No matter what happens with the ballot question that would legally ban Greyhound Dog Racing in Massachusetts, it’s a dying industry.
Gamblers bet just $1.6 million on races at Wonderland last year, down from over $20 million in 2001. Betting on races at Raynham-Taunton has also fallen nearly 50 percent from 2001, down to $24 million last year. Tracks in New Hampshire and Rhode Island are showing similar declines.
No wonder Wonderland’s been threatening to close if they don’t get their way on Racinos – they’re running a quick race toward bankruptcy. It always seemed as though the parking lot at Wonderland was pathetically empty – it’s a “business” (not in the profitable sense) I happen to drive by a few times a week. Things were even worse than they seemed, which is saying a lot.
Now, that isn’t to say the racing industry won’t employ desperate measures to keep their outmoded, barbaric and not-even-profitable industry open in the Bay State – mainly, inflating their job numbers to make them seem like a staple industry that’s necessary for the economy.
But let’s make no mistake: with anemic “profits” (not in the profitable sense) like Wonderland, no one should feel guilty if we give it a push and a nudge to close. Consider it the charitable thing to do. The land will likely be sold and something else will be built in its place, something that will very likely be much better for the economy. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Capitalism taking its natural course – no need to prop up this industry if it can’t hold its own (dead) weight.
and let the market do its work.
<
p>Plus, if someone else has an idea to make it work profitably, they still could.
because the industry has so much power on Beacon Hill. They’re constantly being propped up by the Government, this is the ultimate way to stop that. We most certainly don’t and shouldn’t have to give them more forms of gambling, which 5 years from now they’ll be complaining isn’t enough again. Let’s not forget that Rhode Island’s Racino is doing the exact same thing right now, trying to hold the entire state captive because of their budget gaps. It’s like those old, early 90s anti-drug commercials, “Just say no.”
not addressed by the ballot question
The Government continually props up the racing industry. Do you think it’s any coincidence that both Suffolk Downs and Wonderland Racetrack have T stops, for example? The entire industry is now pushing for slot machines – and in many other states, they’re getting it. They’re not far from getting it in Mass. As I’ve said, we continually prop them up.
<
p>If anyone else is sick of that, or has a conscience and cares about dogs, then they should definitely vote no. At some point, we have to end the power of this lobby over our government and start making sure that Beacon Hill reflects the views of the people of this State – who I highly doubt are pro dog cruelty.
they should vote yes. LOL.
at least the conservative ones– which excludes much pf the national GOP of the last few years– don’t much believe in subsidizing business.
It’s a moral issue, which is the principal reason to vote “yes.” If it were just economics, I might agree with you.
to those who wish to control others
whether they like being controlled by the tracks and forced to prematurely wear out their bodies?
As gary said downthread, we’ve got the chicken and dairy farms that treat their animals even worse. And that chicken is delicious. I eat it every chance I get, and I don’t feel bad about it.
<
p>So if I’m concerned about internal consistency, how can I justify getting worked up about the dog racing? Cause it’s for entertainment, not food?
<
p>Mostly being contrarian for its own sake here, I have nothing invested in defending the dog racing industry. However if someone starts banning poor treatment of chickens and I can no longer get half a fried chicken for 7 bucks, I will be up in arms.
You can help dogs now, and if you feel so disposed help chickens later.
rather than having to fight about the morality and legality of eating chicken
you can help dogs now, chickens later. But, more to the point, 2 wrongs don’t make a right. The question isn’t ‘why not other animals.’ It’s “why are we doing this to dogs.” That’s the bottom line. Tossing in any other animal is changing the argument.
I have absolutely ZERO moral compunction about the living conditions of the chicken I eat. My criteria are greasy, cheap and tender. All of those would be hurt if they started enforcing living standards for chicken. I want those suckers fat and having barely moved in their life. Delicious.
<
p>Now, I certainly have a lot more empathy for a dog than I do for a chicken. I love dogs and feel nothing for chicken, in fact. I believe in the food chain. So while I’m on the fence personally, I can certainly understand the impulses of those who support this bill.
