Left In Lowell

Banning Dog Racing, And Racinos

by Lynne at 12:33 pm.

Two related subjects, which are on the docket for discussion in the Commonwealth. Racinos, and banning greyhound dog racing.

First, there’s the racinos, or slots at race tracks…where the big racing lobby and their allies managed to squeeze out a promise from DiMasi to let it come up for a vote. Though the bill could be DOA for this year, this perennial waste of legislature time will likely come back again.

Racinos are even a worse idea than casinos. For one thing, legalizing slots in the state still opens us up for the federal process for casinos - where the state gets nothing in the deal. Just. Keep. Slots. Out. For heaven’s sake. Second, the race track owners’ claim that there’s thousands of jobs at stake (both existing, and future, should slots pass) is spurious at best. Did I say spurious? I meant outright lies.

Related to racinos is the racing dog tracks issue. The dog track (indeed, most racing in general) is a dying industry, and now they are looking to be propped up with gambling revenues, because they cannot make a living abusing and racing dogs.

And certified to be on the ballot this fall is a total ban on racing dogs itself.

On its face, you wonder how racing greyhounds could be so mistreated if they are supposed to perform to win? After all, if you were stuck in a proportionately small cage and kept there with no exercise for hours and hours a day, would you be able to run a race? (Oh wait, that’s exactly like human Cubical Land!) Except worse. Because dogs can’t choose to quit and walk away from their “cubical,” or get out on their own to do what dogs do - socialize, romp (and greyhounds are sports performance vehicles), and be healthy. The abuses - caging, medicating, starving - are well-documented throughout the country.

And for every winning dog, there are dozens, or hundreds, of others which were not winners. They are largely culled.

My husband’s family once adopted a greyhound who was raced. This was once removed, as they adopted it from the horse farm where it was living after the horse farm had adopted it from the track. I met the dog years after the family took her, and she was not a normal, happy dog. She had anxiety issues even when I knew her. And that was after improving 10-fold from the nervous, anxious behavior that plagued her when they first adopted her. She was an attention-starved creature, to the end of her days…no matter how much time you spent with her or how kind you were, you could never calm her nervousness and neediness completely.

Dogs do need to perform the jobs they were bred to do to be really happy - often a good owner will engage their dog in agility training or rag-racing or obedience training, digging and tunneling or herding. But greyhound racing is a business, and similar to the big milk farms where cows are overmedicated, fed hormones and kept in terrible conditions, dogs in greyhound racing are similarly mistreated, injured, and become physically and psychologically damaged animals, all in the name of profit.

We should judge our own race by the way we treat those whose lives we control. Should we look into the mistreatment of horses in racing? Or domestic animals being raised for meat or milk? Absolutely. But dog racing has no virtues and produces nothing, only vice - gambling, and abuse.

I will vote for the ban in November, and encourage you to do the same. Unless you aren’t human, you can’t help but be moved by pictures like these. This is what a happy greyhound looks like. Let’s ensure that all greyhounds are bred for loving homes, not gambling profit.

[Filed under MA politics] [link]

28 Responses to “Banning Dog Racing, And Racinos”

Lowellian Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
1. I support the no vote on slots. If the racetracks are dying then so be it.

2. I do not support the dog racing ban, mainly because I’m very tired of legislating our world and our lives. I have never been to a dog race nor do I want to. I also have no problem educating people about the “evils” of the sport and if people stop going it also will die. I’m just sick and tired of being told what I can and can’t do.
tim Says:
June 28th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I gotta agree with Lowellian point 2. If I can’t be entertained by the suffering of animals, what can I do? Not that I have, or will, I just want that option.
Liz Says:
June 28th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Here is my reply to both Lowellian and Tim.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
Lynne Says:
June 28th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
That is a sad commentary on our compassion and our ethics as the human race.

We outlaw child labor and abuse. We outlaw abuse of animals in almost every instance save our food and in racing. Hey, let’s stop legislating that murder of people be illegal, I’m tired of being told what I can and can’t do. I mean, I don’t want to murder anyone, but we can educate people on the evils of the sport and if people stop doing it it’ll die out as a pastime, right?
tim Says:
June 29th, 2008 at 8:57 am
I guess my sarcasm wasn’t apparent. I was trying to make plain what I thought Lowellian’s stance came down to - which I guess I did, but not by making it seem I thought the same thing.

