How Powerful the Racing Lobby?
In celebrating the win for the puppies (ie, the passing of Question 3!), I have paused to ask myself several times if this is the end to this matter, or if there’s another fight a-brewin’.
After all, the dog racing industry is one which has consistently employed influential lobbyists to prop up its sagging industry in many ways, not the least of which is the perennial issue put before every legislature: that of allowing racinos with gambling slot machines.
So, it is not outside the realm of imagination to believe that before they can be dismantled, there will be one last push in the legislature by the track industry’s lobbyists to “overturn the will of the voters” (as conservatives like to call it when recalling the tax rollback ballot initiative). Now, while the legislature has every right to overturn previous laws, whether created by former sessions of the legislature or by ballot vote, in this case, I would not support that.
The Yes on Three people had better be prepared for this last leg of the fight. Although there’s a chance the tracks will just fold up and quietly go, as their revenues are dying anyway, I doubt this will happen. They will take this to the legislature for a vote, and one more likely to be favorable to them.
November 5th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Not that I’m cynical or anything but the only one that benefits from this question (other that the dogs who will now be racing elsewhere) is the owner of Suffolk Downs. Hardcore bettors will flock to that track. Which will put Suffolk in a perfect position when the Indian gambling folks roll in with their bags of wampum. Maybe someone should take a look at which politician is getting what from Suffolk Downs.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
PC,
Who’s to say the tracks these dogs will then be boarded at aren’t WORSE then the ones in Massachusetts? Let’s face it the south and especially the DEEP south don’t hold dogs in the same regard as we do here in Massachusetts. So an unintended by product of this measure passing could be that dogs that are here now will suffer more in a different less stringent locale. I’ve been to Raynham a few times and they simulcast (sp) horse, carriage, and dog racing from all over the country and you can bet on that too.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
My point is that the dogs didn’t benefit, the dog racing industry didn’t benefit so who did?? And why?
November 5th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
The dogs benefit, PC and Guy. For one thing that is several less tracks open to race, that means less dogs will be needed nationwide. That means less abuse.
It also means this state will stand up against abuse. One more state down. In other words, “not on my watch.” It’s a principled stand.
Let’s put it this way: is the fact that other states have it so it’s moot to ban it here a real reason to keep it?
November 5th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
PC and Guy Fox, the fact of the matter is these are dogs. Not thouroughbred horses worth 6 plus figures. They aren’t going to be shipped anywhere to race.
I posted something similar to this on Dick Howe’s site. The thing the save the dogs folks didn’t talk about is what happens to the hundreds of dogs that will be displaced when these two tracks close in 13 months? How many do you think will be adopted? Some, however most will be put to death.
Employees? If I were the owner of Wonderland or Raynham-Taunton I would have been working the phones last night as soon as it became clear that the question was going to pass, looking for developers. The industry was already dying so this just pushed it over the edge. Wonderland didn’t even put up any money to fight…what does that tell you?
In Lynne’s response she seems to have grasped part of the issue “that means less dogs will be needed” but I don’t think she and the supporters grasped how “less dogs” will happen.
Look for the tracks to close just a soon as they can line up developers and most of the employees to be out on their butts…and most of the dogs to be killed.
Happy?
November 6th, 2008 at 11:36 am
First, it IS likely some of the dogs are going to be sent to other states, at least the ones still worth racing.
Second, the adoption groups won’t let that happen (the killing of dogs due to the tracks shutdown).
Third, how many puppies are culled each year in the quest to breed winning dogs? The ones that never make it to the tracks? They do NOT get adopted. Maybe there’ll be less culling due to the lessened demand for dogs because these tracks are out of business, have you thought of that?
November 6th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Adoption groups won’t let what happen? Destructions of animals that aren’t adopted? Look to the the Lowell Humane Society and ask them if animals that aren’t adopted aren’t killed.
The dogs on the tracks now, TODAY, are under a death sentence because of this vote. Either they are worth shipping to out of state tracks of they are up for destruction.
Tell me, when you buy Dog or Cat food, or you buy products like Mircle Grow where do you think the products come from? Animals are RENDERED DOWN…KILLED…to produce the dog and cat food, or make sure your flowers are pretty.
Greyhounds will die thanks to this vote. People, too old to be hired for anything else will lose their jobs.
Well thought out!