At a certain point in the committee’s discussion yesterday, Feb. 7, about the issue of electronic logs and harassment, as the discussion ranged seemingly away from the task at hand — discussion to provide a report to FMCSA on how electronic log device standards might be written into future regulations to help ensure the devices are not used to harass interstate truck operators — Jane Mathis of Parents Against Tired Truckers said the “elephant in the room” for the discussion was the fact that the very reason to be concerned with “electronic logs is to prevent fraudulent use of written logs. We know there are drivers who drive way in excess of 11 and adjust their logs accordingly.”

The subsequent conversation was somewhat emblematic of the divisions in the room on where exactly change energy was needed.

Stephen Owing of Road Safe America followed with “I would think that electronic logging would give the driver the ability to factually prevent harassment. ‘I’m out of hours, I’m pulling over.’”

Danny Schnautz of Texas-based Clark Freight Lines: “That’s the point – what if the driver needs to pull over even when he’s not out of hours? Or he needs to go slow when the speed limit is high? Either way he’s going to get pushed.”

Rob Abbott of the American Trucking Associations then called drivers and owner-operators a “population of people who were unsupervised and now they’re supervised. Now we’re going to put the supervisor in the cab with you – not a lot unlike a factory worker…. The agency should look at language that is in place, other parallel environments where somebody’s there as a supervisor. [Because with electronic logs] we’re putting the supervisor in the truck.”

Lamont Byrd of the Teamsters: “I would agree in a sense with Rob that having these electronic devices in trucks is putting the supervisor in the truck. It’s also forcing a cultural change in the industry. Historically, drivers could manage their day and do what they’re supposed to do. But [Paul Claunch, of Arkansas State Police] hit the nail on the head – we won’t be able to regulate bad management practices. The only practical solution is to separate the fleet management systems from electronic logging. A company may elect to have a fleet management system, but what the agency can do is regulate having minimum requirements for electronic logs. Just keep it simple and separate.”

Ultimately, that’s exactly what the report in the form it was in yesterday did: suggest simplifying the requirements for any electronic log, separate from the multifunctional fleet management suites of products/communications.

Then it was time for the other elephant to rear it’s big ears. Todd Spencer of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association put this to the assembled: “A host of communications devices can be used to pressure or harass drivers. That existed before some of the on-board recorder stuff… The reality isn’t, as Jane pointed out, [that driving more than 11 hours is the big problem] — the elephant in the room is the time spent loading and unloading. It’s never captured, it’s never accounted for. The monitoring supervisor in the cab with you certainly has every disincentive to want to make sure that time is captured as on-duty not driving. Of course, the limits of any perceived benefits [of electronic logs] can never actually be realized” because of the limits of the technology, Spencer said, his contention that an electronic logging device will not substantively change the uncompensated detention time problem that is rampant.

It was just a small snapshot into a wide-ranging discussion yesterday — for distillation of the report the MCSAC is finalizing this morning, check out the story on Overdriveonline.com this morning.

I’m off to a cross-border program update — look for some news about it later in the day.

Below you’ll find the language of the 10 recommendations, and I thought I’d also share here some statistics that the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association has put together relative to the potential total cost of treatment of drivers under the 35 BMI testing mandate proposed. These costs are estimated at a $180 million total annual cost to the industry. That’s the testing alone. Granted, it assumes an average $2,500-$3,000 figure for an in-lab sleep test, which sleep specialists note has fallen somewhat in recent years. (However, in public comment near the end of the meeting yesterday, former small fleet owner — and current school bus fleet owner — Donald Fowler, of Richmond, Mo., referenced an October sleep study he himself had that was billed, all told, at just shy of $2,000.)

Furthermore, in a member survey OOIDA conducted, 72 percent of operators said their medical policies would not cover sleep apnea expenses. An argument Spencer and others made today, too, demonstrated something of a safety net loss if a large number of experienced operators are in fact forced out of the industry by the regulation (the OOIDA stats estimate 12 percent of the 3.5 million or more CDL drivers have BMI above or equal to 35) and are replaced by a less-experienced group, naturally more prone to making on-highway mistakes.

That’s all of course not counting the time and miles lost to downtime during testing, which for some operators could be significant if their apnea problems turn out to be significant themselves — some operators concluded to have apnea would be disqualified until treated. See below for specifics.

