After two most interesting public debates the zealots have added another page of their own special brand of fuzzy facts to their website. Warning: their spin may make you dizzy.
“Massachusetts greyhound racing achieves 100% adoption rate”
THEIR FACTS:
According to the State Racing Commission, the actual adoption rate is only 31%
Really? And that’s because many greyhounds move on to other tracks and some return to the farms to be bred. 31% of the dogs are retired and made available to adoption and 100% OF THE DOGS MADE AVAILABLE TO ADOPTION ARE ADOPTED OUT.
THEY CLAIM THIS IS FALSE:
“From 2002 to 2007, 465,176 greyhounds raced at Massachusetts tracks.”
THEIR FACTS:
This is completely false. To arrive at this inflated figure, opponents of Question 3 are counting the same dogs over and over again dozens of times.
No kidding… THAT’S BECAUSE THE SAME DOGS RACE OVER AND OVER AGAIN! Sheesh.
The 465,176 figure IS correct- there were that many individual dog performances in the time period alluded to. You forgot the total injury rate over the period which was 0.15% of these 465,176 performances.
THEY CLAIM THIS IS FALSE:
“Massachusetts dog tracks have “at least 1000 full and part time workers.”
THEIR FACTS:
According to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, all racetracks in the state only employ a combined total of 707. This includes dog tracks, horse tracks and even auto speedways
Raynham employs 833, Wonderland 305. Your figure is from September of 2007; you have not factored in ancillary services or the fact that Wonderland had closed for the season.
“The racing commission report shows that at Raynham there are 833 jobs and at Wonderland 305. Here’s what [supporters of the ban are] doing, they’re parsing the tax numbers, looking only at W-2s, and what they don’t deal with is the huge chunk of people who get issued 1099s.” -Glenn Totten
THEY CLAIM THIS IS FALSE:
“The backers of Question 3 are part of a fundraising machine that moves from state to state, puts initiatives and referenda on the ballot, enlists local support and raises money.”
THEIR FACTS:
Question 3 is sponsored by mainstream animal protection groups like the MSPCA, the second oldest humane society in our nation’s history. It is supported by every major animal shelter, dozens of lawmakers, and more than sixty local veterinarians
Let’s not forget HSUS who is a mainstream animal rights group headed by the self-same Wayne Pacelle who has said: “We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals…” I note you don’t mention his group here… and they’ve given you enormous amounts of money for your campaign. How many dogs does “every major animal shelter” euthanize each year when their time is up? The MSPCA must kill a lot as they even have their own crematorium in Methuen. The main group behind this ballot question is a 501(4)c “advocacy” group- fundraisers and talkers- nothing more, certainly no funds given or volunteer efforts perfomed for greyhound adoption.
You also forgot to mention your recent brainwashing of the Massachusetts Council of Churches. In 2000, Father Michael Guarino, a staunch advocate of greyhound adoption spoke out on behalf of greyhounds and you mobilized your minions to terrorize the Archdiocese. Guess it’s okay for you to exploit the religious if it suits your agenda.
THEY CLAIM THIS IS FALSE:
“Supporters of Question 3 “have no legal requirement to explain to the state where money comes from or where it goes.”
This is completely false. The Committee to Protect Dogs files detailed reports with the state documenting every single contribution and expenditure. These reports are posted on line by the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance
THEY CLAIM THIS IS FALSE:
“From 2000 to 2007, “Massachusetts’ tracks contributed $1.34 million for greyhound adoption.”
THEIR FACTS:
This money comes from a tax on gamblers that previously went to the state. These tax dollars were redirected to adoption efforts in 2002 after the passage of a bill that was sponsored by Yes on 3 supporters
Let’s use the “Committee’s” logic method just for fun. The tax DOES come from the tracks because if the bettors had not bet the animals at the tracks, there would have been no tax to collect! It is still 1.34 million dollars going straight to greyhound adoption. The “Committee” itself along with any of its spurious groups has never contributed a penny as we well know. Thank goodness for the bettors as there are adoption agencies in this state in great need of these funds.
THEY CLAIM THIS IS FALSE:
“The size of the crates used in Massachusetts racing kennels was set with the assistance of Grey2k and the MSPCA”
THEIR FACTS:
This is completely false. The cages used at commercial racetracks in Massachusetts are five times smaller than the runs used for similarly sized dogs at the MSPCA-Angell Boston Animal Care and Adoption Center.
