Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Dog track owner apparently makes up job numbers

By

Today’s Globe reports that George Carney, the owner of the Raynham Park dog racing track, has filed suit to keep the proposed ballot question that would ban dog racing off the 2008 ballot.  (BMG has endorsed the passage of the question.)

Filing suit is, of course, Carney’s prerogative (though it sure sounds like the suit is baseless).  But Carney should not be allowed to get away with making up numbers that appear to have no basis in fact.

If the ban on dog racing wins approval, Carney says, it could eliminate 6,000 to 8,000 jobs at the two tracks.

“Everybody is aware of how tough the economy is in Massachusetts,” he said. “Do they want to put that many people out of work?”

Wow, 6,000 to 8,000 jobs!  That’s terrible!  It’s also false, as far as we can tell.  From a Globe story published a few months ago:

Raynham Park … employs about 350 people, many of them Raynham residents.

So for Carney to be right, the other 5,650 to 7,650 people would have to be working at Wonderland, the state’s only other dog racing park, which is a smaller operation than Raynham.  Doesn’t sound very likely to me.

Bottom line: Carney’s numbers appear to be grossly, wildly inflated.  Let’s hope our MSM friends catch on and challenge him on his facts.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. and a bunch of links, are available in this thread.  The 6,000-8,000 number is way, way higher than any number cited in any of those sources, including numbers by the racetrack folks.  No idea where Carney got it.

  2. According to Manta, Raynham employs 800 people and Wonderland employs 350.

    <

    p>It looks like they got those numbers are from Dun & Bradstreet so there’s a reasonable expectation of accuracy.

    • Also, a good number of those employees are probably part time and/or seasonal, especially since Wonderland now only has racing for six months out of the year.

  3. I am personally against it.

    <

    p>But just counting the number of people employeed by the track is an accurate.  

    <

    p>The track does not own or train the dogs.  There are many independent dog owners who employee trainers, vets, maintenance workers, etc.  That also does not account for suppliers who will have reduced sales, etc.

    <

    p>Each dog owner has likely several hundred dogs.

    <

    p>The banning of dog tracks will likely end up with the unemployment of several thousand people.  Not to mention that most of those dogs will likely be put to sleep or worse.

    <

    p>That being said, I am still for banning dog tracks.  

    • they are worthless.  I mean, really, this kind of thing:

      <

      p>

      The banning of dog tracks will likely end up with the unemployment of several thousand people.  Not to mention that most of those dogs will likely be put to sleep or worse.

      <

      p>is utter nonsense.

      • Someone already established 1,000 above.  There must be plenty of training, care, and delivery type jobs secondary to the tracks.  Then there are nearby businesses, parking, or similar businesses that depend on racing patrons.  Cask & Flagon is an empty storefront if the Sox ever moved to the waterfront.

        <

        p>8,000 may be over-inflated, but 1,000 seems likewise under-inflated.

        • But empty storefronts create jobs, for the people that work at CareerSource, for the real estate agents, for the movers, the renovators, the entrepreneurs…

          <

          p>Whatever the number, the argument doesn’t resonate.  If Roger Smith can lay off hundreds of thousands of auto workers, if Digital and Wang and Polaroid can lay off tens of thousands, if New Bedford is reduced to a whaling museum, why are we going to suddenly protect the workers at a dog track?  OK, I see the difference between management doing it because they’re incompetent and greedy, versus the state doing it because the business is unethical, but, uh, which is right and which is wrong?

          • Government isn’t “protecting” them!  Sheesh.  The proposal is to have the government to single these people out for specific attack– the government is coming to force them out of work.  And not soing this is “protecting” them?  We’re from the government, and we’re here to “protect” you!  Here’s your pink slip!

            • I think that’s what I’m saying.  Why should the government not do what it should do just because there are jobs that would be lost?  There were lots of rum runners who lost their jobs when prohibition ended, there are prostitutes and crack dealers who lose jobs every time we step up enforcement of the law.  Unethical and useless and wasteful industries do not deserve protection just because people work for them, however many that happens to be.

            • The dog tracks would have gone out of business years ago if they weren’t getting special breaks from the state.

              • And let the businesses sink or swim.  This is no reason to ban anything, because it affects these business that were errantly subsidized, and any other that someone may decide to open in the future.

    • Lincoln Park is only 30 minutes away from Raynham.  My guess is that many of these dog owners race dogs at both tracks.

      <

      p>Sure, they may lose revenue with the loss of a venue, but there will still be opportunities to race dogs in the area.

    • The article said (emphasis mine):

      <

      p>

      If the ban on dog racing wins approval, Carney says, it could eliminate 6,000 to 8,000 jobs at the two tracks.

      <

      p>Now, that’s not in quotes, so perhaps the reporter is misstating what Carney actually said about jobs.  Nonetheless, that’s what’s out there, and that’s what we’re trying to correct.

