Explanation of Ballot ADMENDMENTS

Anything and Everything dealing with Political issues.
User avatar
jjk308
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:58 am
Location: Oldsmar FL

Re: Explanation of Ballot ADMENDMENTS

Post by jjk308 » Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:18 am

The amendment bans wagering on dog races. Not the racing. Apparently betting on horse racing and casino gambling is just fine with them.

If the problem is care of the dogs then why in hell didn't they have an amendment addressing care of the dogs if the legislature wouldn't pass any laws, instead of banning betting? It didn't stop other interests from addressing perceived problems that way instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I suspect this amendment is primarily an effort by the dog tracks to get rid of the expensive races so they can devote themselves to the profitable gambling and simulcast parts of their operations. Politico missed this in their article:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/ ... rms-919502

User avatar
chester field
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:09 am
Location: Pinellas

Post by chester field » Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:44 am

P5 Guy wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:43 am
If the greyhound racing is stopped what will be next? Agility competitions?
I have no idea if anyone bets on whose Sheepdog runs the course fastest but that is a race too.
I imagine there are other competitions involving dogs; I've seen long jump into a pool after a float,
running after hogs. Many dogs get hurt doing this. Though it is not out for an audience.

:?: :!:
It specifically says "commercial dog racing". No other dog activities are affected and there is no comparison between them. The full amendment is only a google away, as is the supreme court discussion and ruling.
Common Sense... so rare it's like a super power

User avatar
chester field
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:09 am
Location: Pinellas

Post by chester field » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:04 am

jjk308 wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:18 am
The amendment bans wagering on dog races. Not the racing. Apparently betting on horse racing and casino gambling is just fine with them.

If the problem is care of the dogs then why in hell didn't they have an amendment addressing care of the dogs if the legislature wouldn't pass any laws, instead of banning betting? It didn't stop other interests from addressing perceived problems that way instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I suspect this amendment is primarily an effort by the dog tracks to get rid of the expensive races so they can devote themselves to the profitable gambling and simulcast parts of their operations. Politico missed this in their article:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/ ... rms-919502
"Prohibition on racing of and wagering on greyhounds or other dogs."

Bans racing too. Horse racing and casino gambling are irrelevant in this amendment. Betting is still allowed on out of state races.

The state loses money on regulating racing now. Who is going to pay for increased regulation? It only still exists because it is required by law. I am tired of cleaning up after an industry that overbreeds, then extorts all the people that clean up after them. Many of these dogs are leased from out of state breeders, then dumped on local adoption groups when the leases expire.

You are probably right about the tracks. Most of them lose money on the races. Why would they embrace an activity that has little public support?
Common Sense... so rare it's like a super power

User avatar
macattack321
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 8:08 pm

Post by macattack321 » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:15 pm

chester field is 100% correct. I own three ex-racers, and I can attest first-hand how poorly they are treated in the kennels.

The rescue groups are put in a very difficult position. If they speak out too loudly against the racing industry, then the owners will simply just destroy the dogs, instead of giving them to the groups.

Greyhound racing's time is over; it's popularity as a "sport" has been in permanent decline. Even the tracks don't want have races, but they run the required minimum number per day to keep their poker rooms open.

User avatar
jjk308
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:58 am
Location: Oldsmar FL

Post by jjk308 » Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:16 pm

I repeat: Regulate the conditions the dogs are kept in, NOT THE WAGERS OR RACING! Any of those braniacs ever think of reforming the whole racing system, maybe having individuals and families keep and care for the racers at home and just take them to the tracks on race days? Give the home caretakers ownership or part ownership, a stake in the dogs? No?

We are dealing with either some very sneaky and underhanded dealing on this amendment or just plain stupidity. :evil:

User avatar
chester field
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:09 am
Location: Pinellas

Post by chester field » Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:59 pm

jjk308 wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:16 pm
I repeat: Regulate the conditions the dogs are kept in, NOT THE WAGERS OR RACING! Any of those braniacs ever think of reforming the whole racing system, maybe having individuals and families keep and care for the racers at home and just take them to the tracks on race days? Give the home caretakers ownership or part ownership, a stake in the dogs? No?

We are dealing with either some very sneaky and underhanded dealing on this amendment or just plain stupidity. :evil:
Every reform attempt has died in the house and been fought by the racing lobbyists, including injury reporting, and decoupling. The state loses money NOW on regulating this -are you going to pony up more money for increased regulation of an activity that loses most tracks money?

As for caring for the dogs at home? These dogs live at the track kennel -that IS their home. Some teams have over 70 dogs that they lease from farms out of Kansas. Do you seriously expect them to take their dogs "home" between races? These dogs are not pets, they are commodities, warehoused at the track until they cease to perform or their leases expire. Then they are dumped to adoption groups to find homes for while a new batch of dogs fills their cages at the tracks. I have seen hundreds of these dogs come of the track, neglected because care was to expensive for a dog not making any money. I've been to the track kennels to pick up dogs and I know plenty of people on the inside.

