Poll: Will Mass outlaw horse racing too?

[Glimmerglass]

As most people know Massachusetts voters approved a measure last week (http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=9317992) putting an end to greyhound racing in that State (by 2010) and thus forcing the closure of the two remaining tracks.

That ballot measure was the 2nd attempt (8 years prior the measure was soundly defeated by voters) by a well funded animal-rights group. With facts now airing as to the economic pain it will cause and relatively few upsides to anyone - including the dogs - the victory may not be the domino effect feared with horses next in the crosshairs.

It was measure that won by virtue of played emotions and it shows how American voters can be swayed by images or suggestions of a working life for animals.

Per the article above the measure actually won't benefit the greyhounds racing in the state muchThere are more than 2,000 racing dogs in Massachusetts owned by 336 individuals, 80% of whom live outside Massachusetts. Track owners say the dogs will likely end up racing at tracks outside Massachusetts.

The economics are obvious and the pain will be serious as pointed out in this article (http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081110/NEWS/811100308) with for example the loss of taxes to the tune of $400,000/year to the host town of Raynham, MA. A brief excerpt of that article as dog racing and horse racing both have the same challenges:

Track officials said the allegations of animal abuse simply aren't true.

"I've been here 17 years and never under my watch has there been any abuse of dogs," said Temple, the track manager, once an aide to former state Sen. William Q. "Biff" MacLean, D-Fairhaven. "We've been here 40 years and the MSPCA has never had a documented case of abuse.

"The average cost of a dog is $5,000 and we've got some here that cost $10,000 or $15,000," he said. "With that kind of an investment in a dog, do you think the owners are going to let them sit in a crate 20 hours a day? They need to be exercised.

"We have a 100 percent adoption rate. We keep a dog here until it is adopted out," he said.

Asked why dog racing was targeted but not horse racing, Temple said, "People don't have a horse that sleeps at the foot of their beds."

All that said - and with the "yes, we can" empowered feeling by the animal rights groups after victory with greyhounds - will there be a measure to outlaw horse racing next in Mass?

What do you think?

[DickHertz]

I tried to adopt and OTTG (am I allowed to abbreviate that?) about 8 years ago and the criteria to adopt was so strict I never tried to adopt again. The adoption company said I needed a five foot fence around my entire property, something I wasn't going to do for a six acre lot and 1/3 of it with wooden frontage.

[sprocket]

I believe horse racing will most definitly be a target in this state in the next few years. We own a riding stable in Massachusetts and have found that there are more rules and regulations that pretain just to the stable, lesson industry , some good , many buracratic. We presently have a stable ,trucking,dealer,instructor license and I can not remember what other licenses from the state to run our farm. With the issue of slaughter in the news on a regular basis, deaths of event horses and riders in the news and the general bad press people will vote to end racing, than other sport horse events will probably follow. One can say that it can not happen. A crazy example of what can happen in this statehappened this morning in the coffee shop. There is talk in the local coffee shops that those plowing snow in this state are going to have to wear a vest and hard hat this year while pushing snow. I see no end to some of this overregulation. So to those who think that racing and other aspects of the horse industry can not and will not be targeted, I disagree. This state just voted to make less than an ounce of pot a $100.00 fine, tell me what the next step there is, legal pot? Believe me times are such that anything can happen in Massacusetts. We as a horse industry, not just racing, have to be proactive to the issues being discussed by all especially, by ourselves on boards like these as we need to find solutions before others bring the issue to the public which well intentioned may not be as well informed. Kind of long for one who tends to lurk on these boards but an important issue. There was a time in this state where the different breed people did their own thing, we are a large industry and it would make sense for all to try to come togeather to address these issues in a united front before they become an issue.

[pegasusmom]

I tried to adopt and OTTG (am I allowed to abbreviate that?) about 8 years ago and the criteria to adopt was so strict I never tried to adopt again. The adoption company said I needed a five foot fence around my entire property, something I wasn't going to do for a six acre lot and 1/3 of it with wooden frontage.

What a pity you were put off. We currently have two OTTGs and they are bar none the best dogs we have ever owned. (and while we did have to file an application and go to the facility to adopt there was not the requirement for fencing that there used to be.) Different agencies have different requirements.

I don't want to get into an argument about racing greyhounds, but I can tell you that the industry has done one hell of a lot to clean up their image, to include voluntarily restricting/limiting the number of dogs bred each year and doing an awful lot more to promote "re-cycling" of retired racers. The most recent figure I saw was about 90% of all retired grey get recyled into pets.