The treatment of the dogs is horrible, and there could be a solution that addressed that without banning the actual racing. However, it looks like the racing itself is abusive - many dogs have died or been injured, sometimes so badly they’re put out of their misery. So I think a total ban is the only solution here.

Oh, and if you ever hear me/read me saying ‘if a can’t __, what can I do?’ - i’m being sarcastic.
Josh Says:
June 29th, 2008 at 11:34 am
I’m going to vote yes on slots, not because it will create jobs or revenue or the state, or any other silly reason. I’ll vote yes because people should be able to enjoy themselves at the slots if they want. If you don’t like alot machines, then don’t use them. (Sorta like if you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t have one.)

And I’m going to vote no on the banning of dog racing. I’ve never been to one, nor will I ever, but if some people enjoy it then that’s their deal. Yes, dogs are hurt in the process, but I just had some sausage for breakfast, so I can’t be one to talk about hurting animals.

Lowellian is right. If you really want to start legislating morality then after we ban dog racing, we can ban the neutering of dogs too. Surely nothing could be more cruel than cutting off his doghood. Finally, we’ll ban those stupid little sweaters (or reindeer antlers)that people put on their dogs!
Ryan Says:
June 29th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I did get your sarcasm, Tim, but it can be tricky on the 2-d ‘net.

That said, I must disagree with the premise that we could possibly fix greyhound racing: the state house won’t touch it, the racing lobby is too strong.

Perhaps, if we get this ban to pass, and could be dealing from a position of strength, we could do it… but I doubt it. There’s a whole history that says as long as there’s greyhound racing, it’s going to be cruel for greyhounds. How do you stop their high speed collisions? Make them race one at a time? No one’s going to pay to watch that. Heck, barely anyone’s paying to watch the current status quo.

Honestly, I feel as though this is just an example of putting a dying industry out of its misery, so we can redevelop the track land, create new jobs and get on with things. Every year, the greyhound industry euthanizes thousands of dogs that can’t race anymore…

“In 2000, an estimated 19,000 greyhounds were killed.* This includes 7,600 greyhound puppies who were farm culls, and another 11,400 “retirees” who were not rescued. ”

With the industry’s dying profits, I think there’s a fitting metaphor there.
Ryan Says:
June 29th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I put a poll on the BlogLeftMass yahoo group to see if we want to publicly support the ban.

Here’s where members can vote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BlogLeftMass/surveys?id=2063132
kpem Says:
June 29th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
This is such a disgusting sport and I can not understand what people are thinking. This goes hand and hand with the type of people that adopt animals and then dump them at shelters when they don’t work out for them. Government should step in when there is just blatent stupidity.
Tom Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 9:16 am
If a no vote on slots passes, then some of the tracks will close, which will lead to the demise of dog racing. Dog racing is declining anyway - it doesn’t need any legislative help to go away.
Lynne Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 10:10 am
tim: My husband pointed out that you must have been sarcastic and though I didn’t respond by name, my apologies to you for somewhat including you. Though I responded particularly to Lowellian.

Tom: don’t be so sure…the racing lobby is pretty powerful on the Hill, and it could be propped up for years even without slots.
GOP Footsoldier Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 10:12 am
If dog racing is banned maybe the legislation will table the vote and let the clock run out on it? I mean it’s not like they haven’t done it before and a few of you said the racing lobby was strong right? Strong enough to make sure this ballot question doesn’t see the light of day?
Lynne Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 11:12 am
The ballot question is going forward, regardless of lobbying. They have the signatures and it’s been certified by the SecState. The lege can’t stop this going on the ballot.
GOP Footsoldier Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 11:15 am
So if we ban dog racing (which I’m no fan of BTW) do we then ban horse racing as well? Then do we graduate to banning prizefighting and MMA as well? Where does it end? Look we need to all realize that there are things in life that offend our sensibilities. I’ve stated on here and other places that we all have a duty to vote with our wallets and feet. You don’t like the way the Bruins run their 2nd rate outfit? Don’t watch, don’t go to the games, don’t buy the food at the TD Banknorth garden, and don’t buy the Bruins merchandise. If we all do that you make it unprofitable and then ownership will sell the team to someone who wants to turn it into a winner. My point is you don’t like dog racing- don’t go. Encourage others to not go. But to ban a sport that has existed for hundreds of years is something I can’t get behind no matter how much I disagree with it.