<
p>However, where’s the line stand on animal rights? We all agree dogfighting and other activities are too cruel to be legal. Most of us, anyway. But let’s say there was an economically viable use for dogs that wasn’t in itself cruel, would we ban it just cause the dogs are kept in kennels? I don’t see the racing as cruel in itself, I’m not a fan so I don’t care.. would you be ok with racing if the dogs were kept in better conditions? Why not try to mandate that then?
<
p>To be perfectly clear, I do have a problem with the way the dogs are kept according to some of these summaries. But, by banning racing, are we advocating euthanizing them en masse instead?
but the size of those kennels, the comfort they have in them, the time they get to spend out of them. I don’t know what the universal standards should be, but I think it’s safe to say that 4 hours/day outside kennels isn’t enough. I think it’s also safe to say that kennels should afford enough space to move around with room to spare, so dogs can find their spot and rest up.
<
p>So, where is the line? Wherever we vote it. But we still need to realize that these are compassionate, sweet and intelligent animals that we’re talking about – animals that have no choice in what they do, all the while feeling all the pain and cruelty associated with it. The decision may rest upon us, but ultimately that means we have a choice about whether we’re a compassionate species or a cruel one.
<
p>I can argue for where my line would be drawn and the merits in it, but that’s about it. I vote that we’re a compassionate species; personally, I don’t think a dog should be kept in a kennel for any longer than 6-8 hours a day, basically long enough for them to sleep, but not be left in (or alone) all day. I also don’t think kennels should be allowed to be so small or without any comfort. I also don’t think greyhounds should partake in races so fast, with so many other dogs to bump into, and with such quick turns, that they’re appallingly dangerous for the dogs. That’s my barometer.
Work dogs live in kennels, that’s how it is. They should get regular time out of the kennel to run around and they should get some social interaction, their owners should show some responsibility and spend some time with them as well, but you’ve gotta put them someplace when they’re not actively doing stuff.
<
p>That being said I think I agree with you more than I disagree. I’m just instinctively wary of animal rights crusades, probably from seeing too many greenpeace dufuses attempting to elevate the rights of animals over people.
Ultimately, this isn’t a conversation about work dogs. I would doubt that most work dogs are kept couped up 20 hours a day; but that’s a different conversation for a different thread. I wouldn’t be ‘instinctively wary’ of trying to end real, bonafide animal cruelty just because you think they’re a bunch of greenpeace hippies, though. Either the animals are being treated so poorly that they’re breaking bones and even dying on a regular basis, or they’re not. (Answer: they are). Do the right thing by the dogs, irregardless of the people surrounding the question – pro and con.
A number of chicken and cow farms, for instance, have fed their livestock food with no antibiotics in it, and which are purely organic, and have also let their chickens and cows roam around the farm/field freely, instead of being all caged up. Also, if you’ve read anything by Temple Grandin, she’s the one who planned, designed and invented the first machine that treats the cows in a humane fashion.
the government doesn’t make moral decisions? We have a representative democracy for a reason – because we, the people, decided those moral decisions should reflect the will of the people. I, like many others, don’t think the government should overly moralize on issues that don’t effect others, but a) that’s just an opinion and b) dog tracks clearly do effect wide groups of people (and animals).
<
p>Before you go off into any tangents on whatever rhetorical device you feel necessary, please remember that Constitutional Amendments are possible, but they require an extra burden… and the people of this country voted that in by a wide margin hundreds of years ago. So, really, just save your time and don’t rehash old, worn-out, faulty arguments.
It’s about the dogs. They don’t have any way of participating in the political process or otherwise protecting themselves, unless people are willing to do so on their behalf. If you think that animals are worthy of at least some degree of protection from whatever humans may choose to visit upon them, then there is undeniably a moral issue here. My personal resolution of that issue will lead me to vote yes; your results may vary. But just saying that the market will take care of the economic aspect is not an answer.
After all, there are economic arguments in favor of slavery, child-labor, the abolition of pure food and drug regulations … all sorts of systems of market organization.
<
p>The point is that it’s very reasonable to assess issues from a moral point of view, then examine how economics can help to get us where we want to go.
any explanation for that? is it that they’re just transferring their gambling habits to casinos? a ‘rob peter to pay paul’ sort of thing? if so, it’s good for the dogs, but at what expense to the communities that have the casinos?