And yes, I think horse racing in Massachusetts is at risk.

[Barnfairy]

Horse racing in Massachusetts has been at risk for quite some time.

Brockton, Marshfield, Northampton, Foxboro (harness)...no money, no support, all gone.

Suffolk has recently had something of a renewal at the hands of owner Richard Fields...but ultimately he is hoping to add a casino to the mix. Given that history (in MA) has shown it is not likely this will come to pass, looking down the road a few years, interest and funds could just as easily dwindle out and doom the last remaining track before anti-racing activists get the chance.

(So my vote is "other".)

[danceronice]

Oh, yeah. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but voters here apparently will vote for anything based on emotion, and now that they've gotten ZOMG THE POOR DOGGIES passed, next it will be ZOMG THE POOR HORSIES.

*goes back to filling out application for a Class A LTC before THAT gets outlawed, too*

[Glimmerglass]

Horse racing in Massachusetts has been at risk for quite some time.

...could just as easily dwindle out and doom the last remaining track before anti-racing activists get the chance.

That breaks my heart - as do the votes leaning towards presuming racing will succumb to the forces of the activists in Mass. The product at Suffolk is better today (and will continue to improve tomorrow) then it was five years ago. It is nothting like the old Western Mass Fairs which were crooked and while entertaining for a time were full of shenanigans harmful to horses.

Yet I too think that people can be swayed in this era to think that by banning something "here" and not seeing it they've suddenly fixed it. 'Out of sight, out mind' provides more warm fuzzies then actually taking a stand for something.

What sadly seems to have been most effective for the anti-greyhound racing people is plant the suggestion that somehow racing is equal to dog fighting. Exceedingly false and baseless yet it works to stir the emotions of voters.

Someone on one of the discussions linked to the dog racing ban topic made this point which is sadly true: it almost comes down to class warfare. The perception is that dog racing is barely a notch above cockroach racing seems to be pervasive. Those who watch, wager, are employed it, and support greyhound racing are uneducated, blue collar, nobodies who should've gotten a job and stopped exploiting these poor animals long ago.

I think it isn't without a stretch that the anti-horse racing people think they could also portray the horse racing community as the same. Running roughshod over the Southies who dare wager on the poor horses who are forced to run in sub 40-degree temps, trainers who should've gone to Harvard (exception to one trainer!) and made something more of themselves rather then take up a profession like forcing horses with a whip to go forward.

Yet ironically no one is complaining about the wagering as some kind of sin. They have no issue with another one-armed bandit going in despite it being stacked against the sucker putting a coin in the slot. Such a perverse 21st century we live in!

[Barnfairy]

The sport has its problems but for whatever reason I'm still drawn to it.

Personally I'm thrilled that the fairs are no more, but to lose Suffolk would break my heart too, Glimmer. There's a reason why I don't live in my homestate anymore.

I am convinced that question 3 (banning greyhound racing) passed because of one tv ad, in which a dog is shown in slow motion taking a tumble during a race, rolling over and over and over and over....

Advertising can make or break a thing. It takes a zillion positives to outweigh one negative image like that, especially for those unfamiliar with racing. I'm holding out hope that there is enough time for the positive PR coming out of Suffolk to take hold before the anti's get organized. (But just in case there isn't, you need to come visit us next season!!! And don't forget to bring Long Shot!)

[Drvmb1ggl3]

I am convinced that question 3 (banning greyhound racing) passed because of one tv ad, in which a dog is shown in slow motion taking a tumble during a race, rolling over and over and over and over....



Oh for the love of Holy St Imelda, people can't be that dumb, can they?
I guess it's a good thing the voters of MA weren't at the park with me and my retired racers this past Sunday (I've owned numerous OTTGs over the years, like horses, I'll always have hounds around having grown up with them) when in a fit of over exuberance in full flight the black bitch took a tumble and went through at least three head over heel revolutions before getting back on her feet and dusting herself off and rejoining the play with the others.
Maybe banning your dogs from galloping in the park will the next ballot initiative in MA .

Seriously, what was the rational for banning dog racing in MA? Was it really posited that dog racing is inherently cruel? If that really is the case, then there's little hope for horses. There's little in this world more natural, and more beautiful, than a greyhound in full flight.

