Below is a response to a very well thought out anti-racing post, and some of the less well reasoned responses, which I cannot post to the thread in question. It is seldom that we who are racing proponents read a post as pithy and as well expressed as the original one, by Xan. Most of these type commentaries are filled with hateful, judgmental and often inaccurate, negative stereotypes and broad-brushed accusations and condemnations. Racing is certainly not everyones cup of tea. But in light of the original post, and some of the responses here, in the spirit of sharing perspective, information and in setting the history straight, a few things need to be said. The formal adoption process was begun by racing professionals. This was circa 1979, when Ed Keelan, the GM at the Seabrook NH racetrack, began an onsite adoption facility in concert with the Seabrook kennel and training community, who staffed the operation. Joan Dillon, the original adoption pioneer in MA, and a racing greyhound owner, alludes to this Seabrook adoption facility in a letter to Tunrnout Magazine in early 1981, which was published by the New England Greyhound Association (of breeders and kennel owners). Turnout Magazine began publication in 1979, and featured a monthly article by Gee Lebon, who was an adoption pioneer in Great Britain, and who wrote informative essays about adopting greyhounds and re-habituating them to traditional home life afterwards. Joan Dillon was to soon begin the first REGAP in New England, after Ron Walsek, a track trainer, had already begun the first REGAP in FL. These seminal adoption groups were to become the template for all future adoption groups. Meanwhile, onsite adoption facilities soon emerged at the tracks in Hinsdale, NH and Plainfield, CT. While this was taking place, the anti-racing activists of the era, were waging a campaign to have the coursing of live jackrabbits outlawed. This was in a time before the techniques of artificial lure training as a sole means race-training protocol, were yet to evolve. Did you ever wonder why so many people who have little or no knowledge of the greyhound, believe that they are vicious, and that is why they wear those muzzles? That began, as a matter of popular legend, with the Jackrabbit Advocacy of the anti-racing movement, who mischaracterized the effects of coursing, and contended that being trained on live game made the greyhound breed bloodthirsty, vicious and unreliable, and therefore, unsuitable as pets. The jackrabbit controversy raged on through the latter 1980s, to much media and public ballyhoo, and finally resulted in prohibition of live game training in some states. There was, however, a price to be paid. And that price was paid by the greyhounds, and by those early adoption advocates, whose significant efforts at popularizing the greyhound as a desirable family pet, were substantially undermined by the outrageous propaganda of that Jackrabbit Advocacy. As a friend and as someone who raised a few greyhounds for Joan Dillon, I was a first person witness to all of this, and to the devastating effect that the misinformation promoted by anti-racing jackrabbit advocates had upon the public perception of greyhounds at the time. As well as to its effect upon the fledgling adoption community, which had just begun to gather some momentum in its public outreach, and to make inroads to other racetracks and within other racing communities in the East. I would make a rough guess that it set the concept of comprehensive, formal adoption back, about a decade. It was one thing to change the culture within racing, but an entirely different can of peaches to undo the damage that had been done by the shameful and fallicious mischaracterization of the greyhound himself, by outside agitators. Now, in regards to greyhound owners supporting adoption, as far as I am aware, every kennel is assessed a percentage of the monies which are alloted to the purses that the greyhounds race for, which goes to adoption. The racetracks themselves are also assessed a stipend from their revenues to support adoption. However, there are 3 partners in the racing equation, whose monies are derived from the wagering handle.The state is the 3rd partner. They get a free pass on supporting adoption. They also derive, in most cases and traditionally, the largest percentage of revenue from the wagering on racing, with the least investment, and moreover, they can and do tax not only the wagering handle and the payoffs, but also the purse winnings of the kennels and owners, and the incomes of everyone who works at the racetracks. Fact: the whelping statistics from the last several years, indicate that US breeders are birthing only about 10K-11K NGA greyhounds each year. Whelpings are down about 72% since 1988, and down about 60% since the year 2000. This means that there can not possibly be more than 7000 retiring greyhounds each year, and making an educated speculation, I reckon that number is probably closer to 5000. In either case, we have a manageable number. Like most of you, I would prefer to see greyhound owners bear the full cost of all adoption and rehoming expenses. So lets take a look at that. At the rate of having only 5000 retirees to account for per year, and using the conservative figure of $250 per retiree, we are looking at a yearly base expenditure of $1.25 million dollars per year. There are about 1,200 members in the NGA, many of whom, in this dreadful economy and in the more dreadful gambling entertainment economy, are marginal operators. Still, with a yearly levy amounting to about the price of a stud fee for a top sire, per NGA member, that base of $1.25 million could be mostly accounted for. Legislating that through the NGA will not be easy, given the status quo. So, if you are truly committed to that level of responsibility becoming a bylaw and an actuality, then my suggestion to you is to join the NGA, and work to have it, or something like it, adopted and mandated. There is nothing stopping any of us from doing that. Meanwhile, adoption, or rescue, or whatever you wish to call it, has always been a labor of love and a sometimes thankless, charitable endeavor. It was for the original racing professionals who began it, and it remains so today, for the thousands of adoption volunteers who serve the racing greyhound. It is that way throughout the thousands of shelters that attempt to deal with our national disgrace of pet disposability, as well as with the thousands of breed rescues, none of which, to my knowledge, are entirely or significantly funded by the AKC. I dont know how many people reading here realize that the NGA greyhound we have come to know, love and embrace, has adapted entirely, for nearly a century now, to the inputs and feedbacks of track racing. If you go back and research pedigrees, you will see that there are certain greyhounds and families of them (from 46 female families and counting), a very small percentage of the breeding populations of their era, who proved to be capable of making the adjustment from coursing to track racing. These greyhounds were exceptional, stalwart individuals, with the skills and cunning not only to course brilliantly after live game, but with the intelligence, derring-do, spririt and courage to master and conquer track racing as well. These are the ancients who live on through the greyhounds we see dreamily ensconced by the hundreds of thousands on sofas today, and whose character and the otherworldly athletic exploits those ancients engendered, are on display nightly, preserved in their modern incarnation, for you, by our remaining American racetracks. Now you dont have to like that, or support it. You dont have to understand the importance of selectivity in breeding, or the need to have an objective method of evaluating the best breeding specimens of an era and of a population. But you should respect it. Its what has forged and preserved the greyhounds we know today, right on down to the zygote. If one believes that an individual greyhound is all important, as a unique, living, feeling entity, then one must also realize that you cannot disconnect that individual from the population, the individuals, the unique inputs and the testing feedbacks that engendered him---the how and from where he emerged. Be careful what you wish for.
Posted on: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:02:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015