I know someone who used to work at Wonderland in Revere. I asked him all about it one night over beers. He told me some great stories, and then some not so great ones (I adopted both of my wife and I’s dogs from petfinder so I am a huge dog lover). It boils down to this folks- there are some really sh*tty racing tracks out there and they abuse dogs as the pics Lynne provided you with. BUT there are also some first rate outfits who take care of their dogs very well as they represent those people’s livelihood and the way they put food on their tables. We can’t BAN a whole sport because of a couple of bad tracks. It’s wrong. It’s up to you and me to make those tracks close down on their own. I’m getting a tad tired of this issue coming up all the time though. Much like the Podunk town that keeps trying the Prop 2 ½ override even though it gets voted down every time out. At some point you have to listen to the citizens and realize you lost on this issue.
GOP Footsoldier Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 11:20 am
P.S. I also remember something about a tax roll back some time ago that has yet to go into effect, so even if dog racing is “banned” couldn’t the legislature just say “ah screw it, they’ll vote for all of us again next time anyways” and not listen to the public on this one?
Shawn Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Government should step in when there is just blatent stupidity.

Like in Gloucester?
Mr. Lynne Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
How about we just ban activities that result in a foreseeable amount of unnecessary and unacceptable suffering? Suffering in service to sustenance is not the same thing as suffering in service to entertainment. This is about more than just money. If it really was just something we should vote on with our wallets, it would follow that it should be okay to torture animals for entertainment on purpose as long as any small part of the public is willing to pay to see it and sustain it as an enterprise.

Hogwash.
GOP Footsoldier Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
“How about we just ban activities that result in a foreseeable amount of unnecessary and unacceptable suffering?”

Who’s to say which activites are acceptable? My definition is different then yours. By putting it to a vote again and again just becasuse the PETA side keeps losing is a waste of time.

I would argue that horse racing is WORSE then dog racing based on the vast steroid use in the sport, should we also ban that as well? As I said not EVERY track is a horrible environment so it’s up to YOU Mr. Lynne to not attend those tracks (or any if that’s your perogative as it is mine.) but by banning this sport one group is legislating morality for the rest of us. Would you say that boxers suffer? Should we ban that as well? It’s a “bloodsport” and people suffer. Not just animals, people. Where does it end?
Mr. Lynne Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I don’t necessarily disagree that horse racing can also be bad if not worse and that not every track is terrible. But I’m not willing to take your philosophy to it’s ultimate conclusion and start legalizing live animal torture for fun and profit. Do you, or do you not, think that live animal torture for fun and profit should be legalized. If not, how do you reconcile that with your earlier assertions.

BTW, Boxers (presumably) consent to their own mistreatment… so that’s not a valid comparison. Try again.

Also… the ‘few bad apples’ argument certainly works. Problem is, now you have a value decision to make. Is enforcement of a new law on the few enforceable? At what costs? Are the bad apples numerous and or bad enough to justify such cost? If not, what are the alternatives? Are these problems likely to be almost inevitable? These are all value judgments and it is right that our legislation reflect our values on these issues. If that means that the suffering created by the industry is unacceptable and enforcement into compliance isn’t affordable or practical, then yeah… we might collectively (through representation or directly) decide that action on the industry as a whole is warranted. It would be, of course, a truism to say that a minority may exist that disagrees. Unless the action involves a fundamental protected right, too bad… that’s our system.
GOP Footsoldier Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Wait are you saying that racing animals is torture? If so I disagree completely. Now if you’re asking me if I’m looking to legalize say snuff films of dogs or dog fighting then no I’m against that. That’s absurd. But to “legalize” racing when it’s already legal is silly. I’m against banning a legitimate sport or anything really because it offends a minority of citizens and a PAC in this case the vocal PETA crowd.