I just think that it was something people used to do, but that generation of people are just dying out or bound to their homes. Younger generations (and this is probably people in their 40s at this point) just aren’t interested in greyhound racing, not to mention the millions upon millions of people who have clearly developed a conscience on the matter. I seriously don’t see that much of a difference between dog fighting and dog racing: in both cases, the dogs are poorly kept, frequently injured and even die cruel deaths. The biggest difference, in my opinion, is that one is legal, with a powerful lobby, and the other isn’t.
I consider myself perhaps the biggest Dog lover on the Planet! I love dogs, from my own to the neighbors, to the dogs on the streets. I am, it is fair to say, a dog’s best friend!
<
p>However I am a bit uncertain about this question for one reason – I think that maybe it is a class issue. Why don’t we go ban horse racing too? Maybe, because the people who watch and participate in horse racing are a different breed, so to speak. I worry that people are happy to take on Greyhound racing because it – and its followers – are an easy target.
<
p>Thoughts on this??
I’m glad you’re a dog lover, but that’s not the argument at hand. You don’t get bonus points for loving dogs, all the while you’d make an argument that would lead to them being harmed. I’m sorry, but you just don’t.
<
p>The simple answer is I’ve never seen evidence to suggest horses are treated as poorly as dogs. Dogs are kept in cages so small they can barely stand up or turn around, over 20 hours a day. It’s really apples and oranges.
I think that there is plenty of evidence out there to suggest that horses are treated badly.
<
p>Also, as far as a dog locked in a crate for 20 hours a day, that happens everywhere it is sad to say. Not just at tracks but at homes in Massachusetts and across the country. Dogs are mistreated everywhere, not just at Wonderland.
<
p>That said, I am not sure about this question. I voted for it last time around, but the whole class issue that I mentioned is making me take a hard look at it this time. I think that the people who enjot greyhound racing are an easy target – much easier than the horsey crow
and we find them on a case by case basis. What happens at wonderland, though, is legalized cruelty that effects hundreds and hundreds of dogs.
<
p>I’m not entertaining any other arguments – bringing horses into this is nothing but an ad hominem. The question is dog track racing. It’s not about class, it’s not about horses, it’s not about anything else. It’s about the dogs, the cruelty they go through and the fact that we can do something about it. Anything else is a separate question, that I’m more than happy to discuss, just in a different thread. Feel free to organize your campaign to end cruelty to horses: if you have evidence as solid as the evidence surrounding dogs, I’ll be more than happy to help that cause.
Everyone involved deserves a debate based on the facts.
<
p>The thousands of dogs living right now in cages barely large enough for them to stand up or turn around for 20 or more hours per day deserve a debate based on the facts.
<
p>The few hundred people who work in this industry deserve a debate based on the facts.
<
p>Most importantly, the voters deserve a debate based on the facts of this industry.
<
p>Let’s agree to set aside horse racing, casino gambling, dogs being hit by cars, animal research, vegetarianism, the presidential campaign, and any other unrelated topics.
<
p>If folks want to have a vote on those issues (or any other issue) then go out and collect 150,000 signatures and place a question on the ballot.
I meant a red herring…
Then isn’t one possible solution to legislate better conditions for the dogs, rather than ban the practice altogether? Outline that based on size X of a dog it must have Y amount of space, must have opportunities to be outside Z% of the day, have inspections akin to health inspections to ensure that dogs are properly cared for, etc.. Would that be better than an outright ban?
are an inevitable by-product of the racing. Better conditions would be an improvement, but would not take away the fact of the dogs getting hurt in the course of the races.
I don’t know a whole lot about this particular issue and I’m still doing my homework on it, but it seems that anybody — animal or otherwise — that participates in athletics gets injured. (Just ask Schilling…). Obviously, we want to treat dogs and all creatures with as much kindness and humanity as possible. The trick is to reduce the number of injuries, ensure that dogs are treated with respect, and recognize that people like gary have a point when they say that we’re voting on property rights. No?
really seems off to me. there are many cases where we don’t have free reign with our property. we don’t let parents beat their children. we stopped letting husbands own their wives. we have city and neighborhood ordinances about how high the weeds can grow in your yard. why shouldn’t we say what you can’t do to your dog?