Another interest part of the proceedings was the fact the final recommendations from the subcommittee on acceptable areas of treatment put the most confidence in continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines, not least due to the ease of monitoring that is in place in current devices. This came in spite of dental practices in existence today that specialize in sleep medicine, as some of you I know are already well aware of. Midwest Dental Sleep Center’s Scott Craig, of Woodridge, Ill., characterized the exclusion of dental treatment of apnea in the recommendations as a mistake that is the result of the lack of a dental specialist on the FMCSA’s Medical Review Board. “Currently there are commercially available products to monitor compliance,” he said, showing me the Smart Retainer device by Scientific Compliance as an example.

The manufacturer inserts electronic temperature sensors into dental retainers in order to allow doctors to scan the device to retrieve information about use and other data.

MRB members effectively dismissed much of the literature on studies relating to dental appliances as non-objective, borderline “commercials,” one said.

MCSAC member and Texas-based Clark Freight Lines’ Danny Schnautz put in his objection to the exclusion of the devices. Schnautz could well see such devices’ potential attraction to drivers who might otherwise need to idle their trucks to ensure power to a CPAP machine and truck starting power overnight. “I think we might be shutting the door tighter than we should have,” he said, making reference to language in the MCSAC recommendations that state dental devices’ “long-term efficacy” cannot “be demonstrated currently, so these technologies are unapproved alternatives at this time.”

Full language of the recommendations as I best followed their drafting/revision follows. (Note: there may be further revision as yet before they are sent formally to FMCSA, though their intention as outlined here should largely remain. Italics represent committee annotations about intentions.)

RECOMMENDATION LANGUAGE:
Recommendation 1 — General

• Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosis precludes unconditional certification.
• A driver with OSA diagnosis can be certified if:
  • The driver has untreated OSA with apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) < 20 (i.e., mild-to-moderate OSA) AND
  • The driver does not admit to experiencing sleepiness during the major wake period OR
  • OSA is being effectively treated.

A driver with an OSA diagnosis may be recertified annually, based on demonstrating compliance with therapy.

• Minimally acceptable compliance with PAP means at least 4 hours/day of use 70 percent of days.
  • § Drivers should be encouraged that more hours of PAP use is preferable.
  • § Optimal treatment efficacy occurs with 7 hours or more of daily use during sleep.

• The intent behind the AHI threshold is to prioritize those drivers with OSA that need immediate treatment.
  • Drivers with mild OSA (AHI levels as low as 5) may benefit from OSA treatment, and should be encouraged to explore treatment options.
  • Drivers with an AHI between 5 and 20 should be encouraged to seek treatment, if they have a history involving a fatigue-related crash or a DOT-defined single vehicle crash [footnote reference: crash involving a CMV that results in a fatality or injury treatable away from the scene or disabling damage requiring tow away], or if they report sleepiness while operating a motor vehicle.
• Why set the AHI threshold at 20?
  • Crash risk in the moderate-to-severe OSA range is statistically higher than for drivers with mild OSA.

From a practical perspective, setting the AHI limit at 15 or above makes it more difficult to get a patient under treatment to that AHI level. Although AHI of 15 is likely a safer threshold, there is not data to show this.

RECOMMENDATION 2 — Drivers with any of the following should be disqualified immediately or denied certification: 

• Report excessive sleepiness during the major wake period while driving, OR
• Experienced a crash associated with falling asleep, OR
• Have been found non-compliant in treatment per Recommendation 1.

RECOMMENDATION 3 — Drivers with any of the following may be granted conditional certification per Recommendation 4:

• Have AHI > 20 until compliant with PAP, OR
• Have undergone surgery and are pending post-op findings per Recommendations 10-12, OR
• Have a BMI > or equal to 35 kg/m² (pending sleep study).

Notes:

• BMI cutoff of 33 is supported by studies (MRB).
• BMI cutoff should be objectively related to crash risk (Conway).

RECOMMENDATION 4 — Conditional certification

• Driver with BMI > or equal to 35 kg/m² may be certified for 60 days pending sleep study and treatment (if diagnosed with OSA).
• Within 60 days, if a driver being treated with OSA is compliant with treatment (per Recommendations 8-12), the driver may receive additional 90 day conditional certification.
• After 90 days, if the driver is still compliant with treatment, the driver may be certified for no more than 1 year.  Future certification dependent on continued compliance.

