Voters Look To Ban Dog Racing

Luck may have finally run out for Wonderland Greyhound Park, located near the final stop on the Blue Line, if a ballot question to ban dog racing in Massachusetts passes this November.

The proposal, sponsored by The Committee to Protect Dogs and driven largely by concerns about animal mistreatment, represents a rehash of a ballot question from the 2000 elections that sought to ban dog racing in the state. That initiative failed by a 51 to 49 percent margin.

A poll of likely voters conducted last week by Rasmussen Reports, a public opinion polling firm, indicated that 50 percent of Massachusetts voters intend to vote yes on the question, while 37 percent are opposed. If the question passes, the ban on dog racing would go into effect in 2010.

Greyhound racing has been a legalized industry in Massachusetts for over 70 years, but its popularity has declined substantially in recent decades. Only two tracks in the Commonwealth continue to feature greyhound racing—Wonderland Park in Revere, Mass. and Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park in Bristol County, which borders Rhode Island.

Supporters of the bill said that there were over 800 injuries of greyhounds at the two parks since 2006, including broken legs, paralysis, and even cardiac arrest.

“In the earlier part of the 20th century, people had different ideas about dogs,” said Christine Dorchak, co-chair of the Committee to Protect Dogs. “Today, dogs are our best friends. They are part of our family; they are not racing units stored in small cages that are let out only to run in circles.”

But opponents of the ban accused the committee of misstating the effects of greyhound racing and said that banning the industry would lead to a loss of jobs.

“These are gross exaggerations,” said Gary Guccione, spokesman for the American Greyhound Council, an industry trade group. “Anyone can go into the racing kennels and see their daily lifestyle, the schedule of what they do, the feed and the exercise.”

“The care that is administered to them is better than that of virtually any other animal,” he added.

Gary Temple, track manager of Raynham-Taunton, echoed similar sentiments. He said that of the 64,316 Massachusetts dog race starts in 2007, 99.8 percent of the dogs finished healthy and without injury.

“These people are really distorting and misleading voters,” Temple said. “I would never, ever work in an industry that mistreats animals at all. This measure would put over 1,000 hardworking families out of work, and with this national economy and Massachusetts in another deficit, where are people going to find work?”

Dorchak called the arguments used by the dog racing industry “bottom of the barrel attempts to confuse voters,” emphasizing that all data used by her group is documented by records and photos taken by the tracks themselves.

She said she believed the 2008 campaign would be successful because of the improved availability of data and the gradual phase-out of racing. The proposed ban that was on the ballot in 2000 would have banned racing immediately.

“The dog track owners will say whatever sounds good to defend their business; I will say what I believe which is to help dogs,” Dorchak said. “But we’re not asking voters to listen to either of us. The people of Massachusetts deserve to look at the evidence themselves and make an intelligent decision.”

—Staff writer Peter F. Zhu can be reached at pzhu@fas.harvard.edu.