Dog Races

[K9soul]

Ok in all honesty, I really wish it would become a leisure sport and not a money-making business because I think the fact that money and gambling is involved is what makes it, IN MY OPINION, have more potential for some owners to make the dollar their top priority to the detriment of their dogs. I feel the same about horse racing. Now where my education is limited is just how much money is typically involved in it, and how easy it is to "make it big" by having successful racers. I fully admit to being uneducated on that aspect.

From what I saw and experienced in my time around people in the conformation show world, the truly responsible breeders could not make a living off the breeding and raising of show dogs, the overhead in doing it properly was more than the sales they made, and the ones that seemed more responsible didn't seem to be breeding constantly. I did see breeding that seemed wholly bent on getting that perfect winning dog rather than on health, soundness and diverse bloodlines.

I don't know, I guess what I'm saying is personally I'd like to see it be more like flyball or agility, because if the money and business aspect of it was gone or at least muted, I feel the 'bad apples' would be less prone to get involved with it.

[aly]

Originally posted by sherpayluvsgreys
What I also find interesting is that when this same poll in conducted on a PET GREYHOUND forum, with members fairly well educated on the ins and outs of greyhound racing, the outcome is much different....

Of course it is different there. A lot of people there are involved in the racing industry and tell the others how great it is. (I am sure it IS great for your members because I'm sure they do it the right way and care for their dogs). Therefore, the members from the forum who don't know anything about it will tend to like it because they are only seeing the good side.

Some of us only see the bad side. Some see both sides. I don't know why it is automatically assumed that we don't know anything about it here. Not one person has ever denied that there is good in it. We have all acknowledged that.

All any of us can do is educate ourselves to the best of our ability and take BOTH sides with a grain of salt. It doesn't make someone ignorant or close-minded if they have a different opinion from your own (not directing this to you sherpayluvsgreys).

Yes, animal abuse occurs in all areas. How realisitic is it to say no one can own pets though? The amount of neglect and abuse towards animals makes me SICK and I do everything I can every day of my life to stop it. But it'd be a bit silly to say no one can own a pet. Why couldn't we take the gambling aspect out of Greyhound racing? That sounds much more realistic to me. Take out the profit to humans and make it solely a fun thing to do for the dogs. Stop mass-producing these puppies at the Greyhound farms and just run your own dogs at the races for the fun of it. After the race, take them home to your bed instead of to a kennel. It would most likely get rid of a lot of the bad apples who keep and race the Greyhounds solely for profit, not because they care if the dog is having fun or not.

[micki76]

I agree Jessica. You said what I've been trying to say, only much better!


To compare pet ownership with racing is comparing apples to oranges IMO, but I do get you're point.

Good post, Aly.

[guster girl]

Originally posted by aly


Yes, animal abuse occurs in all areas. How realisitic is it to say no one can own pets though?

I think he was just comparing GPL to PETA, which would like to make it so that no one can own pets, because they see it as only beneficial to the humans, not to the pet.

[K9soul]

Originally posted by sherpayluvsgreys
What I also find interesting is that when this same poll in conducted on a PET GREYHOUND forum, with members fairly well educated on the ins and outs of greyhound racing, the outcome is much different....

Oh, I also wanted to say here that I think even on a totally Pet Greyhound forum with no racing people as members, the poll would still have had more people say they were interested in going no matter their stance, because I think people are naturally more curious about their dog's heritage and background. I'm probably not stating this well, so I'll use an example. When I was younger one of my dogs was bred to be a show dog and even though previously I hadn't been interested as much in seeing a dog show, I became MUCH more interested when I had a dog who had shown and been bred to show.

Now I will admit that I did a better job in making sure I was educated on both sides of the situation once I had a "show dog", but a lot of people who have never been involved in showing or owned a show dog have some bad ideas about "show people" and I found, naturally, some of it was true.. more than I was comfortable with for sure, and of course there were showers who were also passionate about their dogs and made all their decisions based on the dog's best interest. I have mixed feelings on the show world, I wish some things about it could be more regulated. I think an inbred dog should not be allowed to be registered or shown for starters.

[aly]

Originally posted by guster girl
I think he was just comparing GPL to PETA, which would like to make it so that no one can own pets, because they see it as only beneficial to the humans, not to the pet.

I just don't see how the two can compare at ALL. Just because both have to do with animals doesn't make them comprable IMO.

[micki76]

Originally posted by guster girl
I think he was just comparing GPL to PETA, which would like to make it so that no one can own pets, because they see it as only beneficial to the humans, not to the pet.

I think think this may be what Aly was referring to.

Originally posted by jcsperson
(Remember my question above.) If one applied the same criteria to pet ownership that ARA groups apply to dog racing, that some abuse requires banning the sport, then some abuse of companion animals requires banning pet ownership.

[guster girl]

I dunno, I see the comparison. Comparing apples and oranges is still fruit. Just my opinion, though.

[sherpayluvsgreys]

Originally posted by aly
[B]Of course it is different there. A lot of people there are involved in the racing industry and tell the others how great it is. (I am sure it IS great for your members because I'm sure they do it the right way and care for their dogs). Therefore, the members from the forum who don't know anything about it will tend to like it because they are only seeing the good side.

Regardless of who is influencing who, the point is that the more educated one becomes on greyhound racing, the more accepting one tends to be.