I’m not saying YOU yourself would start banning dogs, then horse racing, and then progess to boxing and MMA. So I don’t need to “try again.” If you followed MMA more closely (as I do) you would see that there is already a vocal minority against this sport calling it “human cockfighting” which is laughable. (Full disclosure McCain once called it this and was wrong and has since come around to admit his mistake.) But there are those on the fringe who WOULD and once it starts with Wonderland being shut down where does it end?

There are all kinds of animal cruelty laws on the books already, if the state really wanted to do something they would start enforcing them MORE. It takes so much to get a dog taken from a home let alone an animal cruelty conviction it’s sickening. Much like not picking up your dogs poop, it’s a law on the books hardly enforced.
Mr. Lynne Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
“Wait are you saying that racing animals is torture?” I didn’t say that. So if you are against the torture of animals, but you are ok with their suffering for the sake of ‘legitemate’ sport, I must conclude that the suffering of the animals isn’t operative in your opinion for upholding the sport. Why is the suffering of the animals in this sport not enough of a concern to worry about but the deliberate torture of animals is? What are the particulars of your thinking that could dissuade me from thinking that there is a large inconsistency there.

Can’t equate boxing and animal racing for the reason I previously stated. You can’t get an animals consent to allow itself to be hurt. I can certainly understand why others might want those human sports banned, but nonetheless, both sides would agree that the forced beating of a human would be unacceptable. The only difference in those two cases in consent. Therefore non-consent is a sufficient condition to ban a practice against humans causing such harm. As far as the ‘others’ who ‘would’… they have to weigh the arguments and think for themselves. If all you’re really worried about is that ‘others’ may find different reasoning than you then all I have to say is welcome to democracy.

If I put a bill into congress that would increase funding for dog track oversight and animal cruelty investigation and enforcement you’d be willing to pay the taxes for it then and vote for it? Just wondering, because my guess is that the money spent on such investigations and enforcement would probably need to increased tenfold at least to even approach what might be a rate of animal harm that could be described as small and accidental as opposed to systemic and endemic. Further regulatory requirements for the tracks might be in order as well. As long as the harm rate is too high, the policing of racing practices might have to include something lie quarterly state certified veterinary examinations for each animal owned (raced or not) paid by the taxpayer (having the owners pay for it only encourages a conflict of interest for the vet).
GOP Footsoldier Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“Wait are you saying that racing animals is torture?” I didn’t say that. So if you are against the torture of animals, but you are ok with their suffering for the sake of ‘legitemate’ sport, I must conclude that the suffering of the animals isn’t operative in your opinion for upholding the sport. Why is the suffering of the animals in this sport not enough of a concern to worry about but the deliberate torture of animals is?”

I really wish we could have this discussion either face to face or via the phone, I think we are both missing out on some stuff the other is trying to say.

I’m not for the suffering of animals. That’s absurd. However, there is animal control in the communties that these tracks reside in no? So I think it would be great if animal control did a couple of random searches at these places to make sure stuff was on the up and up. ACO’s can do the citing and the ticketing in accordance to what they find. All of these places also have liquor licences(sp) so they are making money. They can afford the fines.

As for the taxpayers pay for the vet bills is stupid. The owners of these dogs foot the bill (my father in law once owned a racing greyhound in the 80’s) there is no need for any of us to foot the bill.

“What are the particulars of your thinking that could dissuade me from thinking that there is a large inconsistency there.”

I could honestly care less if you think there is an inconsistency in my thinking. I think the way I think and it works for me. But the difference between me and a whole lot of folks in Massachusetts is while I may not like something because it offends me(dog racing)and I’m in the minority I don’t then try and legislate my morality(lets face it this waste of time has been defeated before right?) and then force it on the rest of the citizens.
Mr. Lynne Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Dog racing doesn’t offend me in the least. If someone could show that it could be done safely and that the owners would engage in bad treatment of animals, I’d be elated about dog racing. Problem is, the industry’s problems seem systemic. A ‘few random searches’ is not likely to cut it. The needed policing effort is likely huge since the problems are systemic. If you could convince me that it needn’t be that big a deal and we could still make the industry safe, again I’d be all for it. I doubt it. Also, we’d need to foot the bill since the potential for corruption would probably unacceptable. You don’t want a situation where you enact mandatory veterinary inspections and that creates a situation where you have vets whose bread and butter depend on one or two industry clients. Too much pressure to keep the customer happy. The mortgage industry ran into this probelem with inspectors before the law was changed as to how inspectors got paid. If it didn’t matter who wrote the checks, there wouldn’t be corruption in government either.