<
p>further, if you agree that dogs should be treated humanely, this implies that you see them as more than material property – you are acknowledging that there is something “in there”. feelings or pain receptors. a dog is not an inanimate object, and therefore shouldn’t be treated like real estate.
Of course, humans who participate in athletics get injured. But again, they choose to do that. The animals don’t have a choice. Critical distinction.
<
p>As for the rate of injuries, it’s well documented. Links are here.
Really, it’s easy (pdf). There’s been around 750 since 2002, as of 8/30/07. I’m pretty sure the number’s over 800 now, but I just can’t find my link to that fact.
<
p>In addition, these dogs are kept in cages so small they can barely stand up or turn around in – for over 20 hours a day. Go check out the slide show of what the Wonderland kennel looks like. It’s not pretty.
<
p>Most importantly, people choose to participate in athletics. Curt Schilling knew the risks he was getting into by throwing 100 pitches every 5 days. My dad knew that as well when he played football for 7 years in Buffalo, so he doesn’t complain now about the injuries that still bother him from then even to this day (and they DO bother him).
<
p>Dogs have no such choice, and their injuries are in many ways crueler – they sustain them during the race. Imagine a NASCAR driver getting in those crashes without a car. I’ve seen videos of dogs at Raynham just bumping into each other while they’re sprinting, with one getting sent flying through the air, tumbling then crashing violently into the side. It got a major broken leg. Many of those legs end up amputated and many of those crashes are so violent that the dogs die, including locally.
<
p>It’s not as if things are improving, either: there were 7 injuries at Raynham in May alone, with injuries so bad that most of them will be out for an entire year (if you’d like the pdf to that report, I’ll have to email you it, just ask). I don’t see how you ‘reduce’ those kind of injuries, save ending the practice of greyhound track racing to begin with. How else would you do it? Limit the dogs? Make them go one at a time? All of those things would be just as bad for the dog tracks as well, we may as well be honest up front and have them close, so they’ll have more time to decide what to do with the property.
and i think you provide a reasonable alternative. however,
But then the question is has anybody done the cost/benefit analysis to figure out how much enforcement of such laws would cost the industry and the state. It may in fact just be cheaper for all involved to simply ban it, I don’t know.
<
p>What do you think? Is it better to regulate it to the point where it’s just not worth it economically to race the dogs or to ban it outright? Or is there a way that we can improve the quality of life for these dogs and still have these tracks make a profit? Can I have my cake AND eat it?
if you could have your cake and eat it too. but certainly the racing industry hasn’t stepped up with a willingness to do as you suggest (that i know of). and to be quite honest, why go to all the trouble of setting up a new regualtory system when we can just ban the thing? according to ryan’s numbers, it’s a dying pastime anyway. more expedient to just end it sooner, and give future generations of dogs a break.
I just wanted to play that out a little bit, I think what you’re saying makes a lot of sense.
Wonderland only took in 1.6 million last year in bets – with over 250 employees. I’m guessing it lost several million dollars. I don’t think they could afford paying any more toward enforcement… and I don’t think Beacon Hill will legislate anything that would hurt them further. It’s a protected class of businesses with a strong lobby and many friends on Beacon Hill. In fact, on Beacon Hill, the question is how much we should expand gambling at tracks, not whether we should ban dog racing to begin with. That’s why this is a citizen petition, because it’s unrealistic to expect change on this issue, from that body, at this point in time.
The lobby’s too powerful: right now, Beacon Hill’s more likely to pass expanded Race Track rights rather than limit them. This really is the best, most reasonable shot at preventing the cruelty that goes on.
of the triple crown horse races this year? a fair bit of it was about how certain horses were being shot up with steroids, injured after races, having to be shot on the track, etc. something tells me that if public acceptance of dog racing is changing, as ryan infers above, that it won’t be too long until it trickles down to horses too. relatedly, sale of horse meat as food is being banned in some states. interesting, since it kept many people alive during ww2. but times have changed…
<
p>and yes, i think there’s a class aspect to the dogs v. horses thing. but only to the extent that so many people have dogs of their own and so can sympathize directly, whereas relatively few people can afford to own or even ride a horse.