Refer to Recommendation 1 for definition of minimal compliance. [Insert clinical evaluation educational footnote]

[CLINICAL EVALUATION EDUCATION FOOTNOTE]

• Medical examiners should screen all drivers for OSA.
• The driver is judged at-risk for OSA based on:
• The driver’s answers to a validated questionnaire (e.g., Berlin), OR *Some other validated screening tool.
• Symptoms:  loud snoring, witnessed apneas, sleepiness during major wake period.
• Risk factors may include the following. A single risk factor alone may not infer risk. Need to look at multiple factors.
• Factors contributing to high risk

1. Small or recessed jaw
2. Neck size > 17” male, 15.5” female (strongly correlated with obesity, which is associated with sleep apnea)

• Other factors

1. Age 42 and aove
2. BMI > 28 kg/m²
3. Small airway (Mallampati Scale score of Class 3 or 4)
4. Family history
5. Male or post-menopausal female
6. Experienced a single-vehicle crash

• Conditions associated with high risk:

1. Hypertension (treated or untreated)
2. Type 2 diabetes (treated or untreated)
3. Hypothyroidism (untreated)

RECOMMENDATION 5 — Method of diagnosis and severity

• Methods of diagnosis include in-laboratory polysomnography, at-home polysomnography OR a FDA-approved limited channel ambulatory testing device which ensures chain of custody.
• In-laboratory polysomnography, which is more comprehensive, should be considered when the clinician suspects a sleep disorder in addition to sleep apnea.
• Note that new technologies will likely emerge that will be able to screen for OSA.
• Driver should be tested while on usual chronic medications.

• Note that the joint medical committee did not consider AHI levels from unattended studies, but only in-lab sleep studies, which detect the arousal component of hypopneas (not just saturation).
• An in-home sleep study may underestimate AHI when compared to an in-lab sleep study.
• An AHI detected on an in-home sleep study may be less than an in-lab study because the in-home study likely does not consider total sleep time.
• Therefore, the medical examiner should use clinical judgment when interpreting results of an unattended sleep study.

• If the clinician believes the level of apnea is greater than the level reported by the in-home study, the clinician should consider recommending an in-laboratory sleep study.

RECOMMENDATION 6 — Treatment, PAP

• All individuals with OSA should be referred to a clinician with relevant expertise.
• PAP is the preferred OSA therapy.
• Adequate PAP pressure should be established through one of the following:
  • Titration study with polysomnography
  • Auto-titration system

A driver who has been disqualified may be conditionally certified (per Recommendation 4) if successfully treated for 1 week AND

• The driver can demonstrate at least minimal compliance (4 hrs/use 70% of nights) AND
• The driver does not report excessive sleepiness during major wake period.

RECOMMENDATION 7 — Treatment alternatives

There are limited data regarding compliance with and the long-term efficacy of dental appliances cannot be demonstrated currently, so these technologies are unapproved alternatives at this time.

Surgical treatment is acceptable (see Recommendations 10, 11 and 12).

RECOMMENDATION 8 — Bariatric surgery

After bariatric surgery, a driver may be certified if:

• Compliant with PAP, OR 6 months have passed since surgery (for weight loss), AND
• Cleared by treating physician, AND
• No reported excessive sleepiness during major wake period.
• After six months have passed since surgery, a repeat sleep study may be considered to evaluate for the presence of ongoing sleep apnea.

Annual recertification

• Maintain stable weight

If clinically indicated, repeat sleep study.

RECOMMENDATION 9 — Oropharyngeal surgery, facial bone surgery

After oropharyngeal or facial bone surgery, a driver may be certified if:

• 1 month has passed since surgery, AND
• Cleared by treating physician, AND
• No reported excessive sleepiness during major wake period.

After 1 month has passed since surgery, if the apnea appears to have resolved, a repeat sleep study should be considered to test for the presence of ongoing sleep apnea.

Annual recertification

• If clinically indicated, repeat sleep study.

RECOMMENDATION 10 — Tracheostomy

After tracheostomy, a driver may be certified if:

• 1 month has passed since surgery, AND
• Cleared by treating physician, AND
• No reported excessive sleepiness during major wake period.

After 1 month has passed since surgery, if the apnea appears to have resolved, a repeat sleep study should be considered to test for the presence of ongoing sleep apnea.

Annual recertification

• If clinically indicated, repeat sleep study.

The last meeting of the sleep apnea subcommittee was leaning toward a screening standard including a body mass index measurement and/or certain neck size, including a stand-down order for those drivers required to be tested and/or treated.

