The Myth of Neutrality
Kudos! Kudos! Kudos to Michigan REGAP!
To whom it may concern -- which is everyone! Let's give
a big round of applause to the author and affiliate organization who wrote
the following article, "The Myth of Neutrality", part one. I
would just like to say to you who have taken a stand against the
continuing abuse of the racing greyhound, you have my utmost admiration.
And to those of you once fought for the lives of the abused greyhounds,
but no longer do because of fear of pressure or because of the almighty
$$, and to those of you who have never taken a stand, I am appalled at
you. You have sold out the greyhounds! To call yourself "Neutral"
is to call yourself "Coward". You gain no one's respect and in
fact aid the senseless torture and killing of these beautiful, gentle and
innocent greyhounds.
And furthermore, to say you take no stance regarding
greyhound racing is to say, "Yes, there definitely is a controversy
surrounding greyhound racing." You either are for greyhound racing or
against greyhound racing and in either case you are making a stand.
It is
also a "myth" that if you speak out against greyhound racing,
you will not be able to rescue and adopt out greyhounds.
This has proven
to be a lie as there is no lack of greyhounds that constantly need a safe
haven!
No longer can anyone remain in the middle, for too many dogs have
died over too many years in this blood sport called "Greyhound Racing".
Neu-tral-i-ty (n) The state or policy of non-alignment with, support or favor of either side in a dispute, war or contest.
In my travels, I have found that most groups active in greyhound rescue and adoption who refer to themselves as "neutral on the subject of greyhound racing are anything but. These groups may have begun with noble intentions, but can no longer be considered neutral, for their practices clearly favor and promote dog racing.
Historically, groups that chose neutrality did so for a variety of reasons, including a fundamental belief in the basic premise that there is an ongoing controversy that demands they take sides. For reasons that seem unfathomable to me and the majority of the thinking public, neutral greyhound adoption groups believe that dog racing, an activity responsible for decades of documented animal suffering, exploitation and death, is controversial, rather than patently wrong. What could possibly influence an animal welfare group to adopt such a disturbing and dangerous ethical position in light of such overwhelming evidence? The same sociological factors that shape an individual and/or group in the development of any belief:
To understand how such forces could undermine a group's ideology, let's take for example the organization and running of a hypothetical non-profit greyhound adoption group, "Mounds of Hounds" (MOH).
MOH is founded by two individuals, Ms. X and Ms. Y, one of whom adopted her first greyhound from a local adoption group; the other adopted her greyhound from a track adoption program while living in another state. Both adopters agree they need to start up a rescue group in order to deal with the volume of greyhounds grading off from the local track. Both founders have some inkling that some greyhounds die every year, but no knowledge or documentation of "all this abuse people speak of." It makes them uncomfortable to even talk about it, so they don't. They form a board of directors that consists of five individuals. Our two founders, plus a former member of the racing industry who claims to have never put down a dog unless he had to, a dog-loving volunteer from a local shelter and an individual who inherited his greyhound from a relative who died years ago. The board member who once raced his dogs frequently emphasizes to the other board members how important it is to not get involved in the "politics" of greyhound racing. After all, he stresses, "we're only interested in placing retired racers aren't we? Let's keep our opinions to ourselves." Several board members concur, concerned that they may not be able to get dogs if they speak out against racing. One board member sums up the majority opinion as "catching more flies with honey than with vinegar." The shelter volunteer, a Ms. Z, does not agree and expresses concern that this philosophy may be deceptive to the public. A vote is taken and the board decides to incorporate into its bylaws, a statement that the group is neutral and that no volunteer shall be allowed to dwell upon any negative or unsavory aspects of greyhound racing. They draft an adoption application, guidelines and lots of rules. They soon file for their non-profit status and decide that one of the board members' homes will be the future site of the adoption kennel, "Grounds for Mounds of Hounds."
Within three months, Ms. Z grows increasingly impatient with the board members who will not allow her to distribute pamphlets at tabling events that contain greyhound death statistics. She confronts the board at a meeting but feels intimidated by the other board members who accuse her of sounding "extremist." Ms. Z resigns in a huff. She is replaced by a woman, Mrs. T, who only recently adopted a greyhound from MOH, but who has had greyhounds for years. Mrs. T adopted all of her previous greyhounds from a local, rival group that she once was quite friendly with, but now openly criticizes. The board enthusiastically allows Mrs. T to handle all the public relations for the group.
The business of adoptive proves rigorous and time consuming for MOH. Volunteers come and go, but the core group grows and does well, averaging the placement of 4-5 greyhounds a week. The local track allows MOH to come and pick out the dogs they want from a holding pen once a month and reimburses the group for traveling expenses. MOH befriends several racing kennels who give them small, young, female dogs they can place easily.
Each new zealous adopter is encouraged to volunteer for the group, and many do. Most of the new volunteers do not know that MOH considers itself neutral. Those that do know about the group's position dismiss it as "not important, in light of all the good work they do." Hundreds of new adopters are not told the facts about greyhound racing and know nothing about what goes on behind the scenes in the industry. The local town's folk speak well of the group.
Local papers do articles about the group's success in placing "all their greyhounds." In early newspaper articles, much of the emphasis tends to be on what wonderful pets greyhounds make. If reporters ask about rumored abuse, the group alleges they know nothing about it and have never witnessed anyone abusing a greyhound. As the years pass, an increasing number of print articles and letters to the editor appear in the town's paper about how the racing industry is cleaning up its act.
Like the place mat in the diner that invites people to name what's wrong with this picture, most people can easily spot the situations and relationships within this fictional greyhound adoption group that could reinforce a "neutral" position. But is such a group really neutral, or should it realistically be referred to as supportive of racing?
It's time that everyone involved in greyhound rescue and adoptions consider the ramifications of their policies. The ethical consequences of a neutral position are far reaching and inevitably contribute to the continued suffering and destruction of this gentle, wonderful dog.
One can start being an advocate by merely telling the truth.
(to be continued in Part 2, The Ramifications of Neutrality)