I just learned that my native state of Massachusetts (LOL I can spell it!) Is voting this November on Question 3- the Greyhound Protection Act. From what I understand, the act would close the two active race tracks and ban all events where betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs and not effect any dog sport events such as whippet racing, jack russel racing, lure coursing, agility competitions, and the like.

How would you vote if you lived in Massachusetts? I'm still on the fence. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Massachusetts_Greyhound_Protection_Act_(2008)

Oh, and check out the bad information in the section of this page that lists ethical reasons to vote yes: http://www.votinginfo.info/Vote2008/ballot%20questions%2008/08%20Question%203.htm "Dogs are fed meat that has been deemed unfit for human consumption. Because this meat is fed to dogs raw, it can cause dogs to be exposed to serious pathogens such as Salmonella." I'm not sure how true some of the other "facts" in that section are either.

Oh geez.
Next they'll outlaw raw feeding.

"The dog racing industry has experienced a "catastrophic economic decline" in the past two decades, which has led to some racetracks seeking assistance from politicians, including direct subsidies, tax breaks, special trust funds, and expanded gambling rights.

This is priceless. Sounds like the problem would die a natural death if not for the politicians.

How true. At least that's what I noticed from the greyhound tracks in Colorado. My vote of course would be no, No and NO. Animal betting has been falling out of style for years. No law is needed to be rid of it and I believe there is value to being able to run one's greyhounds yes, even on a track.

If they should do anything it should be to crack down on politicians who are insisting on giving away tax dollars.

The facts given are fairly accurate except a little exagerated. The dogs are definitely fed a combination of 4D meat and kibble, but there's very little problem with it. The dogs are crated, but then they are let out regularly to potty and they are raced. These dogs are natural couch potatoes so they really don't need a lot of yard time anyway. There are some bad haulers out there, but then there are a lot of good ones too.

It's true about all the broken bones, just check with any rescue and ask how many of them they currently have in rescue. Some tracks have a better safety record than others.

As with any racing, there will always be idiots that try to win at any cost and doping is one of them. That's why they check all the winning dogs, just like horse racing, and there are very heavy penalties for doing it.

I would love to see more of the tracks closed just so the industry has to scale back, but the bad part is there are a lot of people, again, losing jobs. This would mean a loss of state revenue at a time when states are in a massive cash shortage; like the rest of us. Track closings mean a ton more dogs flooding an already full rescue situation, but then eventually, hopefully, the farms would breed fewer dogs.

I look forward to the day when it's hard to find a greyhound to adopt, but then have you seen what AKC has done to the breed? Ugh. I want at least a little racing so greyhounds as a breed stay the way they are.

The measure passed.

I'm curious how this will affect other dog sports - mushing, for instance, there is already such a controversy around races like the Iditarod. I've been reading about the debate/fight against the Iditarod lately, b/c in taking Luc on my ultratraining with me, I've been researching sled dogs, since they're probably the ultimate canine endurance athletes, and in many ways both opponents sound similar.

I wonder if this is an overall shift in public perception, away from working dogs, to dogs as pets and as family members almost human, or if it really is just a reaction to greyhound racing.

I am in MA and voted "NO" but alas with the exception of people I voted for who had no one running against them; I lost all my votes.

I do not know who sponsored this bill but the criteria of what was considered abusive and giving nationwide vs statewide statistics when numbers were spouted made me feel this had the backing of some over the top animal's right group. I believe the only number which pertained to MA were 728 injuries over a six year period of time with no documentation of the seriousness of the injuries.

I don't know how this would relate to other sports but the bill did specifically state "ONLY RACES WHERE BETTING OCCURRED"

 Quote: ingrid halonen

..... I'm not sure how true some of the other "facts" in that section are either.

The part about the throwaway aspect of "used up" dogs, though -- from all that I know (from the rescue world) seems to be quite valid.

Sort of. I used to know a few people involved in greyhound racing in Colorado. The majority of the people I knew who raised racing hounds did care deeply about their dogs but at the same time were of the mind of this is my business and we can't keep them all.

Happily rescues stepped in and through their network helped them find home for the dogs that would otherwise saturated the community and would have made them resort to the rifle again. If you talk to people in the greyhound rescue field I find very few of them hold any hatred or dispair toward those who race hounds but rather an acceptance of the role in helping these dogs. At least when I was there usually breeders gave these dogs to rescues at a loss, often times they paid for the dog's transport to what ever part of the country the dog would be going to (usually in mass to save the most dogs), the vet care, and even the shelter space. One breeder I knew actually set up an on site rescue kennel which they paid to staff and maintain.

I'm not saying it's perfect but I rarely find things are as black and white as people claim.