Otherwise, today on the blog its Q&A time with Overdrive Equipment Editor John Baxter (pictured below), a man with vast technical knowledge of truck maintenance and systems. If you ever have a technical/maintenance question you want answered, send it my way and I’ll get it to John for an answer. Here’s his latest, responding to a note about the worth of injector-cleaning fuel additives.

Q: Should I bother with fuel additives that claim to clean the injectors?

A: The answer is that this is probably a good idea. The gasoline you buy for your car has additives in it to continuously clean the fuel injectors all modern cars use.

We spoke with Peter Jutras, senior accounts manager at Howes Lubricator, a Rhode Island company that’s been making fuel additives and selling them to the trucking industry since 1920. “Our Meaner Power Cleaner keeps carbon deposits and varnish off the injector tip,” he says. “Carbon and varnish can rob the injection system of optimum performance.” He explained that deposits can interfere with proper atomization, which, in turn, will mean deteriorated combustion. Diesel experts also talk of deposits as something that can interfere with the “spray pattern,” or the how evenly the fuel is distributed in the combustion air.

Jutras pointed out that in trucks fitted with a DPF, good injection system performance is even more critical than with older vehicles. Clean combustion matters more on these vehicles because of the way soot must be constantly burned off inside the DPF, and the fact that hard deposits can make the unit hard to clean.

He added that the product also contains a lubricity agent to make up for the fact that ULSD is “a drier fuel” than traditional diesel fuel with much more sulfur in it, referring to the fact that refining the fuel to remove sulfur also removes most of its natural lubricating ability. While diesel fuel suppliers add lubricity agents, adding more yourself could offer some assurance that your injectors will be properly lubricated, which will prevent scoring of close fitting parts.

The Howes website has a page that includes a return on investment calculator for their Meaner Power Cleaner. When I input a fuel cost of $3.70 per gallon, the calculator showed a cost of $9.56 per 200 treated fuel gallons for their product, and a potential savings of $27.44 in fuel cost. A one-quart bottle of their additive will treat 320 gallons of fuel.

Although the product can be used to clean injectors that have run for a long time, Jutras suggests continuous use because “once carbon coking develops on an injection nozzle, it can be really hard to get rid of,” he says. Normal savings, compared with not running an injector cleaner, could be in the range of 4.9 percent, he adds.

There are lots of reputable manufacturers of diesel fuel additives that help keep injectors clean. Their products are probably worth a close look-see. –John Baxter

Post technical/maintenance questions in the comments or send them to tdills [at] randallreilly.com.

And here’s a question: Does every country in the world have a trucking troubadour? Any Wijngaard fans out there?

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the site entry to see the video.]

(And, almost forgot: go Giants…)

Big birds to fly by truck

You guessed it, I’d bet. “The only way to get the cranes moving,” Wald wrote, “will be to put them in crates and drive them by truck to the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge near Decatur, Ala., she said, where six or seven whooping cranes, alumni of earlier migrations, are already wintering.”

Read Wald’s full story for more. Or follow the journey’s progress on the Operation Migration blog here.

Reading up
Salon.com writer Irin Carmon’s “The latest Twitter revolution” story, about last October’s Truck Driver Social Media Convention is live at the political/cultural news and commentary site as of yesterday. Aside from a whiff of stereotyping sitting there in the very first line — “Rich Wilson is telling a roomful of truckers how to sound less like, well, truckers” — the piece gets the whole of the event, organized with a boatload of tireless dedication by Allen and Donna Smith over at AsktheTrucker.com, fairly well. If you need some background on driver-led efforts at regulatory policy influence to emerge from the meeting, you can start with this item from Channel 19.

Whether you attended the event or not, I’m interested in what you think about the story from both substance and driver image standpoints. Tell me. Read it here.

As for the section therein about Overdrive‘s early years, there’s a much more detailed account I wrote (“Breaking Free”) for our 50th-anniversary issue last year.

Here we go again
I bet you can guess where this is going: The Discovery Channel is launching yet another reality TV show about drivers, making it the fourth such series from as many cable networks in the past year alone. The show, “World’s Toughest Trucker,” is a competition that sounds similar to the History Channel’s Ice Road Truckers’ franchise in that it looks to crown a winner in the end, after competitors face a set of tough runs — with a $150,000 cash prize going to the toughest competitor in this case. Hauls will take place on roads in different locales around the world, though, in a single season, a significant difference.