      • probably does a large number of jobs, like taking tickets, cleaning the john, scooping the poop, selling popcorn, etc.  Sure, they only get paid once, but think of the enjoyment and satisfaction of each job that they do, each of which would be very hard on them to give up.

      • First, my point was simply that only counting the people that are employed in the operation of the track it’s self does not account for all of the people that will have a financial loss from the closing of the tracks.

        <

        p>Do you really deny that for a dog to end up on the track that someone had to train it, someone had to give it shots, someone had to feed it, someone had to pickup it’s shit, etc.?  These are all people that are not counted in the numbers you put forward.

        <

        p>What that actual number is, who knows?  It is likely not the 6K or so claimed by Carney but it is certainly more then number you were claiming as being employed the track.

        <

        p>Which part of that do you require proof on?

        <

        p>Second, and as I said before, I am with you on the main point of getting rid of dog racing.

        • Which part of that do you require proof on?

          <

          p>I require backup to whatever number he wants to cite.  In the absence of that backup I can give no weight to his assertions.

          <

          p>Simple.

          • Dave asked my to prove it and I didn’t give any specific number.  I simply stated that only counting the direct employees of the tracks is understating the number of people that would actually be affected by the closing of the tracks.

            • …”only counting the direct employees of the tracks is understating the number of people that would actually be affected”, I don’t know what you are refuting.  David never made the claim that the only numbers that should count are direct employees of the tracks.  That’s just a the only number he could find as a backup to any claim about what would be affected.  He didn’t say it was complete.

              <

              p>In the absence of a number with some backup and methodology, we’re really not addressing anything here, except that David’s original point is still upheld, namely that Carney’s numbers are probably not right or at least he hasn’t demonstrated a basis for them.

              • David did in fact make his argument based on number of reported employees of the Raynham-Taunton track.  

                <

                p>

                So for Carney to be right, the other 5,650 to 7,650 people would have to be working at Wonderland, the state’s only other dog racing park, which is a smaller operation than Raynham.  Doesn’t sound very likely to me.

                <

                p>Further, when I said that he was missing these other people who are not directly employed by the tracks, he did say that he was counting them.  He replied, quiet rudely, that he wanted proof that there was other people that would loose their jobs.

                <

                p>

                In the absence of a number with some backup and methodology, we’re really not addressing anything here, except that David’s original point is still upheld, namely that Carney’s numbers are probably not right or at least he hasn’t demonstrated a basis for them.

                <

                p>While I have already admitted that Carney’s number is likely inflated, David’s number is equally likely deflated.  

                <

                p>Do you really deny that for a dog to end up on the track that someone had to train it, someone had to give it shots, someone had to feed it, someone had to pickup it’s shit, etc.?  These are all people that are not counted in the numbers Dave put forward.

                • … I note only that I don’t know and that with everyone spouting stuff without backup I still don’t.  How about 10,000.  There’s a number.  Does it mean anything?  At least David (and Ryan) made an effort to find some basis for some numbers.  Everything else here is conjecture.

                  <

                  p>Point taken on point number one.

                • Remember what the article actually says —

                  <

                  p>

                  it could eliminate 6,000 to 8,000 jobs at the two tracks.

                  <

                  p>Jobs “at the two tracks.”  Not vets with offices elsewhere whose practices depend to some degree on caring for racetrack dogs.  Not owners (more properly described as “investors,” as Carey explains elsewhere in this thread).  Jobs “at the two tracks.”  The natural interpretation of that phrase is that it refers to people who, well, work “at the two tracks.”  That is, people employed by the tracks.  If Carney had a more complicated economic spillover argument to make, either he didn’t make it, or it didn’t make it into the article.

      • There are poeple who enjoy dog racing; hence the existence of the tracks.  There are people employed by the tracks, and the number is greater than 1.  Forcing the the tracks to close would eliminate at least one job.  The tracks therefore should not be forced to close.

        • No currently legal endeavor that employs at least one person should ever be banned?

          <

          p>No legal business practice that one person profits from should ever be stopped under any circumstances?

          • Extra government regulation is neither desireable nor required.  While we’re at it, I bet we could stand to legalize some things that are presently illegal.  These proposals are intrusive government, and therefore should be opposed.

        • for lots of reasons.  As sco notes, the existence of one job is a pretty poor argument.  Michael Vick was “employing” a bunch of people in his dog-fighting ring.  And obviously people enjoyed it.  So, I guess we should legalize it, right?

          <

          p>Furthermore, your little syllogism —

          <

          p>

          There are people who enjoy dog racing; hence the existence of the tracks.