[Barnfairy]

People are that impressionable, yes.

Question 3 (http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele08/ballot_questions_08/quest_3.htm)

The ad I'm thinking of, featuring the greyhound named Phylissassygirl, was excerpted from the following: Documented Cruelty at Massachusetts Dog Tracks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e74BTR9GkbI)

The slanted view is inevitable coming from people teetering that far to the left.

[JER]

Another WTF ballot initiative.

Wasn't this a previously-rejected initiative that turned into a bill that neither side of the Mass legislature acted on?

It's one thing to regulate an industry, it's another to just invite a few million people who don't know anything about it or its interests to vote on an industry's existence. Bad idea.

[danceronice]

Oh for the love of Holy St Imelda, people can't be that dumb, can they?
I guess it's a good thing the voters of MA weren't at the park with me and my retired racers this past Sunday (I've owned numerous OTTGs over the years, like horses, I'll always have hounds around having grown up with them) when in a fit of over exuberance in full flight the black bitch took a tumble and went through at least three head over heel revolutions before getting back on her feet and dusting herself off and rejoining the play with the others.
Maybe banning your dogs from galloping in the park will the next ballot initiative in MA .

Seriously, what was the rational for banning dog racing in MA? Was it really posited that dog racing is inherently cruel? If that really is the case, then there's little hope for horses. There's little in this world more natural, and more beautiful, than a greyhound in full flight.


Yes. People in Mass can be that dumb, are that dumb, and unfortunately, they vote. And yes, the justification was that it's cruel and abusive (and DEFINITELY the class-war sense of "only working-class illiterate losers work in/go to something like that.")

[I'm EBO]

The trouble with dog racing is that people have no idea that it has changed to the benefit of the dogs. I can't count how many pictures I've seen of a skin and bones greyhound bitch chained to a wall with a passel of puppies nursing her worn out body. I'll never forget the dozens and dozens of greyhound cadavers from the track in Loveland, CO, that we dissected in Anatomy 101 in college (they sold the bodies of their "retirees" to the university). With such visions imbedded in my mind, I could not support dog racing. Other people no doubt feel the same.

IF things have changed, why did the dog people not publicize the present situation?

There's a lesson there to be learned for horse racing people. Unless there's aggressive public relations and advertising of the positive changes, you'll never overcome the public's horror at seeing just one breakdown on any given televised race meet, or the photos of frightened horses crammed into a double decker headed for Mexico. People do vote according to their emotions. If you know that, then you know what tack your publicity should take.

The money may be provided bythe bettors and the slots, but there are more horse* fans who vote than there are gamblers who play.

*Not necessarily racing fans, but horse fans, to whom the horses' welfare is of utmost importance. I didn't vote because I don't know what the racing industry is going to do about its image.

[SleepyFox]

IF things have changed, why did the dog people not publicize the present situation?

This is just a guess, b/c I really don't know much about dog racing. But, my guess is that the dog people DID try to show the reality and they were drowned out by the AR groups and others. Look at what happens on this BB - somebody comes and starts complaining about horse racing, those of us involved in the sport try to tell the truth and we're shot down as "turning a blind eye" or "not caring about horses." And, eventually the defenders get tired and go away leaving only the attackers to talk amongst themselves.

[I'm EBO]

........Look at what happens on this BB - somebody comes and starts complaining about horse racing, those of us involved in the sport try to tell the truth and we're shot down as "turning a blind eye" or "not caring about horses."

Sleepy, what I see when people comment here about horse racing's problems is that those in the industy circle the wagons and say...."You guys don't understand the business." That may be true, but we do understand what a kill auction is, and know that too many ottbs end up in one.

I think what Suffolk has done is wonderful. I think Mountaineer should be burned to the ground--after removing the horses; let the management fend for herself.

IF the industry does get rid of the unscrupulous trainers & owners, if the industry finds a way to provide for 95% of the horses who don't make it at the track, if some way is found to limit the horrible breakdowns, AND you repeatedly tell the public about your successes, horse racing will continue. If it's business as usual, with only a few of the tracks following the example of Suffolk, then horse racing will probably fold.

[Glimmerglass]

Thanks for folks participating on this.

It is an eye opener that people here, who are far more informed then most with horses, believe that eventually horse racing will cease in MA not because of the economics but rather from the legislation.

Hopefully not!

