Post-Election Myths About the Greyhound Protection Act

MYTH NUMBER 1: Citizens did not understand the impact of their vote on Question 3 until after the election.

I find this myth absolutely incredible.  It has been repeated on numerous occasions, most notably in the lead paragraph of a recent Boston Herald Editorial:

Massachusetts voters are starting to get a sense of the impact that their vote to ban dog racing is going to have, with track workers wondering where in the world they will go in an economy that is shedding more jobs with each passing day.

The idea that voters did not understand this issue is pure nonsense.  Greyhound racing has been debated in our state for over a decade.

Also, during this most recent campaign dog track owners spent $650,000, and ran compelling television ads claiming that over 1,000 people would lose their jobs.  These spots featured actual track workers, who described in detail the impact Question 3 would have on their lives.  This TV campaign was supplemented by an extensive radio and newspaper ad campaign.

Despite all of this, and during the worst economic downturn of our lifetime, citizens voted overwhelmingly to approve the Greyhound Protection Act.  They undoubtedly felt sympathy for the people who work at the tracks.  But in the end they voted YES for the dogs on Question 3.  They weighed the issue, and came to the conclusion that our economy should not be built on cruelty to dogs.

MYTH NUMBER 2: Question 3 didn’t really help dogs because now they will just be shipped off to other states.

First of all, this myth is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of how commercial greyhound racing works.  There is no such thing as a Massachusetts greyhound.  Right now greyhounds are bred in other states, they come to Massachusetts to race for a short period of time, and are then sent to other states to compete.  In other words, if it is a bad thing to send greyhounds to other states, then this bad thing is already happening now.  In fact, Question 3 is a step toward alleviating this national problem by removing Massachusetts from the dog racing circuit.

This myth is also built on another false premise: that regulations are somehow better here than in other states.  Racing regulations are, for the most part, uniform across the country.

Finally, Question 3 does not take effect until January 2010.  We will do everything in our power to encourage greyhound owners and track officials to relinquish a significant number of dogs before that date, and history shows that when tracks close this is usually what happens.  We stand waiting to help these dogs and view this not as a burden, but instead as an opportunity.

MYTH NUMBER 3: It was unfair for citizens statewide to vote on the Greyhound Protection Act.

This argument has been raised a number of times in recent media stories.  One example comes from former track worker Paul Rocha, who was interviewed after the election by the Brockton Enterprise:

Who cares about dog racing out in Worcester or Springfield? It should have been left to the district that the park is in and a 25-mile or so radius. I don’t think it should have been done the way it was done.

As a matter of fact, this very issue was raised by dog track owners earlier this year, when they brought a lawsuit against the state in an effort to keep the Greyhound Protection Act off the ballot.

In their decision, the Supreme Judicial Court unequivocally ruled that greyhound racing is an issue of statewide concern:

The plaintiffs fail to apprehend, however, that the same can be said of the petition at issue in this case. Indeed, the effect of this petition would be broader, because the statute as it will exist at the time the proposed law would take effect permits (duly licensed) dog races to be conducted at any of a great many localities in the Commonwealth. That the present economic realities of the industry might make this prospect unlikely to materialize is irrelevant; the proposed law would change the legal status of dog racing Statewide … Thus, parimutuel dog racing, like landlord-tenant relations, constitutes a matter of Statewide concern, and “[w]e do not question the power of the Legislature and the people through the initiative process to abolish animal racing involving betting or wagering….”

These myths are not constructive.  There is important work that now needs to be done, and we simply cannot afford to let ourselves get distracted by issues that are neither factually accurate nor relevant to the tasks at hand.

It is time for all of us – regardless of how we voted – to accept that the people have spoken and move on.