Greytalk, up until fairly recently, was considered by the greyhound industry to be an anit-racing community. The vast majority of its members do not work within the industry. That's another board called Global Greyhounds.

[7up]

When you look at the GPL web site, this page is the one that says it all.

http://www.greyhounds.org/gpl/conten...ia_cases2.html

One can always point out that the media only reports sensationalism and that facts are not presented with precise accuracy. One can always take each case and argue the intricate details, point out the flaws, etc., etc. But no one can say these things did not happen. This is the history of the "bad side" of greyhound racing.

PETA has videos that can literally break your heart if you have the strength to watch them. I am level headed enough to realize that there can be more to these stories. That people have gone so far as to stage scenes and cause harm to animals for the pupose of filming a sad video. I would not know which one was true, unless I was right there at the time that it happened. I also do not assume all their videos and stories are valid or invalid, based on what I have heard about one.

I have only had the guts to watch two of their videos and all I can say is I wished I hadn't. If there were even the slightest chance that these things happened as they showed, it was well worth showing them. Regardless of what got those animals into their situations, I am grateful that someone cared enough to try and help get them out. What I saw was of no medical benefit to anyone. The animals were clearly being abused. It is not a difficult concept to believe. I feel that PETA's intentions were to help those animals by exposing this abuse and I am grateful that they were able to do so. One video disturbed me so much that I actually wrote PETA, to ask about the status. Their answer was factual and verifiable and did not include a request for money or anything else from me. I never heard from them again. I was actually quite impressed, considering what I have heard about them. That is my only experience with PETA.

I feel the same way about the folks who uncover the abuses in greyhound racing. Whether or not they sensationalize is not important to me. If half the stories on that page were due to outside pet owner abuse, it still would not make any of it okay. I am against any type of pet abuse and I have the same opinion about anyone who is responsible for it.

When people are accused of animal abuse, I am right in there with the rest, encouraging their punishment and calling for any type of restrictions that can be given to prevent them from doing it again. You could even call that pushing for abolishment of pet ownership. If there were an entity, a group or some type of industry that could be identified, I would want restrictions to be placed on that industry and if that were not possible, I would want to see it banned. Whatever is necessary to end the abuse is what I want to happen. And yes, I would also consider the feasability and the overall effects.

I don't want greyhound racing to be banned if it can exist without killing all these hounds. After spending a huge amount of time learning as much as I have, I have come to realize that it is a possibility. But I will never accept it the way it is without the acknowledgement that certain problems do in fact still exist (to a lesser degree) and I am more interested in what can be done to prevent future problems, than how much better things have already gotten. Yep, I still see the half empty glass, but it is filling up.

Greyhound racing has a ways to go before my overall opinion will change. I still think it sucks. I don't care about gambling. I care about greyhounds. I do what I can through adoption and could do even more if I got off my butt more often and I am glad that there are industry people who have the same good intentions and work toward the same goal. It is however, important to me that everyone else is given all the answers, the whole story, the good and the bad. Because without them, greyhound adoption would not be possible. I feel they have the right to know that there are many greyhounds who still don't make it into homes and there always will be a need for help.

Before anyone jumps in and calls that "pity", let me say this. I never pitied a greyhound. I wanted a dog who fit my lifestyle and looked first at the ones who were more in need. I have since made a valuable contribution to the greyhound adoption effort and it is because I learned from my greyhounds how much I love this wonderful breed.

Jay

[zaylagrey]

...And there's member's on Grey talk that are nuetral and anti-racing as well, mainly because they don't like the gambling aspect of it or they work in the adoption trenches and see dogs come in in horrible shape. Like I said before you got GPL on one side and the racing industry on the other and the truth lies somewhere in between.

[7up]

I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but there are also other greyhound message boards and the Greyhound-List that have a different ratio of pro vs. anti racing members/opinions.

GreyTalk is the one that the racing folks are concentrating most of their effort on.

Jay

[jcsperson]

Originally posted by aly
I don't know why it is automatically assumed that we don't know anything about it here. Not one person has ever denied that there is good in it. We have all acknowledged that.

I disagree. Go back and read some of the posts that used adjectives like "sick," "disgusting" and "inhumane" to describe greyhound racing.

[jcsperson]

Originally posted by 7up
I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but there are also other greyhound message boards and the Greyhound-List that have a different ratio of pro vs. anti racing members/opinions.

GreyTalk is the one that the racing folks are concentrating most of their effort on.

Their "effort," Jay?

You make it sound like a PR campaign---a concerted lobbying effort to spread propaganda and brainwash the masses.

What you are seeing is greyhound lovers of a different sort than you are used to seeing. GT people are finding out that racing people take cutesy pictures of their dogs, have little nicknames for them, and let them sleep in their beds.

We aren't hammer-wielding Neanderthals culling puppies for kicks as GPL likes to paint us.

[aly]

Originally posted by jcsperson
I disagree. Go back and read some of the posts that used adjectives like "sick," "disgusting" and "inhumane" to describe greyhound racing.

I am pretty sure almost everyone who used one of those adjectives has come back and acknowledged that there is good in racing, but they were disgusted with the bad Some of us did get carried away at first after the post saying that there was NO bad in it so stronger words may have been used.