How we treat animals is a point of morality. If animal suffering is bad enough to make criminal laws… that is as much a moral statement as a legal one.
Ryan Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
GOP footsoldier:

a) People choose to play sports. Dogs don’t. My dad played pro football for 7 years and has the bad elbows and ankles to prove it. But, you know what? That was his choice - and he was well compensated for it.

b) The question on the ballot is dog racing. Perhaps other forms of animal racing are cruel, too. However, horses aren’t kept in cages so small that they can barely stand up and move around for 20 hours a day. Irregardless, the question we have before us is on dogs. In government, as in life, we do things one at a time so we can weigh and measure them seperately. Maybe this is enough, maybe it isn’t, but anything beyond dog racing is a completely different fight at a completely different time, with a completely different set of people.
waittilnextyr Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
It seems that you are agreeing that dog racing is OK, as long as the dogs are not mistreated, nor given a death sentence once past there racing prime. Same for horse racing, I guess.

So why isn’t the discussion aimed at eliminating the abuse? If there is a cost associated with enforcing humane treatment, why isn’t that borne by the industry, not the general public?

So as far as banning the sport I would say no. However, neither would I recommend that we support it in any way, unless individually it is something we like.
Mr. Lynne Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I basically agree with you waittil. I never actually said I was for the bill. What I said was that we should ban the activities that create unnecessary suffering. Those activities, by circumstance, necessity, or even practicality, could encompass the whole sport or just specific practices within the sport. As others have pointed out, we have animal cruelty laws already, but that doesn’t seem to have an effect now. I am, however, skeptical that any of these problems would be rectified without radical action. They seem endemic and ingrained. If someone were to offer a solution that wouldn’t close the tracks, but radical enough to actually get the job done, I’d be receptive. I’m very skeptical that such a proposal is forthcoming or that it would be embraced. Ironically, the closing option seems more likely to be embraced.
Lynne Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 8:31 am
This is all moot. A lot of you are missing one huge point. Even if we had a perfect racing dog abuse-restricting system of laws and enforcement, you are still talking about killing thousands of dogs, sometimes before they even really get a chance at life.

How many dogs do you think are bred before the fastest ones are found? How practical would it be to forbid the culling of dogs in the racing business? The world would be awash in unwanted greyhounds, too many to get adopted. There IS no practical solution to greyhound racing and enforcement of anti-abuse laws. Unless you can solve the hundred-to-one puppy desirability problem, you haven’t fixed ANYthing.

I don’t know as much about horse racing and its abuses and the ratio of raced horses to discarded ones. (I know it ain’t zero, there are places dedicated to rehabbing discarded race horses.) Maybe we should be discussing banning that too. However, the sheer numbers of “disposable” and discarded (read: culled) dogs in the greyhound racing business is despicable, and anyone who defends this business is seriously lacking in morals.
kpem Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 10:29 pm
There are enough stray animals in the world (and enough stray cats and dogs in Lowell). The treatment at the tracks are bad enough, but you would think these people would atleast have to mitigate the damage for all the money they made and find homes for these animals.

June 27, 2008

Banning Dog Racing, And Racinos

28 Responses to “Banning Dog Racing, And Racinos”

Leave a Reply

LeftinLowell Tweets

Pages:

Recent Posts

Search

Categories:

Archives:

Other:

Email us!

Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums

Lowell Politics

Mass Bloggers

Media in Lowell

Media in MA

Other Daily Reads

Politics Online

Progressive Local Orgs

Snark and politics

The Arts in Lowell

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« May				Jul »
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30