The Roots of Adoption - Why "Rescue" Is An Offensive Word in Greyhounds

By Dennis McKeon

I'm one of the more pro-greyhound and pro-racing done well people in the world. Mostly because when I worked in racing I saw far more good than bad. I also worked in racing when adoption, as a formal rite of passage for a retiring greyhound, was actually begun. It was begun by racing people, as early as the late 70s. Trainer, owners, breeders and track operators. The track in Seabrook, NH was the first to have an on-premises adoption kennel, circa 1980.

At that time it would have been appropriate and fair enough to have called those early adoption facilities and groups "rescues" or even "rescuers". It was a time when greyhound racing was zooming in popularity and expanding dramatically, as was the once quite small greyhound population.

In FL and NE, where most of that racing population was centered, racing people were trying to initiate and popularize the adoption concept and to educate people about the breed. It was also a time when many breeders used to course young greyhounds in training to be racers, after live game, like jackrabbits--which were pests to farmers, and whose natural predators were diminished in our ever expanding development. The anti-racing movement at the time was trying to have the use of live jackrabbits banned in the training of greyhounds. Their main argument was that the practice was cruel---which was an arguable point. The way they framed the argument, was to insist that the practice caused the greyhounds to be inclined to unpredictable bouts of bloodlust and savagery, because, as they assured the unquestioning media and the uniformed public, they were "trained to kill!!!!!"

So the greyhounds not only needed to be "rescued" from an old culture which saw no evil in simply perceiving animals as having a purpose, and once they no longer served that purpose, disposing of them in a humane manner. But the greyhound breed had to be "rescued" from the appalling amounts of mis and dis-information that the anti-racing activists were spewing. That was equally as challenging.

Fast forward to today, and most greyhound professionals have embraced the adoption concept. In most cases, retired greyhounds are willingly given to those whose calling in life has been to provide this charitable work. These good people, whatever their feelings about the sport/business of greyhound racing, have managed to sublimate them to the greater good of re-homing retired greyhounds. No one forces anyone to give them greyhounds, and no one forces them to take them. They don't have to break and enter into the kennels to sneak dogs away from an uncertain fate, nor does anyone have to covertly bring the greyhounds to them, under cover of darkness and secrecy. The process of adoption, in the normal course of events, is all done above board and at will, and is standard operating procedure.

So, the word rescue, used as a bludgeon against people whose jobs also entail making sure they can find a timely placement in adoption for greyhounds in their charge, many of whom they have known for years, and were not going to be placed in danger in the first place, is repulsive to them. I think it's understandable.

Were anyone forcing anyone into anything, in the greater scheme of adoption, the word might be more appropriate. When it is used without malice or prejudice, as a mere semantic convenience, greyhound folks should realize that it is in their best interest to either give it a pass, or to calmly inform the individual, who might be entirely unaware of your role in all of this, that it offends you and that it continues to promote a very negative stereotype, that began back in the late 1970s--- when demonizing those in racing, as well as the greyhound breed, was the fast track to banning the use of live jackrabbits in early greyhound training protocols. Sadly, though the endgame has changed for some, their tactics remain the same, and to them, rescue is a buzzword used to promote prejudice and discord.