The show premieres on Feb. 13 at 10:30 p.m. Here’s what a press release from the cable channel had to say about it:

WORLD’S TOUGHEST TRUCKER contestants hail from around the world, including the United States, Canada, England, Scotland, Australia and Sri Lanka. All the drivers come vastly experienced but, like athletes in specific sports, each driver brings a particular skill set to the competition. They also bring their share of personal quirks and trademarks. There’s “Ice Man” Derek Martin, cool under pressure and used to the slick and steep roads of his native Canada; the wild and wily Alabaman/rookie, whose mouth can run faster than his rig; and the explosive Aussie loner Rodney Johnson, who always seems to find teamwork to be the toughest part of the assignment.

WORLD’S TOUGHEST TRUCKER begins Down Under as the truckers encounter river crossings, dust holes and dry creek beds in the parched region of northeastern Australia. In this first challenge, the teams won’t allow anything to get in their way, but will one pair live to regret stopping to help and rescue passengers in an overturned car?

You can find more about it here.

Tony Justice moving down the road

Cumberland Collective revisited
Secondly, I know at least a few of you will happily recall my post back in December about the Cumberland Collective crew of songwriters/players in my hometown of Nashville, Tenn., here — and one of them in particular, whose “Somewhere New” track evokes nothing if not the freedom of the long road. I caught their regular show at the Belcourt Taps & Tapas venue here last month, and shot some selected moments from four of the songwriters’ tunes, culminating with the band’s performance of Collins’ tune. Enjoy it below.

The collective’s next Belcourt show is tomorrow — Thursday, Feb. 2 — if you’ve got downtime in Nashville, or live in the region.

The writers/singers in the vid are, in order of appearance, Clay Evans, Connor Rand, Mike Willis and Noah Collins. Debra Gordon and Jason Eskridge are on backing vocals here, clearly visible. For info on the remainder of the group, check out their Facebook page.

But, as they say, the lead may well have been buried — language in the bill, says Drew Anderson, director of sales for the CSA data mining services firm Vigillo, would in effect give the Department of Transportation expanded authority to disqualify a driver from operating in interstate commerce. In essence, this is the Senate’s attempt to make reality what so many drivers feared about the CSA program when information about it was initially rolled out to the public: that the DOT was about to get into the business of rating drivers and, based on those ratings, revoking CDLs.

“Under the present statutes,” says J.J. Keller’s Tom Bray, “the only time a driver can be disqualified by the FMCSA is if the driver is found to be an ‘imminent hazard’ under 383.52 or the driver disregards a Notice of Claim,” a levied fine for a violation.

The section of concern in S.1950 is 310, which deals with the definition of “disqualification” of a driver in the federal code.

Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who introduced the bill, “want FMCSA to ramp up the DSMS side of CSA,” says Anderson. “If that legislation passes as is, the federal government will have the ability to put the driver out of service, off the road, and suspend their license.”

The chances of that legislation passing, judging by a similar bill introduced in the last Congressional sessions, as Tom Bray points out, might be slim. No action has been taken on it since its early-December introduction.

Should it pass, “any of this would require rulemaking that has not even been proposed yet,” as Bray notes. “The FMCSA would need to pass rules to implement the provisions of the statute that would allow them to directly disqualify a driver. Driver SMS scores in the CSA program would tie into this as one possible reason the FMCSA would look to disqualify a driver in the future, but the FMCSA would have to get it into their regulations first.”

“We’re headed into an election year [where the economy is expected to be the biggest issue],” says Anderson, commenting on the lack of potential for much of this to proceed in any way quickly, then asking, ”Do you think the FMCSA wants to be in the position of putting drivers out of work?”

Language of Section 310 is included below, and for the full text of the bill, see this page.

Some related stories:
GAO recommends more transparency for CSA
A window on FMCSA’s CSA driver-enforcement authority goals
Report: FMCSA wants to release driver safety data
CSA: Compliance plus or safety politics?
Language lurking in GAO’s CSA report to Congress

SEC. 310. FEDERAL DRIVER DISQUALIFICATIONS.

(a) Disqualification Defined- Section 31301, as amended by section 205 of this Act, is amended–

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (15) as paragraphs (7) through (16), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:

`(6) `Disqualification’ means–

`(A) the suspension, revocation, or cancellation of a commercial driver’s license by the State of issuance;

`(B) a withdrawal of an individual’s privilege to drive a commercial motor vehicle by a State or other jurisdiction as the result of a violation of State or local law relating to motor vehicle traffic control, except for a parking, vehicle weight, or vehicle defect violation;

`(C) a determination by the Secretary that an individual is not qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle; or

`(D) a determination by the Secretary that a commercial motor vehicle driver is unfit under section 31144(g).’.

