ACTION ALERTS

The group that wants to ban greyhound racing across the country doesn't have this officially as its motto — "by any means necessary" — but it fits as well as any.

Five years ago, Grey2KUSA ran a dishonest advertising campaign that failed to convince voters to ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts. Now it is back with a new referendum attempt that is just as brazen and disingenuous. It is trying to collect enough signatures to put a question on the ballot for next fall that would increase penalties for abusing police and Seeing-eye dogs, sanction breeders of fighting dogs and also end dog racing in the state. What does abusing Seeing-eye dogs have to do with greyhound racing? Absolutely nothing, but Grey2KUSA can't get racing banned with an honest question, so it has resorted to tugging at people's heartstrings.

That is much like it did in 2000 when it presented advertisements showing emaciated and abused greyhounds in an effort to ban racing at the state's two dog tracks in Raynham and Revere. But Grey2KUSA never told people that the pictures were not taken in Massachusetts and that there was no evidence of any greyhound abuse at tracks in this state. Not long after its referendum failed, the group lobbied the Legislature to ban all dog and horse simulcasting, which would have put every track out of business.

If Grey2KUSA manages to collect 66,000 signatures for its referendum, Attorney General Thomas Reilly should not allow it on the ballot. There is no justification for mixing entirely different issues into one question. Dog racing has nothing to do with breeding attack dogs or police dogs being abused. Linking them for a single up or down vote on the ballot is no different from asking voters if they want to prevent child abuse and, at the same time, prevent Macy's from merging with Filene's.

Grey2KUSA is attempting to put hundreds of hard-working people out of work and cost the state millions of dollars in taxes because it thinks it knows what is right for people in Massachusetts. But because its primary goal — to shut down the racetracks — cannot be achieved by legitimate means, it is cynically trying to manipulate voters.

Letters to the Editor

By Martin Roper / Letter to the Editor

Echo Online, Eastern Michigan University

MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2005

Lynn Kargol's op-ed piece on greyhound racing raises serious questions about her first-hand experience with the subject. It's filled with so many fallacies that it's evident -- despite the fact that she invites us on an imaginary tour of a kennel -- that she's never been in one herself.

She maintains that the crates are made of wood when every one I've ever seen has been metal and are more spacious than she describes. Greyhounds are fed three pounds of food or more daily, triple what my pet greys eat. How is it that racers can build muscle and weigh less than my pets if they are kept in crates all day? The reality is they are exercised regularly to maintain the conditioning and muscle-tone required of athletes.

I'm sure too, that she is unaware that "4D" meat is what is contained in commercial pet food, including premium brands.

Further, Greyhounds are not over-bred. The laws of supply and demand require that only enough greyhounds be whelped to supply the needs of the tracks. If too many dogs are bred then money is lost raising dogs that will have no place to race.

26,000 racing greyhounds are bred annually, according to The National Greyound Association's magazine, Greyhound Review. Most estimates of adoptions range between 18,000 and 20,000, according to a variety of sources, including The National Greyhound Association, The Greyhound Project and Greyhound Pets of America. 5,000 are returned to their owners as pets or for breeding, and this statistic comes directly from NGA records provided by its director, Gary Guccione. No math can create 20,000 greyhounds killed per year as Kargol claims. I invite readers to download the video "Born To Run" at www.borntorun.tv. See if there are wooden crates or the conditions she describes.

More important than any statistic or source, I've actually visited greyhound farms, kennels and tracks. It's clear Ms. Kargol has not or she wouldn't simply repeat the mythology printed by others. It might interest you to know I started out anti-racing. I belonged to a virulently AR adoption group that actually published that 60,000 greyhounds were put down every year, more than the entire living population of active racing greyhounds. Instead of merely believing their anecdotal stories, I visited the places I was told would be a living hell for animals. What I saw was quite the opposite and changed my opinion of racing.

Is this the "new age" of journalism where one never has to leave the confines of the newsroom? Simply surf the net for the information that fits one's needs? Interviewing real human beings, visiting real places and seeing real things must be passe, "old school." God help us.