Do you like this story?
Iditarod musher suspended for hitting dog
By Gina Spadafori
May 18, 2007
From the Associated Press:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Iditarod musher Ramy Brooks was suspended for two years and placed on three years of probation Friday for abusing his dogs.
The eight-member Iditarod Trail committee board of directors voted unanimously on the sanctions.
The 38-year-old Brooks was disqualified in March from the 1,100-mile race after witnesses said they saw him punch and kick some of his dogs and hit them with a ski pole when they refused to leave a checkpoint during a March 13 stage in Golovin, less than 100 miles from the finish in Nome.
Here’s the rest.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
I sure hope they punched, kicked and beat him with a ski pole before suspending and probation from running the races…
Comment by Aunt Granny — May 18, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
Ditto what granny said except he should never be allowed to race again.
Ramy Brooks should also never be allowed to own any pets again in his lifetime.
Comment by Ally — May 18, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
I have the ski pole…..
I’d like a few minutes with this creep……
Comment by PegH — May 18, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
The Anchorage Daily News reported on May 18, 2007:
“The board received a 21-page report from Anchorage attorney Bob Stewart that detailed interviews with six Golovin residents who witnessed what happened. Reports of witness were consistent that Brooks kicked his dogs.
One of them, Maude Paniptchuk, “saw Ramy try to kick a dog or dogs in the middle of the team,” according to the report.
Robert Moses, another witness quoted in the report, said that after hearing dogs crying he “turned around and saw Brooks kicking his leaders. … Some of the dogs were lying on their side.”
Brooks beat and kicked his dogs in front of witnesses Isn’t it likely he does it when no one is around?
In most states, Brooks’ actions would be considered animal cruelty. They are not in Alaska, because the laws exempt mushers.
Take a good look at who is on the Iditarod’s Board of Directors. It’s members include the father-in-law of Alaska’s Governor and musher Rick Swenson. Swenson was once banned for life for killing a dog. The ban was later revoked and Swenson was put on the Iditarod’s Board of Directors.
Comment by Margery Glickman — May 18, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
It is incomprehensible to imagine someone doing this to an animal who only wants to be loved and be part of the pack. And, a musher no less. I hope that Mr Brooks pays a high price in loss of adv.fees, his other animals are taken from him,and he is banned from the dog community. I hope he would spend some time in jail and pay a huge fine but he probably won’t… When we are all so concerned for our animals here it is really sickening to read how heartless and unfeeling some can be.
Katie
Comment by Katie — May 18, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
RE Comment by PegH — May 18, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
“I have the ski pole…..
I’d like a few minutes with this creep…… “
Stand in line, PegH.
Comment by Lynn — May 18, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
In fact, he was neither banned nor disqualified. Rick Swenson was withdrawn from the 1996 Iditarod following the death of his dog Ariel. The withdrawal was quickly reversed. Ariel died of unknown causes on the first day of the race. As far as I know, Ariel is the only dog Swenson has lost in some 30+ years of long-distance racing, including a record five Iditarod victories. Susan Butcher, may she rest in peace, lost more dogs in a single encounter on the trail with a moose.
Obviously Brooks’ actions are considered cruel in Alaska, or we wouldn’t be reading about his disqualification. And Alaskan anti-cruelty laws do not exempt mushers, any more than Texas law allows you to beat or starve a horse to death simply by virtue of being a rodeo cowboy. Alaskan law states that “generally accepted” mushing and rodeo activities are not cruel in and of themselves, which is something very different from the claim that mushers are “exempt” from anti-cruelty laws.
You can read the Alaska statutes here:
http://www.animallaw.info/stat.....55_100.htm
It never hurts a worthy cause to get all the facts straight.
Comment by Luisa — May 19, 2007 @ 1:00 am
I followed this in the news on various websites when the race was in full speed - it is just shameful, to my way of thinking, to put these dogs through this difficult and dangerous trek to win prize money for their owners. I don’t like the race and I certainly don’t like people who beat and hurt their dogs - not for any race or cause. The poor dogs were worn out - how hard can you beat an exhausted dog - well it seems not at all. Thank you “Race Officials” for suspending him.
Comment by Linda — May 19, 2007 @ 6:24 am
Read the Alaska Animal Cruelty statutes carefully. Don’t just read summaries of the laws. MUSHERS IN ALASKA ARE EXEMPT FROM ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS. The Ramy Brooks incident was investigated because there were eyewitnesses. PETA asked that animal cruelty charges be filed against Brooks and was told that doing so wasn’t appropriate.
Swenson was banned from the Iditarod and then that ban was revoked. The Iditarod revoked the ban because they thought having Swenson in the race made it more exciting.
Comment by Margery Glickman — May 19, 2007 @ 7:14 am
OK, folks, that’s enough on this. We’re not going to start a big ol’ flame war on the Iditarod, past present and future.
Thank you for taking it elsewhere.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 19, 2007 @ 7:18 am
I love Pet Connection. But now I am confused. What comments are acceptable on this Iditarod issue - please let us know - this story of the musher who beat his dogs during the race was and is sure to incite one-sided remarks and even the most restrained blogger will have a difficult time not making inflammatory remarks. Someone said to me, we are only human and yes that is true, and I didn’t even rant to make my point.
Comment by Terry — May 19, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Terry … I don’t want the comments thread on this one to become a discussion of whether or not the Iditarod (or any and all sled-dog racing) should be allowed or not. And I know from experience that’s where it was heading.
It’s a discussion that cannot be resolved. Some people are dead-set against the any animal sport, while others are just as resolutely in favor.
Honestly, I’m not interested in running an animal-rights discussion blog. I haven’t the energy for it, and there are lots of places already doing it.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 19, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
Because, although they are despicable scum, they expose the ugly things that the traditional dog world covers up. This includes the cruelties inherent in the Iditarod, which petconnection and the rest of the dog establishment choose to ignore. Petconnection screams bloody murder about the tragic deaths of racehorses, and well it should. But there’s no outraged screaming from petconnection about the dogs who are guaranteed to die every year in the Iditarod. (What do folks think will happen when it’s 50 below and a blizzard hits?) There’s no outrage from petconnection about the sled dogs’ gastric ulcers or lungs filled with fluid when forced into extreme racing like the Iditarod. (We’re not talking about more moderate racing, which is a joy to sledding dogs and much safer.) No outrage from petconnection about the Iditarod musher who was suspended for beating and kicking his dogs—and who will be allowed by the Iditarod committee to race again. Imagine the petconnection outcry if a jockey brutally beat and kicked a horse and was allowed to race again. For the horses, much sympathy, and rightly so. But as far as the Iditarod dogs are concerned—screw ‘em. They’ll get no help here.
And that, Gina, is why people still listen to PETA. When we abandon the moral high ground, PETA—with all its revolting hypocrisy and barbarism—is quick to claim it.
Comment by SusanS — March 26, 2009 @ 1:59 am