Both are, most likely, cruel to animals to some extent. However, the available information seems to indicate that dog racing is worse; and it seems for various reasons politically possible to ban dog racing, whereas the same is not presently true of horse racing. It is a legitimate political strategy to solve the part of a problem that can be solved now; one needn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
and I could be entirely wrong on this — I’m hardly an expert on horses or dogs. However, everything I’ve seen suggests that nearly every dog is kept in terrible general conditions, whereas horses are generally kept much more comfortable and safe. It could be that horses are just much more valuable assets, it could be that a horses’ performance is much more closely related to its treatment, it could be the love of the jockeys for all I know.
<
p>Are some horses treated badly, either in the form of being pushed to injury, poorly fed or sheltered, or just plain beaten? Surely. However, that sort of treatment doesn’t seem commonplace, whereas it seems to be the MO at the dog tracks.
I do think there’s issues on both types of racing and how they treat their animals. I was thinking the other day that we should seriously be examining horse as well as dog racing.
<
p>However, having met my husband’s family’s adopted-from-a-track greyhound and seeing just how screwed up that animal was psychologically (and that was years after the adoption, I’m given to understand she was completely nutso skittish before I met her), I cannot in good conscience EVER vote to keep such activities legal, or help them make money to keep their operations going, regardless of whether we can yet ban horse racing.
<
p>Intelligent animals are sensitive and how they are treated reflects on our humanity.
<
p>(And yes, I DO try to buy meat and dairy which uses humane practices. It’s better for a myriad of health reasons as well as moral ones. That is, when I buy meat at all.)
I really think your on to something. Horses can cost up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, in some cases, but certainly magnitudes beyond dogs in nearly all cases. So, it goes without saying that they’re going to be treated better than dogs – kept in better conditions, etc.
<
p>Furthermore, the fact that people actually have to ride them – and appreciate them – means that they’re going to be kept better and receive more attention. If you treat an animal cruelly, it won’t be good with humans… so there’s extra incentive to be kind to them.
The idea of the investment is that the dog WIN the race. So to keep an athletic animal caged for 20 hours in a crate rather than allowing it to its natural inclinations (running) is patently absurd. Care to support this 20 hour in a crate notion?
<
p>And how about those dogs ‘in the pipeline’? Vote “yes” so that in a year or 2 those tracks are illegal. Those pups born today will be pretty useless as an investment. Put them to sleep so that future greyhounds not born won’t suffer. A fair sacrifice.
<
p>Greyhounds a dying industry. Then, let it die. Wonder how the dairy industry is doing. Animals injected with hormones, living a life in a confined existence, then when milk production drops, slaughtered for dogfood, because older cows aren’t typically human consumption. Not a problem. It’s a dying industry because milk production is far more economic on a large scale outside of New England where land is cheaper, and climate more hospitible. Let’s accelerate this demise with a Question on the ballot. Of course that would put farmers out of business, but somehow the notion of a farmer is held to higher moral esteme than a dog racer because pastoral scenes are so Curier and Ives..
<
p>Chickens. Ever been to an egg facility? A two story building with chickens living 2 and 3 per square foot. Kill ’em in 1 or 2 years. Meats too tough for humans; they’re dogfood too. Let’s accelerate this demise with a Question on the ballot. Of course that would put chickens farmers out of business, but somehow the notion of a farmer is held to higher moral esteme than a dog racer.
<
p>How about fur farms. There’re some foxes raised domestically out in western mass. Raise ’em in a cage for a couple of years; kill them with a shotgun blast in close range to the temple so you don’t ruin the fur. Let’s accelerate this demise with a Question on the ballot. Of course that would put chickens farmers out of business, but somehow the notion of a fur farmer is held to higher moral esteme than a dog racer.
<
p>Fish? Those hatcheries near the Quabbin? They raise steel head trout to 5 or 6 inches then stock the swift river and other rivers in mass where fishermen catch them and suffocate them out of water before fileting them. Let’s accelerate this demise with a Question on the ballot. Of course that would out of business, but somehow the notion of a fur farmer is held to higher moral esteme than a dog racer.
<
p>Vote yes to ban Greyhound Racing. It may not be perfect, but we’ll get around to banning dairy farming, chicken farming, hunting and fishing, and fur raising. Our morals trump your property interests every time.
It’s well-documented. Links are here. The proponents of this question have done their homework very well; you will not be able to poke holes in any of their factual assertions. Argue the economics if you want.