You must mean those soaking wet cement and cinder-blocked walls booths? The ones in which a greyhound could not see his or her neighbor much less get comfortable? The cement is cold all the time and the surface and dampness is terrible for their feet and skin.
Dogs are in THOSE 24/7…
One of the larger adoption groups in this state has those; the dogs push the edge of their blankets out into the wet gutters hoping another dog on the opposite side of the wall will pull at it- that way they know they are not alone. From birth through track life, greyhounds spend their lives together in groups and love every moment. In the kennels they frequently rest back to back by preference. They can always hear and see the other dogs around them and spend time outside socializing, playing, or napping in the sun with their friends and people. Instead you’d rather see them in those isolation cubicles?
THEY CLAIM THIS IS FALSE:
“The cages at commercial racetracks are comparable to crates “sold at PETCO for dogs like Great Danes and St. Bernards.”
THEIR FACTS:
The cages used at Massachusetts racetracks are not sold by PETCO or other pet supply stores. Instead, they are produced by companies that specialize in commercial cages, such as G&T Crates, which manufactured at least some of the cages being used at Raynham Park.
Yikes! Is this really all you can come up with for a “false claim”? The crates at the tracks are LARGER than the crates at the stores. A Varikennel 500 has 16+ cubic feet of useable space (inside dimensions). A track G & T has 26+ cubic feet of useable space (inside dimensions as well). I note you don’t try your usual “smaller cage/ confinement” argument here for a change; that’s refreshing.
Tags: greyhound racing, greyhounds, massachusetts greyhounds, question 3
15 October, 08 at 7:19 PM |
I understand that different people have very strong opinions on dog racing. This is good! Let’s talk about it. Let’s discuss the FACTS as adults.
I am continually shocked by the behavior of organizations like Grey2K. Obfuscation, distortion, lies and slander, defamation and libel are all part of standard operating procedure it seems.
I have seen the kennels, and seen the dogs with their trainer and handlers. If these dogs were mistreated like the supporters of Question 3 claim, there is no way they would run and play with them like they do. If a greyhound were abused in anyway, he/she would not run in a race. When that gate opened, they would most likely freeze and cower in fear.
I love my retired racer, who still LOVES to run! I can’t imagine this breed becoming extinct, which is what will happen if Grey2k is successful, one state at a time.
I hope anyone that is undecided on this issue will get the FACTS before they vote.
17 October, 08 at 3:20 PM |
I cannot leave my name since the greyhound adoption group I am affiliated with is neutral on the racing issue, however, I have taken in with my own hands literally hundreds of ex-racers from the Massachusetts tracks. I have yet to see one dog that has shown any signs of abuse. I have also visited the tracks and kennels in Massachusetts and again, no signs of anything fishy. I do not live in Massachusetts, so I don’t have a vote there, but I do hope that your voters will be able to see the truth for themselves. Good luck.
29 October, 08 at 5:20 PM |
I also am appalled at how the extremist groups are feeding the public complete lies & propaganda! I am so afraid the public will fall for it. I am a veterinary technician, I have worked with Thoroughbred race horses in the past. Racing is like everything else, there are a few bad trainers out there, but for the most part, the trainers and the breeders take excellent care of their dogs. In order for these animals to compete and win, they must be in excellent health, physicaly & mentally. This is a business to these people, they would be foolish to mistreat the animals and it simply does not happen. PLEASE educate yourself, do not believe all of this propaganda. Greyhounds LOVE to run. They are not mistreated. It is that simple. Eliminating racing would be horrible for the dogs, and the future of the breed. I see MUCH more neglect & abuse in regular animal owners, in how people treat their pets. That is a fact. Also, greyhound racing in MA generates alot of revenue for the state and so many jobs…why would we ban that at this point in time, to do so would be ignorant. What would be next for these groups??? Will they ban horse racing, dog shows, sled dog racing, horse shows, keeping animals as pets??? Give me a break! ? This is America right? This bill is pure sensationalism, is the Massachusetts public so ignorant that they do not educate themselves, hear both sides of the story? Obviously these groups have nothing better to do. They are wrong. It is false. Please for the sake of the Greyhounds … VOTE NO!!! If you care at all about animals you would vote no, I am in the animal proffesion and I have first hand knowledge, Greyhound racing is not cruel!