to use the information in a Wikipedia article.
 * In terms of the distance from Belmont to Beach O' Pines, it would not violate Wikipedia's policies to list the distance based on a reliable source (e.g., Google Maps), as long as you keep a neutral point of view. However, without some other source of information, you cannot make the claim that the trip took more than 12 hours because that would constitute synthesis, which is a type of original research. WP:SYN gives some good examples of how primary source information may and may not be used. Debbie W. 00:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)