My vote yes is for three I would argue principled reasons.
<
p>The first and most primary reason is that the sport is cruel and unusual. Our state does not have cock fighting, fox hunting, or bull fighting and similarly it should not have dog racing. This is not as bad as Michael Vick territory certainly, but it comes quite close and personally a dog, a mans best friend and a truly compassionate and intelligent creature in many respects, ought not to be treated like this. They are caged, drugged, beaten, and forced to race every day. I have seen rescued greyhounds and they are a lot more beat up, mangled, and unhealthy looking when compared to their non racing counterparts. These are beautiful dogs and they ought to be respected.
<
p>Secondly on principle I find organized gambling morally wrong. It hurts communities, it is a huge tax on the poor, and it is something the state has no right making money off of. I support decriminalizing gambling in the sense that people should be free to play poker among friends without any hassle, but gaming of this sort on this type of scale creates a lot of social problems and we simply have a right to say not in my backyard-not in Massachusetts.
<
p>Thirdly why are we propping up a failing industry? I keep hearing every time this ballot initiative comes up that we need to save these jobs. Since when is it the govenrments responsibility to save jobs? Should we have banned the car to keep horse carriage makers employed? Progress makes some jobs obsolete. In the case of of the car and horse analogy its technical and scientific progress but in this case it is social progress since clearly the decline in the ‘sport’ can be attributed to the markets overall desire not to partake in it. We are only talking aobut around 2,000 jobs here and they are so low skilled most of those people can find other employment and I am sure if it passed the state house would pass some sort of emergency job training legislation to get these people back on their feet. And again all these jobs are simply not worth the costs to society, to people, and of course to the animals themselves.
“I have seen rescued greyhounds and they are a lot more beat up, mangled, and unhealthy looking when compared to their non racing counterparts. These are beautiful dogs and they ought to be respected.”
<
p>Reason enough to ban the sport, just by itself. End of story.
<
p>They are a beautiful breed. Our hope is to be getting a (maybe rescue) Italian greyhound sometime in the next year. Though they don’t race iggies (IG’s, or Italian greyhounds). The raced large greyhounds come out of their experience a friggin’ mess. It’s terrible.
look at this face…
Thanks for your support jconway.
<
p>For the record, there are only a few hundred jobs involved in this industry. See Ryan’s Take.
In all of Massachusetts, there’s 707 racing-related jobs, and that’s if you include the amateur car track! Follow the link to my blog in the diary.
Is that all you have? Ad hominems? Honestly, go make those arguments elsewhere. If you wanted to compare dog racing to chickens, compare it to a cockfight – which is illegal. I’m right with you on making conditions for farming animals better, but those arguments don’t belong in this thread. This thread is about greyhound racing.
<
p>As David linked, the facts are solid. Dogs are kept in cages for 20+ hours a day. Apparently, the cost/benefit analysis to these dog owners suggests that it isn’t worth exercising them any more – whether that’s because of risk of injury, not enough space, whatever, I don’t know. But that’s the common practice.
<
p>I think the word Ad Hominem doesn’t mean what you think it means.
i meant
<
p> this
It’s purely a listing of a few situations where a dose of libertarian thinking is appropriate, depending on your perspective. i.e. depending on whether or not, it’s your ox that’s being gored.
<
p>Is your life really affected if
two guys or two girls you’ve never met before get married in San Franciscosomeone raises and races Greyhounds, then think of it as certain rights that an individual has and then move on.you’re comparing marriage between two consenting adults to animals being forced into physically and mentally damaging lives? no, i think ryan has got it right with the red herring thing. gary, you’re too hilarious!
I know. It’s just absurd to compare the right to a marriage license, to the right to a Greyhound racing license.
<
p>You’ve dashed the comparison to dust by articulating that they’re not the same because you said so with an exclamation point.
who is asking for the racing license, and i’ll agree with you.
<
p>your ability to think logically is thrown by standard english punctuation? who knew!
One is about consenting adults. The other is about animals who cannot do anything about cruelty (whether or not inadvertent) being visited upon them. Surely you can see the difference.
And each is about indivduals being permitted to act in accordance with the terms of a State license. Surely you can see the similarity.
show me the dog asking for the racing license.