          <

          p>is faulty.  Perhaps you’ve forgotten that millions of dollars of taxpayer money went directly to the dog tracks in a state-funded bailout a few years ago — a bailout that has resulted in much lower returns than the owners promised.  Dog racing is a dying industry, propped up by the lege only because the owners are extremely well-connected.  It’s hackery at its worst, as well as cruelty to animals, and it ought to be stopped.

          • And I opposed the bailout, which was indeed hackery.  Doesn’t justify a ban though.  What if someone started a new track, and could run it profitably, without subsidy?  Why shouldn’t they?

            • because (almost) no one goes to the dog tracks anymore — certainly, not enough people go to sustain the business.

              <

              p>The choice, basically, is either (1) to wait for the tracks to peter out on their own, bringing in less and less money every year, with the resulting poorer and poorer maintenance of the facility and care of the dogs, and the all-but-certain not only continuation but increase in the number of unnecessary injuries to dogs; or (2) put a dying industry out of its misery, thereby saving countless dogs.  Maybe in the process of approach (2) the state could put some of the money that would otherwise be bailing out the track owners to use in helping the displaced track workers find new jobs.

              <

              p>Really, your argument only holds water if you believe that consideration of things like animal cruelty has no place whatsoever in making laws.  I don’t believe that, and I doubt you do either.

                • Mike Vick has nothing to do with this argument.  He was participating in an illegal venture not a lawful business that some of us happen to find distasteful.

                  <

                  p>As to your “choices”, here is another one:

                  <

                  p>Allow the business to peter out on its own and enforce animal welfare laws that are already on the books that would not allow the dogs to be treated poorly.

                  <

                  p>You are conflating two arguments in your position, government regulation of an industry and animal cruelty laws.  By doing this you are saying that anyone who is against government regulation of an industry is for animal cruelty.  

                  <

                  p>That is just bullshit.  That’s like asking “when did you stop beating your wife, Dave?”

                  <

                  p>CentralMassDad’s point is so simple and accurate it’s scary:

                  <

                  p>

                  I choose for the government to butt the eff out.

                  <

                  p>I second that point.  

                  <

                  p>If people feel strongly against the treatment of the animals at the track, then they should use the conscious and stop supporting that industry. Not jump to the Nanny State mentality of making the government regulate more of industry.  

                  <

                  p>The track is a lawful business that is not braking any laws.  I personally don’t like the treatment of the animals; even though it is legal, I do not feel it is moral or ethical.  So I don’t go to dog tracks.  I hope the track does poor financially so it is no longer seen as a viable business venture and closes.  

                  <

                  p>I don’t however look for the government to come in and regulate something I find distasteful out of business.

                • The point that CMD and I were discussing was whether it’s appropriate for the state to take into account anything other than raw economics — like, for example, the welfare of animals — in making laws.  Obviously, the laws on the books that make dog-fighting illegal do exactly that.  So the Michael Vick example is perfectly germane — that’s WHY dog-fighting is illegal, for God’s sake.

                  <

                  p>Pay attention, willya?  And don’t toss around terms like “bullshit” without first making sure you’re not missing the point.

                  <

                  p>Finally, I will delete any further comments in which you call me “Dave.”

  4. Other racing entities, like Suffolk Downs, fold the owners of the racing animals into their estimate of employees.  I would guess that’s happening here.

    <

    p>So, a horse or a greyhound might be owned by multiple individuals and they would all count as ’employees’.  Its an important question of semantics — are employees the people who show up on a daily basis and get a paycheck or is the measure much broader?

    <

    p>As the question of racinos appears to have new life, I think its an important one — http://www.boston.com/news/glo…

    <

    p>Steve
    http://www.pioneerinstitute.or…

    • Let’s say the D&B numbers are correct about the track employment.  That’s about 1200 full & part time employees.  I find it hard to believe that there are 4800-6800 people in the Commonwealth whose primary means of income is derived from owning or breeding greyhounds for racing.  I feel like we’d have noticed that before this…

      • For the record, virtually all of the dogs currently racing in Massachusetts are “owned” by people who live in other states.

        <

        p>These “owners” are essentially investors, and may never even meet the dogs they are responsible for.

        <

        p>Yours,
        Carey Theil

        • which is exactly why when someone asks me who my employer is, I tell them DD, C, ORI, FPL, TM, and GE.

          <

          p>I’m in investor, you see.

        • When I was younger I remember at least four local owners in the Middleborough, Raynham, Taunton areas.  But I know at least one of them has since closed.

        • our greyhound was born in W.Virgina and owned by someone there until we adopted him. Those owners will just ship their dogs to other states. Eventually as dog tracks in other states become non-viable, greyhound breeders will breed fewer dogs to match the demand.

  6. If anyone here is from the Easton, Raynham, Brockton and Taunton area, they know enough that if you shake hands with George Carney, it would be prudent to check that you have all four digits and a thumb afterward.

    <

    p>Mr. Carney is notorious.

Archives