Life After Racing, Part 4

By Leslie A. Wootten

Several years ago I was driving home from work. The words I was about to hear had such an impact on me I remember exactly where I was, Grand Avenue and 19th. Rumor had spread that Tucson Greyhound Park might shut down. I was on the phone with a person in a nearby state that had high connections with a 3 letter “advocacy” organization.

When I mentioned that the adoption groups may not be able to get all the dogs, this person just blurted out, “won’t that be fabulous”? I said “What” dogs will die, and her comeback was “but won’t that be fabulous – no more racing”. I replied with “that is sick, dogs will die and you are happy to have dogs die to end racing”?

Today groups like GREY2K USA in my opinion have the same mentality, they really don’t care what havoc they wreck, just as long as they have an opportunity to collect money off an unsuspecting public which gives the Executive Director and his wife the President an opportunity to personally benefit in the name of the greyhounds.

I believe GREY2K does care about the South American dogs, but only in the sense that they will eventually use them as an avenue to collect money. Hey we need to write bills and lobby to save these South American dogs send us money.

Has GRE2YK in essence created another cash grab opportunity in the future by remaining silent about the South American greyhounds for over a year now and doing little about its friends?

Behind Grey2K
The truth about Grey2K is that President Christine Dorchak and her husband, Cary Theil, Executive Director, make a living off Greyhound racing as they work politically to shut it down. In this tough economic climate, their incomes are secure. Unfortunately, their political triumphs don’t just put Greyhounds out of work, and possibly at risk, but also hundreds of racetrack employees, kennel managers, and trainers, many of whom end up in unemployment lines. Grey2K’s purported concern for the welfare of Greyhounds is questionable when Dorchak and Theil are the only ones going home with paychecks.

Grey2K’s financial strength comes primarily from the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) and Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCAs). Both HSUS and SPCAs are extremely wealthy “animal advocacy” organizations. Like Grey2K, HSUS is a political machine. According to “Humane Watch,” HSUS is not affiliated with any hands-on “humane society” organizations, and it doesn’t operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility anywhere. During 2008, HSUS contributed less than one-half of one percent of its budget in grants to dog and cat shelters. In 2009, the contribution went up somewhat, but still hovered under one percent.

Historically, HSUS and SPCA advocacy claims have been questionable. Joan Dillon’s article, “The Greyhound Adoption Movement: Changing an Image,” offers reasons why. She cites an October 1980 article by Sandra Rappaport in Animals, a magazine published by the Massachusetts Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA), which states, “Although they are friendly to people, racing greyhounds seldom make good pets. Training has ruined their tolerance for everyday life with people or other animals.” Rappaport went on to quote an MSPCA official who stated, “No one wants a burned-out greyhound when there are so many other dogs to choose from.”

Dillon’s article points out that prior to the early 1980s, “animal advocacy” groups opposed placement of Greyhounds as pets because they believed them to be vicious dogs, unsuitable for domestic life. In 1981, Seabrook Greyhound Park in New Hampshire proved otherwise when it began the first wide-scale movement to promote Greyhounds as pets. Adoption expanded with the 1982 creation of GPA’s precursor, Retired Greyhounds as Pets (REGAP) in Florida.

Nevertheless, HSUS President John Hoyt supported the humane destruction of retired racing Greyhounds as late as 1983. In an interview with Turnout Magazine, Hoyt remarked,” I don’t think the humane movement would be quick to condemn the humane destruction of these greyhounds … we would rather see them humanely destroyed than to see someone attempt to perpetuate them on a farm for retired greyhounds for years and years to come.”

For many years, HSUS, ASPCA and affiliates, have been the major money and power fueling Grey2K. In fact, while Grey2K is the rhetorical face of anti-racing advocacy, its benefactors pull strings behind the scenes. Financial records for HSUS reflect that it donated $400,000 to Grey2K’s political action arm, “Committee to Protect Dogs” (CPD) during 2007 and 2008. Massachusetts campaign and political finance records reflect that the MSPCA donated $26,000 and Grey2K donated $98,000 to the lobbying arm in 2008. ASPCA records reflect that in 2010, it donated $25,000 to Grey2K’s education efforts. During 2009 (as in all years), virtually all of Grey2K’s $347,000 revenue went directly or indirectly into anti-racing lobby efforts, with $89,000 lining the personal pockets of Dorchak and Theil in salary and benefits. The bottom line remains steady: Greyhounds themselves get lost in all but the rhetoric as these political entities posture and jive, looking pretty.

Recent examples of HSUS and ASPCA anti-racing support for Grey2K are apparent in their sponsorship of “lobbying” seminars in Arizona, Iowa, and Florida where bills to end live racing have been introduced this year (2011). On the Grey2K website, Dorchak posted an invitation to, “Join me in Phoenix to lobby for the Greyhounds.” I sent an email to her indicating I would like to attend the seminar, but I received the following message: “The event on the 17th is an opportunity for the volunteers who want to end greyhound racing to work together. I have spoken with the sponsor and she has made it clear that this is not an event for racing proponents, nor is it a media event.” To point out why I was unwelcome, she included a link to my website, which reflects that I am an historian of Greyhound Racing. She also posted a link to a comment I posted in 2009 on a Global Greyhounds’ discussion forum in which I praised a well-articulated rebuttal to an opinion piece written by a Grey2K volunteer.

Of interest is that HSUS and ASPCA are apparently choosing to hide behind a smokescreen these days, despite their well-known anti-racing support of Grey2K. In a recent Associated Press article by Sue Manning, “Ride of His Life: Activists Target Sled Rides after Dog Deaths,” HSUS indicated that it “doesn’t have an official position on racing for sport or recreation, just that it be humane to animals.” In the same article, ASPCA is cited as not opposing racing, but that it does oppose, “Any and all cruel practices involved in the sport of racing dogs, horses, or other animals, whether for speed, endurance or both, on tracks, trails or snow.”

The American Greyhound Council takes the two groups to task for these comments, suggesting they admit their radical agendas instead of hiding behind the Grey2K curtain. “Our message to these organizations is simple,” AGC Communications Coordinator, Gary Guccione, wrote in a February 14, 2011 communiqué. “If you believe your position on Greyhound racing is right, then own it. Admit that you’re opposed to dog racing, horse racing, animal agriculture, biomedical research, zoos, circuses, fishing and hunting. Tell the truth.”

Tell the truth, indeed. The public deserves to know the reality behind the façade.