(b) Commercial Driver’s License Information System Contents- Section 31309(b)(1)(F) is amended by inserting after `disqualified’ the following: `by the State that issued the individual a commercial driver’s license, or by the Secretary,’.

(c) State Action on Federal Disqualification- Section 31310(h) is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following:

`If the State has not disqualified the individual from operating a commercial vehicle under subsections (b) through (g), the State shall disqualify the individual if the Secretary determines under 31144(g) that the individual is disqualified from operating a commercial motor vehicle.’.

If you were listening to Morning Edition on NPR today you may have heard this interview with Sowder by host Steve Innskeep about the accomplishment. Among Sowder’s observations about how the work of driving has changed over the years is one those of you who’ve been on the roads for decades will no doubt see no small measure of truth in, I’d imagine: “The old saying used to be courtesy is contagious — not so much any more. You let people in, and that’s that. Only about one out of 50 can bring themselves to throw their hand up, thanks….” Read or listen to more from him here.

All the same, here’s congrats to Sowder on the milestone. Keep on trucking’.

Photos courtesy of UPS.

The 51-year-old operator, here pictured, now begins a journey toward losing weight and getting fit enough to compete as part of CNN’s team, alongside Dr. Sanjay Gupta and six teammates, at the 2012 Nautica Malibu Triathlon. Keller estimates he could lose up to 100 pounds or more to get his weight to an ideal state. You can watch his winning video via this link, or check it out embedded below. Read more about the Fit Nation program.

Keller’s not the only driver working this year toward getting fit. Check out the debut of Truckers News’ “Go for the Goal” feature series and health program in the January issue here.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the site entry to see the video.]

After a recent court ruling that held the Tiger Truck Stop’s permit for displaying the big cat was invalid, however, another group stood up and spoke out, defending the truck stop owner. Among them was owner-operator Gordon Alkire (pictured), whom you may recall for his part in Overdrive‘s 50th-anniversary coverage on the OverdriveRetro.com website last year. Alkire offered up the following commentary, reposted here with his permission:

So you think that Tony the tiger is in bad health, in an unsafe environment and should be removed. This is no different than removing a child from its home because of a busybody neighbor that reads something from nothing and never even had a child. It is life-altering for the child. The same can be said of the tiger. But it can’t speak and tell you it is unhappy or stubbed its toe, so it is taken care of the best way it can be. This tiger gets regular vet visits, real food — not the ground stuff your pets eat — and enjoys the attention. It is not alone. Tony has fresh air, a space of his own, not like in a zoo or a carnival.

I have seen dogs in trucks that are mistreated or not properly cared for, their diets no better than Mickey D’s two times a day. This truck stop is not hiding this tiger, as many other people have done with their pets, mistreating them.

This tiger is an icon. It is healthy. If this is so bad a situation for the tiger, why has it taken more than 10 years for these critics to get involved?

The answer is simple. The situation is neither bad nor dangerous for Tony. This uproar strikes me as driven by the attraction of getting on some bandwagon for certain individuals, to be a part of something, no matter the pain or suffering or cost it causes for someone else. They are searching for their 15 minutes of fame at the expense of someone else. Namely, the owner of the truck stop. It is called mob mentality in some circles. The writers of some anti-Tony the tiger stories are only seeking attention, and feel the need to do anything to get it at other people’s expense.

Unfortunately, Tony happens to be the target now.

I have a suggestion for the anti-Tiger enthusiasts. Pay attention to your surroundings and go after the drivers and dog owners that mistreat their animals. How about the drivers that have 100-pound-plus dogs in a six-by-eight-foot cab and only take them out for short walks to do their business and rush them back into the cab again. That is mistreatment of animals, as a dog this size needs room to grow and stay active. Or what about the drivers who think using a stick to beat a dog to make it mind is OK? I’ve seen it happen.

Tony has been in this truck stop for more than 10 years, and only in the last two or three has this action to remove him surfaced.

Among all these non-experts, including some truckers, the biggest are those who begin to think they are experts in tiger care and truck stop management and demand Tony’s removal while knowing absolutely nothing about the situation, all the while refusing to listen to both sides of the problem.

It is time to give it a rest. Leave Tony alone.