|
|
Post by dvsgryhnd on Nov 9, 2005 13:53:23 GMT -5
So are you saying that since the racing industry can say: We don't put down nearly as many as we used to, that it's acceptable?
I say yes it is because people are working very hard to make improvements. I know they are a long way from their goal, they do have one and are slowly getting there.
|
|
|
|
Post by texthegreyt on Nov 9, 2005 14:16:35 GMT -5
That is the same as shelter dogs, but seems no A/R people want to discuss that, I've been told it's not the same because people don't make money on them. Well tell that to the shelter dog. They should be happy they were only abused and neglected by regular people, not people in racing. #36_1_25# Holy crap, people say that to you!? Abuse and neglect is no different for any living creature! I am against it for all living creatures - humans, domestic and farm animals, wildlife and marine life... it is just not acceptable! |
|
|
|
Post by dvsgryhnd on Nov 9, 2005 14:49:08 GMT -5
Yes, they do say that. One lady on GH-L told me that she didn't care about those dogs, she was only interested in stopping racing. Now, not all A/R people are like that. They have their reasons for wanting racing to end, usually it's because of the euthanasia of the dogs, but they never want to talk about the millions of dogs that pet people dispose of every year. It justs amazes me that they say racing people abuse and put down dogs(which is true) and want to end racing because of it. So, does that mean no one should have pets because pet people abuse and put down dogs(which is also true)? I just can never get some one to explain the difference to me. Of course, it could me cuz I'm a little hard headed. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by jettcricket on Nov 9, 2005 15:21:59 GMT -5
That is the same as shelter dogs, but seems no A/R people want to discuss that, I've been told it's not the same because people don't make money on them. Well tell that to the shelter dog. They should be happy they were only abused and neglected by regular people, not people in racing. #36_1_25# Holy crap, people say that to you!? Abuse and neglect is no different for any living creature! I am against it for all living creatures - humans, domestic and farm animals, wildlife and marine life... it is just not acceptable! How can you say that all AR people don't want to discuss it? Please don't categorize....I love ALL animals. I support my local shelters, I've sponsored a pit bull from a humane society in Newark, NJ, and I've been involved in feral cat rescue. My personnel feelings is when I hear PR people use this argument...it's almost like you are trying to justify the number of greyhounds being euthanized every year. "Well, heck, compared to shelter animals it's a small percentage". Tell that to the greyhounds being destroyed every year because there are simply not enough homes for them. And, yeah, let's not discuss the killings in AL by Robert Rhodes that he was paid by from people in the racing industry....disgusting. Yes, there obviously are not as many greys being killed vs. shelter animals and I'm sure most AR people recognize that, but to me it's a lame excuse. Stop comparing.....we're talking about the racing industry folks. |
|
|
|
Post by dvsgryhnd on Nov 9, 2005 15:57:40 GMT -5
Sorry to catagorize everyone, I didn't mean too. I admire all the work you do for animals.
You mentioned that when racing people use the shelter vs greyhounds it sounds like an excuse. I can see how it could be taken that way and and for all I know it might be just an excuse for some.
As for Rhodes and his cohorts, I am glad he was caught. And it was his employee who turned him in. So there are people in racing who also find that disgusting.
I still don't understand about not comparing the two. It seems to me that if the general public can except the euthansia of millions of shelter dogs then why are some trying to end something that some of us love and are trying to make it better, just because dogs are euthanized. I'm not trying to argue with you. I truly don't understand. And even you have said not to compare the two, So once again It seems to me that I've been told that it's not the same. :P
|
|
|
|
Post by hounddog on Nov 9, 2005 16:16:08 GMT -5
You mentioned that when racing people use the shelter vs greyhounds it sounds like an excuse. I can see how it could be taken that way and and for all I know it might be just an excuse for some. :P I think the frustration for me with this argument is that if there was ever a situation in the animal world that could be controlled and regulated, it is with the greyhound. I hate the thoughts of any animal being put down. But in the case of greyhounds since their numbers are for the most part controlled by an industry, it seems to me that this is one area where it could be irradicated. The shelter situation, as sad as it is, is a problem far harder to solve. Not that it is any less painful to see it happen. |
|
|
|
Post by jettcricket on Nov 9, 2005 16:30:05 GMT -5
You mentioned that when racing people use the shelter vs greyhounds it sounds like an excuse. I can see how it could be taken that way and and for all I know it might be just an excuse for some. :P I think the frustration for me with this argument is that if there was ever a situation in the animal world that could be controlled and regulated, it is with the greyhound. I hate the thoughts of any animal being put down. But in the case of greyhounds since their numbers are for the most part controlled by an industry, it seems to me that this is one area where it could be irradicated. The shelter situation, as sad as it is, is a problem far harder to solve. Not that it is any less painful to see it happen. Thank you Hounddog - you've summed it up well. |
|
|
|
Post by dvsgryhnd on Nov 9, 2005 16:38:40 GMT -5
I think the frustration for me with this argument is that if there was ever a situation in the animal world that could be controlled and regulated, it is with the greyhound.