Here ya go.
<
p>The dog was asking for a license to race. The state however said, no property can’t neither ask for or receive a license. Dog wanted to get married too. But no, the State simply refused to allow it. Life’s a bitch.
Seems to me that they are both instances of intrusive, moralizing obnoxious government, sticking its nose into people’s private affairs to tell them what they should or should not be doing with their time.
<
p>All you guys need now is to start taling about how Jesus hates dog racing, because it says so right there in Leviticus.
<
p>The distinction drawn by the proponents herein amount to little more than “Yeah, but those were our rights!”
because in essence that is what you’re advocating – the continuation of animal cruelty under the guise of property rights.
<
p>but i has to laugh at the jesus thing. you do realize that you’re talking to a jew and an athiest, don’t you, lol!
There already is an animal cruelty statute,MGL ch 272, s77. Is the dog racing industry exempt somehow? Then revoke the exemption.
this is, in effect, what the initiative is doing, is it not (to the extent that any explicit exemption may exist)?
Banning is not the same as enforcing existing law.
Stop animal cruelty, by banning all animals. Kinda like enforcing the 65 MPH speed limit by banning cars from the road.
<
p>It’s obvious that this movement is more about legislating lifestyle. It’s the means for ‘progressives’ to show they’re in charge by bludgeoning the unenlightened into
submissioncultural singularity by rule of law.<
p>Be nice to your Greyhound, and clean up its poop into a biodegradable non-plastic bag. It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law.
We can debate this in academic terms until the cows come home, but at the end of the day the facts don’t change.
<
p>Meanwhile, another nine greyhounds suffered broken legs at Massachusetts dog tracks in May.
<
p>That is why a majority of our neighbors will vote Yes for the Dogs in November.
I think if you met the people signing this, you’d find as many conservatives as you would progressives. You don’t have to be a Republican or a Democrat to be in favor of protecting dogs. My brother, a Conservative whacko as far as I’m concerned (seriously, we can’t even talk politics) would probably vote for this in a second.
Mylifelong Republican, Carla Howell supporting, gay marriage opposing, next door neighbor has a Greyhound Rescue bumper sticker and has been distributing literature in the complex.
I support the racing ban, and I believe that the dogs are kept in terrible conditions and the frequency of injury is far too high.
<
p>However, to equate racing to fighting as many on this thread have done is nonsense. In fighting, 100% of the dogs get injured, and many dogs suffer intense pain. The effects of a dog race are nowhere near as severe.
<
p>In both cases the dogs are kept in terrible conditions. In both cases, the frequency of the dogs being drugged is far too high. In both cases the dogs suffer injury.
<
p>But life is nuanced, not binary. Dog racing is bad enough to be banned, but it’s not as bad for the dogs as fighting. Not even close.
But I do think that the cruelty is cruel enough that comparisons aren’t all that off base.
<
p>
<
p>Really? Well, tell that to the dog that died at Raynham not very long ago, or the 7 more that broke bones in May at the same track.
<
p>Or look at what these “no where near as severe” accidents look like:
<
p>
<
p>Just don’t stop watching, because there’s two accidents in that one video. Both dogs probably broke bones in it. And, rest assured, I’ve seen worse from videos (which unfortunately aren’t on youtube yet) from Raynham as well.
<
p>Maybe it doesn’t serve to compare dog fighting and racing, other than to say both are cruel and should be banned – but maybe the comparison is exactly what’s needed to put things in perspective for people who have been used to one industry being illegal for decades and the other to be here and present, for a very long time.
is an exaggeration which undermines the argument.
<
p>Of course you can cite individual incidents of severe harm, and that’s part of the reason why dog racing ought to be banned. But the case to ban dog racing is strong enough without making the foolish argument that a dog race is as dangerous to a dog as a dog fight.
<
p>Why let the opposition grab on to that part of your case, when you can write it off and not lose your ground in the first place? You’ve been adamant about not allowing this thread to be distracted by other issues, so why confuse things by equating dog racing to dog fighting when racing is both (a) dangerous enough to warrant banning, but also (b) not as dangerous as fighting.
<
p>10 year olds shouldn’t smoke unsupervised, but we don’t need to claim that it’s as dangerous as playing with a loaded gun unsupervised to get the point across.
