Sometimes, the most honest statements in a campaign come in surprising ways. One such example of unexpected candor occurred a few days ago, in a debate between Kara Holmquist of the MSPCA and dog track spokesperson Kelly Carney. At issue was Question 3, a humane proposal to phase out greyhound racing by 2010.
During the debate, Holmquist argued that dogs play an important role in our lives and deserve to be protected. The response by dog track spokesperson Kelly Carney?
“Excuse me, but you’re not talking about dogs. You’re talking about greyhound racing pets right now. We’re not talking about house pets.”
I find this statement deeply troubling, and I hope you will too. I believe that greyhounds are, in fact, dogs and deserve to be protected like all other dogs.
Please join me on Tuesday, and vote YES for the dogs on Question 3.
as she sneers when Kara talks about how dogs should be treated is telling.
<
p>The Carneys and their allies just don’t value dogs as anything other than a means to make money. This is why they constantly appear aloof with all of these comments about how dogs deserve a little dignity – because they are aloof. They just don’t understand having compassion for dogs, can’t relate to it and won’t accept it. Luckily, I think the majority of voters will feel differently on November 4.
Carney may not have made the point as clearly as she could have.
<
p>But to me this diary confirms that the anti-racing crowd is trying to codify in law that the house pet is the only permissible model of human-animal relationship.
<
p>Animals have worked for us for millennia. Anyone who owns a retriever or a terrier knows they are never more happy than when they’re doing the task they are bred to.
<
p>If the greyhounds aren’t treated as well as they should be, that’s a matter for better regulation and oversight. Banning the races is a major overreach not grounded in principle.