GAR Responds to Fake News
Response of Greyhound Adopters for Racing to Protect Dogs’s Statement Against Greyhound Adopters
Within hours of Greyhound Adopters for Racing’s announcing its formation last Friday, July 13, the “Protect Dogs” organization issued a statement against our organization, falsely claiming that we are an “industry front group.” The “Protect Dogs” statement was laughable in its dishonesty.
For the record: Greyhound Adopters for Racing is not a racing industry front group, in any way, shape or form. It was formed in early June of this year by two active Greyhound adoption volunteers, Jennifer Ng and John Parker. Dr. Ng and Mr. Parker have had no communication with the racing industry or with any racing organization about the formation of Greyhound Adopters for Racing, and no racing organization has had any input into the formulation of Greyhound Adopters for Racing’s mission or its message. Greyhound Adopters for Racing is completely independent of the racing industry, and intends to stay that way.
Our organization is distinguished from the “Protect Dogs” group in at least two ways. First, “Protect Dogs” is funded by two national extremist animal rights groups, HSUS and GREY2K USA, for which funding those two national groups control “Protect Dogs’” message. Greyhound Adopters for Racing is a true grassroots coalition of Greyhound adopters and adoption volunteers, is funded primarily by its membership, and receives no funds or direction from any national organizations. A review of the many testimonials of our members as to why they support Greyhound racing, at www.greyhoundadopters4racing.com/blogger, makes that clear.
Second, the name of our organization spells out exactly who we are and what our mission and message are — we are Greyhound Adopters for Racing. “Protect Dogs,” whose misleading name was apparently chosen on the basis of how the name polls with prospective donors, seemingly deals with some unnamed group of dogs in need in addition to Greyhounds. Perhaps they’re also looking to stop the euthanization of thousands of unwanted dogs annually in Florida animal shelters?
In support of their false “industry front” claim, “Protect Dogs” points to the fact that several of the officers of Greyhound Adopters for Racing have in the past owned an active racer. This is a good example of how out of touch “Protect Dogs” is with the Greyhound adoption community and its views about racing. In recent years, a number of Greyhound adoption volunteers have acquired racers as puppies on a hobby basis to see how Greyhound racing works from the inside and to enjoy following their own racer in its racing career. Most of these adopter-owned racers go to live with their owners as pets at the end of their racing careers, while others are rehomed through the adoption group that their owners volunteer for.
In its ham-handed attempt to discredit Greyhound Adopters for Racing and its adopter members, “Protect Dogs” made a number of false statements. For example, they state that our Board member Joee Kam “owned a racing Greyhound” named Twisted Myth. That Greyhound was flunked out of racing training and was adopted by Joee at a time when Joee held an anti-racing view. “Protect Dogs” also states that our Vice President, John Parker, “owned a racing Greyhound” named Queen’s Piper. In fact, Queen’s Piper was a coursing-bred Greyhound from England adopted by John from her breeder/owner after her career was over. “Protect Dogs” also conveniently failed to mention that John hasn’t held a racing owner’s license in over 16 years. These false or misleading statements are typical of the way in which “Protect Dogs” and the anti-racing lobby carries out its dishonest advocacy. (More about our officers and their experience in adoption and as hobby owners of racers can be read at www.greyhoundadopters4racing.com/about-us)
The final “nothing burger” in the “Protect Dogs” statement was that Greyhound adoption volunteer and attorney Jennifer Rosenblum is Greyhound Adopters for Racing’s registered agent for service of process. Again, “Protect Dogs” conveniently fails to state that all corporations being chartered in Florida must designate a registered agent resident in Florida who can be served with lawsuits or other legal papers on behalf of the corporation. Since it’s generally advisable that a registered agent be an attorney and we knew Jennifer through her Greyhound adoption volunteer work, we asked her to be our (uncompensated) registered agent for service, and she agreed. She is not our organization’s attorney but rather is a member like any other Greyhound adopter or adoption volunteer would be.
“Protect Dogs’” desperate and dishonest attempt to discredit a group of Greyhound adopters and adoption volunteers underscores the fact that Greyhound adopters and volunteers who support the continuation of Greyhound racing present the argument for racing that cannot be credibly answered by anti-racing groups: How is it that literally hundreds of Greyhound adopters and volunteers across the nation, who have devoted significant parts of their lives to the cause of Greyhound welfare and thus know what is and is not “cruel” or “inhumane” to the dogs, have reached the conclusion that racing is neither of those things to Greyhounds? This question has been posed repeatedly on social media to anti-racing activists, and they never have an answer to it. Lastly, “Protect Dogs” claims in its statement that the racing industry is “incapable of having a real debate” about racing. Greyhound Adopters for Racing is fully capable of having a “real debate” about any aspect of Greyhound racing. In fact, Vice-President John Parker posted on the Protect Dogs Facebook page on Sunday, July 15, referenced their stated desire for a “real debate,” and challenged their chief spokesman, Carey Theil, to a public and open debate. “Protect Dogs” deleted John’s challenge and blocked him from commenting further on its page. So much for their stated interest in a “real debate” on racing. No matter. We hereby reiterate that invitation to debate as a standing challenge, and we hope that the media will report on the challenge and perhaps even offer to host such a debate. We’re ready to debate and defend our message and the way we carry out our advocacy. Will “Protect Dogs” meet the challenge in the free marketplace of ideas ?