I’m simply stating that in both cases, there’s a large number of dogs who end up severely hurt. Of course I wouldn’t try to say dog racing is as bad as dog fighting; we’ve already banned the later. The point is that some people don’t think of dog racing as something that’s dangerous to dogs – they think of it as a sport.
<
p>Perhaps, if those same people realized the intrinsic dangerous in ways that they could come to grips with, some of them would change their minds. Heck, I bet some people think dogs would have fun living the race-track life… they probably think they get to run around all day long, instead of staying cooped up in kennels 20 hours a day. Different arguments are going to work with different people.
<
p>Yet you wrote in response to my claim that “The effects of a dog race are nowhere near as severe [as dog fighting]”
<
p>That sure looks like you’re disagreeing with my claim. You also wrote:
<
p>
<
p>That seems like you’re making awfully tight comparisons between the two. The frequency of injury in dog fighting is 100% in every event. The frequency of injury in racing is nowhere near that high. Too high to be sure, but nowhere near as high as fighting.
<
p>
<
p>You’re not the only one on this thread coming awfully close to equating the two in terms of impact on canine health, and I don’t think the hyperbole helps the cause, that’s all.
They’re similar in some respects and unique in others. No need to go any further than that.
Greyhounds, even those who have not seen a track, make lousy pets. In my experience, they are tightly wound, and stupid as a post (pun intended).
<
p>Once the tracks are closed, there will be little reason, other than novelty, to propagate this poor, dumb breed.
… but perhaps my experience, like your experience with Greyhounds, is overly limited.
<
p>Greyhounds make fantastic pets. On average, they are very gentle and loving dogs. Contrary to what you might think they don’t need that much exercise and are content to be couch potatoes. I am not sure what exactly you mean by “tightly wound”, but I have noticed that greyhounds tend to be on the shy side, especially if they are fresh off the track and have not yet adjusted to their new life.
<
p>Just like any breed of dogs, you will see a spectrum of personality types and types of intelligence. My greyhound is smart in some ways, and stupid in others. After five years, he still hasn’t figured out how to identify our cars (or thinks that we can use any car we want), but he has been very quick to pick up verbal commands.
<
p>Some greyhounds have a very strong prey drive and might be inclined to attack cats or even small dogs, but many if not most have very gentle dispositions and I know dozens of greyhounds, including my own, that are extremely well behaved off leash.
was kind of childish and hurt your overall post, which was great. I’d try to stick away from personal insults in the future, even when people do say very, very, very unintelligent things. I’m giving you a 6, because I don’t think you deserve Gary’s zero and you made a good point overall.
don’t you mean “adhere from”? maybe just use “cleave”, since it can go either way. ;D
I know some people with greyhounds, which are quite sweet, loving and affectionate, and the greyhounds’ owners love having them as pets. They’re beautiful animals, to boot. One thing about greyhounds, however: They’re quite susceptible to bone cancer. Whether it’s due to their extremely delicate and , long and slender build, or the fact that they’re often used in dog racing, probably because of this, or some combo of both, I’m not sure of. A longtime friend of mine who owns a bunch of greyhounds has told me this, and, because she’s had the experience of having some of her pet greyhounds get sick from and eventually die of bone cancer, she knows.
…is, admittedly, peripheral. I have two friends who have adopted 3 dogs between them. (one, never trained for racing)
<
p>They don’t seem overly affectionate, are a bit skiddish, and one of my friends jokes that if she moves the dog’s dish more than a couple of feet from its usual spot, the poor thing might starve to death.
<
p>Hey, I don’t have anything against greyhounds. As a dog owner, I’m agin anything that exposes them to inhumane treatment or conditions. But they were definitely developed for utility over companionship, and it’s not the breed I prefer for myself. Kudos to folks who adopt ’em.
So I think it important not to scoff at others’. I prefer dogs that will slobber all over me and never stop giving me attention, wanting to play, go for walks… and, then, rest on my lap. I have friends who won’t even sit down on my coach because they don’t want to be ‘accosted.’ I always suggest people take a look at something like this before they go out and buy a dog. Every person has a few breeds they’d be good with and a lot of breeds they wouldn’t. It’s important that what you want in a dog matches up with the kind of dog you ultimately choose.