[Glimmerglass]

Looks like New Hampshire is next to lose greyhound (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+DiStaso's+Granite+Statu s%3A+Greyhound+racing+in+NH+facing+uncertain+futur e&articleId=30fbe953-10f7-4b92-83c7-68c98199134f) racing which means Rockingham Park (http://www.rockinghampark.com/index.html) and the thoroughbreds will be next ... err wait, they don't have TB racking there any more do they?

False alarm equine anti-racing activits - you can put down those pitchforks (http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e289/doctor_roxtar/mob1.jpg) and burning torches!

Interesting how there is a twist to the activists way of manipulation of the laws - they will push for it to remain "ok" to watch greyhound racing not live but simulcasted. Essentially "racing is fine in another state - not here". Insane as they'll just squeeze the tracks with live racing next!

A group of legislators and community activists, backed by the national Grey2KUSA group, are once again mounting an effort to banish greyhound racing from the state. The decision to go ahead with a big effort was made during a meeting of proponents on Monday.

It will be their second try in three years, but there's a twist this time, and it may make all the difference.

Unlike an unsuccessful 2007 bill, the 2009 Greyhound Protection Act would only eliminate live racing. It would allow the greyhound tracks at Hinsdale, Seabrook and Belmont to continue to simulcast greyhound and horse racing from other tracks across the country. They'd essentially be turned into off-track betting facilities, as they are most of the year anyway. But they would not have to shut down.

[Barnfairy]

Rockingham (http://www.rockinghampark.com/) switched to harness racing in 2003.

A highly disturbing trend this is.

USAGPJumper, might I remind you that there are both true horsemen who do well by their horses as well as unscrupulous bastards who condition through chemicals and work horses into the ground not only at every track, but in every discipline (GP Jumping included.) For that reason, banning the whole sport is not the solution. Should anti's eventually win out and ban racing nationally, it would effectively force the unsavory characters to carry on underground in bush leagues...talk about a welfare nightmare; try enforcing regulation and reform on that level. It would be about as successful a solution as prohibition. Once racing is gone: eventing, foxhunting, rodeo...all the next targets.

I follow the season at Suffolk fairly closely: 5 days between races is pretty rare occurance, and not a big deal for a fit animal. 10 days between is common practice for claiming ranks; many trainers keep their horses fit through racing, where there's a chance of picking up a check, rather than workouts.

In contrast, some people event their horses every weekend or foxhunt twice a week. OMG!

[Glimmerglass]

Once racing is gone: eventing, foxhunting, rodeo...all the next targets.

Sadly this will be the future of horse racing if the real deal is lost (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/gallopracer2006/index.html) - and horses out of work with about as much relevance in modern society as the telex or typing pool has become.

[Barnfairy]

Barnfairy, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I understand 10 days between races for the $4-5,000. claiming ranks at Suffolk Downs is common practice but that doesn't make it right and it's not true that it's common for claiming ranks in general. If our horses drop down to a claiming race (which would be unusual) it's at the $40-50,000 level. We, and any good horsemen I know, afford our horses at least 4-6 weeks between entries at any level. We all have a responsibility to give horses the best care we can. I sponsor a Thoroughbred retirement farm in New Hampshire that's received four horses from Suffolk Downs this fall. The two vets that have evaluated them are both appalled with the injuries some of them were running on. That's not good horse racing... That's bleeding the life out of a horse that should have been retired.To be clear, 10 to 14 days between races at the lower ranks is standard fare everywhere, not just at Suffolk. I'm not a huge fan of the claiming system as it stands; all too often the horses are considered disposable and fall through the cracks. But closing Suffolk isn't going to bring change to that. We must keep pushing for reform across the board. Yes, racing does have a lot of cleaning up to do.

Great that you are able to afford higher quality horses. As you know, proper conditioning involves more than adequate rest. Should your horses do nothing but walk during those 4-6 weeks in between, they wouldn't be very well prepared come race day.

Thank you for helping to sponsor some Suffolk alums. I too have seen some horrifying injuries. I spent a good deal of last summer cleaning up the completely preventable mess someone made of one sad soul whose connections I'd personally like to strangle. But I don't condemn the whole lot based on a few bad eggs. I've also seen the good, have met and worked for some wonderful people within the industry, and will not sit here idly and let someone lump them in with the bottom feeders.

[Barnfairy]

By bottom feeder I was referring to the kind of scum who have no regard for their horses, not the class of horses themselves, but for the record, Suffolk is a mid-level track.