I do agree with you on that. The problem comes in because these dogs are individually owned. And every dog owner has the right to put their dog down, regardless of whether it's a greyhound or not. Maybe the NGA could bar membership for people who put them down, but how to enforce it? on that I have no clue. It might take changing the law to prevent it but I don't see that happening. I still don't agree with banning racing because of actions of some. To me, that's like banning priest, cop, doctors, any profession that has had some people doing horrible things. And I do think racing needs to be more strictly regulated, and major improvements, but not ended. However, that's just my thoughts on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dad2paisley on Nov 9, 2005 16:49:37 GMT -5
Great discussions everyone ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by hounddog on Nov 10, 2005 7:09:57 GMT -5
The problem comes in because these dogs are individually owned. And every dog owner has the right to put their dog down, regardless of whether it's a greyhound or not. Maybe the NGA could bar membership for people who put them down, but how to enforce it? on that I have no clue. It might take changing the law to prevent it but I don't see that happening. I still don't agree with banning racing because of actions of some. And I do think racing needs to be more strictly regulated, and major improvements, but not ended. However, that's just my thoughts on it. You touch on another major frustration I have with the greyhound racing industry. There is no reason in the year 2005 for an industry about 80 yrs. old to not have evolved organizationally to the point where they don't have one central governing/regulatory body that ties all of the segments together under one umbrella. Other industries not directly regulated by the federal government have them. They are called SRO's (Self Regulated Orgs.). SRO's mandate a set of standards and regulations that everyone within that industry is expected to adhere to. They can enforce and punish violators. They do not replace local law or jurisdictions but usually set a uniform, higher set of rules, ethical standards and expected integrity of members. The NGA is definitely not an SRO. I've reasoned why it has not developed to this point and I'm sure there are several factors. To some, I'm sure, the less anyone knows the better. True SRO's have to open themselves up to outside, independent oversight and monitoring. Being scrutinized by non-insiders may be a pill too large to swallow. If there is nothing to hide and shortcomings can be corrected in the process, that should be a good thing. Another reason is that there has been a lack of dynamic leadership from within that can unify the parts and move anyone towards constructive change. One thing is for sure. As the industry is structured today there is no way that it can effectively answer it's critics and even less of a way that it can compete in todays rapidly changing gambling world. |
|
|
|
Post by robinw on Nov 10, 2005 7:25:40 GMT -5
You mentioned that when racing people use the shelter vs greyhounds it sounds like an excuse. I can see how it could be taken that way and and for all I know it might be just an excuse for some. :P I think the frustration for me with this argument is that if there was ever a situation in the animal world that could be controlled and regulated, it is with the greyhound. I hate the thoughts of any animal being put down. But in the case of greyhounds since their numbers are for the most part controlled by an industry, it seems to me that this is one area where it could be irradicated. The shelter situation, as sad as it is, is a problem far harder to solve. Not that it is any less painful to see it happen. I can't tell you how many times I have heard the implication that greyhounds have it better than shelter animals. I agree with you about one thing, dvsgryhnd, shelter animals are "no less" valuable than greyhound. Prior to greyhounds, all of my pets had been shelter animals, and my cat was adopted from a shelter four years ago. But it seem s to me that if anybody has been using that excuse, it is peopel that support racing. houndsdog, as always, you posted very eloquently about how we have a special opportunity to help greyhounds because they could be regulated. Everybody knows there have been many improvements. But we also know that there is a long way to go, and that we won't stop trying to improve things until there is 1)% adoption of retiring dogs, and that there is certain criteria in place to determine what is not "adoptable". There has to be national regulation and some kind of provisions for retiring dogs from those who bred them and owned them, and perhaps from the racetracks/ We have a unique opportunity in that we know where these dogs come from. |
|
|
|
Post by dvsgryhnd on Nov 10, 2005 11:39:24 GMT -5
Another reason is that there has been a lack of dynamic leadership from within that can unify the parts and move anyone towards constructive change.
This might be one of the main reasons. There has been no one to step up and take that control. I think if Gary Guccione would step up and push for changes he might be able to do something. Too many in racing are more worried about competition to put aside their own differences to make new changes. And that is a shame.
You really have put a lot of thought into it. You've given me a lot to think about. Thanks for being so open and discussing it instead of just saying racing is bad and leaving it at that.
|
|
|
|
Post by dvsgryhnd on Nov 10, 2005 11:58:32 GMT -5
I just wanted to add a comment about why some in racing don't open up. Years ago, there was an adoption group coming to pick up dogs from several kennels. They were videotaping the dogs as we brought them out. I was helping another trainer get his dogs out. They taped a dog giving me a  , saying how sweet that was. Then asked the dogs name. I said I didn't know because I didn't work there so I asked the trainer. Well, the video ended up on the news saying that I didn't know the names of my dogs!! After that I learned to keep a low profile. I'm not the only trainer to have bad experiences when trying to open up to the outside world. |
|
|
|
Post by robinw on Nov 10, 2005 12:49:41 GMT -5
that is too bad that there you had bad experiences. it probably doesn't do much to bring people together. but that was such a long time ago.
i have to admit, one of my hounds, who was an 8.5 yo brood mama when i adopted her, was in excellent physical condition and had obviusly been well taken care of. she already loved kids and people. but she ran 219 races!!!!!!!! is that normal????????????? that just seems like it would be waayyyyyyyyy to many.
|
|
|
|
Post by CampWhippet on Nov 10, 2005 13:12:41 GMT -5
...........Thanks for being so open and discussing it instead of just saying racing is bad and leaving it at that. Yes, he is not like me at all! :( 8-) But I've just never seen the redeeming value of racing as it is done at the track. Having been around tracks for 20+ years already I don't think I will either. When I first became vocally opposed to racing I was told I should meet people in the industry and see if my opinion changes. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the next person I met was individuals and his band of cronies. So you can see why my opinion has soured even further. |
|
, saying how sweet that was. Then asked the dogs name. I said I didn't know because I didn't work there so I asked the trainer. Well, the video ended up on the news saying that I didn't know the names of my dogs!! After that I learned to keep a low profile. I'm not the only trainer to have bad experiences when trying to open up to the outside world. 