Meanwhile, while the NRA has jumped on the fear wagon to fund-raise off Amendment 13 based on the racing industry's argument that was already thrown out by the supreme court, the race people themselves are calling on their members to NOT retain Justice Lawson, to vote out Senators Brandes, Young, and Lee, and not vote for Scott for US senator because they support A13 or have supported greyhound racing reforms. These are all Republicans, all endorsed by the NRA. This may be happening in other areas as well, but I have only seen and received these messages from local people. Young is in danger of losing her seat and Nelson looks like he will be beating Scott. Lawson and Lee are being referred to as scum by the same people that called on the NRA to plead their message of misinformation.
Common Sense... so rare it's like a super power

JBubba57
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 11:09 pm
Location: Central FL

Post by JBubba57 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:58 pm

"Meanwhile, while the NRA has jumped on the fear wagon to fund-raise off Amendment 13..."

Yeah, cause the NRA is only about fund-raising, right? And only uses "fear" to promote its goals, right? And is only beholden to the racing industry, or the gun industry, or the bass boat industry, etc., right? It surely ain't for "common sense" or "for the people," right?

What I've read from the NRA is that this amendment is a potential Trojan horse by anti-hunters, a back-door into requiring legal rights for animals and thus allowing banning of hunting (and fishing, for that matter) based on the language in the amendment that "The humane treatment of animals is a fundamental value of the people of Florida."

Hand that "GIVEN....." phrase from the Florida Constitution to a group of liberal Florida SC judges and see how far they bend logic and reason to define what is and isn't "humane treatment"--see if they don't attack hunting and fishing at the earliest, and every, opportunity.

That reasoned possibility alone is enough for me to vote NO on A13.

But none of these amendments should be a CONSTITUTIONAL issue--they all can and should be dealt with by standard legislation, from tax caps, to tax rates, to restrictions on oil exploration and vaping, to the age of a judge for mandatory retirement, etc. These should not be basic bedrock law, i.e., not CONSTITUTIONAL items.

I get the passion about the dogs, but I'm sorry, the fact that "suitable" reform legislation hasn't yet surfaced "to protect the dogs" doesn't mean it's appropriate to mangle the Florida Constitution.

All the amendments get "NO" from me and mine.

-Hunter, fisherman, NRA member, parent, cat owner, past dog owner, and married to a farm girl from multiple generations of potato farmers.
Member since early Obama regime
HK, Ruger, Browning fan

User avatar
macattack321
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 8:08 pm

Post by macattack321 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:57 pm

JBubba57 wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:58 pm
What I've read from the NRA is that this amendment is a potential Trojan horse by anti-hunters, a back-door into requiring legal rights for animals and thus allowing banning of hunting (and fishing, for that matter) based on the language in the amendment that "The humane treatment of animals is a fundamental value of the people of Florida."
That is Marion Hammer's opinion, and the NRA just rubber-stamped what she said. This is the same woman who recently said that bump stocks are machine guns.

User avatar
CaptBarty
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:56 pm
Location: Pinellas

Post by CaptBarty » Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:20 am

JBubba57 wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:58 pm
"Meanwhile, while the NRA has jumped on the fear wagon to fund-raise off Amendment 13..."


All the amendments get "NO" from me and mine.

-Hunter, fisherman, NRA member, parent, cat owner, past dog owner, and married to a farm girl from multiple generations of potato farmers.
I don't think the blanket "No" on all amendments is a good answer, as tempting as it is. While I agree with you that most should be legislation, we must remember that a new crop of political animals next cycle could monkey with important provisions, especially ongoing issues. Judgment is required. As jjk says, dog racing should be addressed by legislating kennel conditions and overall operations. However, look at Amendment 1, the Homestead cap. If you own a home as primary residence, how can one manage costs if the taxes jump up and down with the whim or extortion by legislators wanting more money to waste on their projects? That needs to be set, and made difficult to change. There's also a provision in another amendment to require a supermajority to increase taxes, etc. Makes sense to have that as a constitutional issue. Some of the questions are obviously simple peeves by some group or another and could be legislated but, saying "No" on all would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

dammitgriff
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:06 am

Post by dammitgriff » Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:46 am

Less regulation, not more government interference in this private market, is the only acceptable answer to the dog racing issue.
The market for dog racing does not need any nanny-state interventions. If people of any political stripe don’t like what’s going on in the industry, they are free to address the owners directly with their grievances but should not use the heavy hand of government to bend the business to their will.
I wish everyone would quit turning to the damn government to solve every perceived problem in the world. That’s exactly how liberty dies by a thousand cuts.

Post Reply