As I have stated elsewhere, the zero tolerance policy is not without fault, but to call it "weak"? 'Way off base.

The guards aren't the only ones with eyes looking out for where the horses are headed.

[AppJumpr08]

Suffolk and the folks who are keeping an eye out for the horses are doing far more work then many tracks around the country for the horses' welfare, and I find it offensive to say that their effort is "weak".
There are always things that need to be tweaked and made better, but Suffolk is doing a hell of a lot more then they are required to. There have been several horses this year that they have gone looking for, and pulled out of kill pens at 2 separate auctions. If everyone was "weak" those horses would've just slipped through the cracks.

I'm not sure I understand what the good is in saying that you were able to drive right past security - if you are so invested in making sure that things are done by the book, why would you knowingly leave without filling out the paperwork in the security office? Just because they wern't doing their jobs doesn't mean you couldn't have done the responsible thing. How do you know that someone didn't spend valuable time trying to track down the horse that you took without signing it out?

It takes support from all sides. Not just from track staff.

[Glimmerglass]

While I'm at it, I might as well mention Suffolk's No-slaughter policy; It's weak. Five Suffolk horses were recently found at New Holland on their way to slaughter. You can be sure those aren't the only cast-offs . The Mass. HBPA and Suffolk apparently split the cost to purchase the five and the TRF is paying to provide for them for the rest of their lives.

I'd dare say its the toughest in the nation at the moment by virtue of being backed up by actions. They're doing the right thing and I think everyone will agree that it is a great start. Not perfect but it advanced the ball when no other track in the nation was doing the same.

Without getting into some pitched battle I would suggest looking a bit closer at the many articles shared on this BB and elsewhere that explains in detail what transpired. No track is able to ensure the absolute welfare of every horse that is taken off the grounds. I don't even care if its Saratoga - a safety net like that what should be strived for but will never be achieved.

The persons tied to those horses who went directly from the track to New Holland have been banned from the track. The track paid for a portion of the horses to be shipped out of New Holland. That is far more then most any other track would do.

[chism]

Yes. People in Mass can be that dumb, are that dumb, and unfortunately, they vote. And yes, the justification was that it's cruel and abusive (and DEFINITELY the class-war sense of "only working-class illiterate losers work in/go to something like that.")

Yes, it's true. The same thing happened about 10 years ago with trapping. Now all over the state people have to deal with their backyards & business flooded by beavers and you can't touch them or their handiwork. I agree...it's all about the advertising, they're targeting the warm/fuzzy place & people with no real knowledge of the whole issue are voting with their hearts & not with the facts. It could definitely happen with horse racing here & I have mixed feelings about that.

[Bluey]

This is just a guess, b/c I really don't know much about dog racing. But, my guess is that the dog people DID try to show the reality and they were drowned out by the AR groups and others. Look at what happens on this BB - somebody comes and starts complaining about horse racing, those of us involved in the sport try to tell the truth and we're shot down as "turning a blind eye" or "not caring about horses." And, eventually the defenders get tired and go away leaving only the attackers to talk amongst themselves.

I agree somewhat that this "racing" forum is not really much about racing, but about people that want to bash racing, especially some rescue people, that really don't have any idea of what racing is all about.:no:

Just like with slaughter, where they show ONE video of someone abusing a horse thru that system, from the hundreds of thousands that go thru it and the house is falling down.
The same with racing, eventing, hunting, anything we do.
Some loud people don't have enough sense to fight abuse itself when it happens and work to improve on what we have. Not enough glory in that, maybe.
They seem to have to throw the baby out with the bathwater and ban it all.:confused:

The question if racing is next to greyhound racing on the sights of the animal rights followers is not the right one, because racing IS and has for some years now already been "next", have we not noticed it yet?

All of us that want to keep using horses will fall to the divide and conquer tactics of animal rights fanatics.
So be it, but it is sad.:(

[SleepyFox]

Barnfairy, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I understand 10 days between races for the $4-5,000. claiming ranks at Suffolk Downs is common practice but that doesn't make it right and it's not true that it's common for claiming ranks in general. If our horses drop down to a claiming race (which would be unusual) it's at the $40-50,000 level. We, and any good horsemen I know, afford our horses at least 4-6 weeks between entries at any level.

Any good horsemen I know realize that the optimum time between races is dependent on the individual horse and it's circumstances at the time. And that's at ANY level.