Michigan Association for Pure Bred Dogs/about us

Michigan Association for
Purebred Dogs
Promoting Responsible Dog Ownership

mapbd.org

You need Java to see this applet.

                                                                          MAPBD Position Paper
                                                                                Senate Bill 626
                                                                     (S-5 as passed by the Senate)

If enacted, this bill will prohibit Michigan dog clubs from holding, conducting or operating dog events for the purpose of
wagering or gambling. These popular competitive events include performance trials, such as sled dog racing, lure coursing, agility
trials, coonhound water racing, and many others competitions where the winners receive recognition with “things of value.”

The Michigan Association for Pure Bred Dogs and the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation believe that enactment of this bill
will place the clubs and their members in jeopardy of the Michigan Penal Code being used to stop the exhibition of dogs in
hundreds of events where the “winners receive directly or indirectly money or valuable things contingent upon the results of any
race, contest, or game.” Even though the exclusion in Sec. 1 (c) “Wagering or gambling” does not include the payment of a
purse, prize, or entry fee to the owner” – the Penal Code make no such exemption. Accordingly, the language in this bill does
not, and cannot amend or change the Penal Code. It would require a companion and linked bill to do that.

Please take the time to read this position in which we try to justify our opposition. Since dog racing for wagering and gambling in
Michigan is not permitted and we have no data to indicate the need for the bill, why is this act justified at this time?

Many of the activities sponsored by Michigan Dog Clubs could be considered “dog racing.” Since awards and prizes are
presented to the winners of the races, the rewards come within the category of wagering or gambling.

There is a profound difference in the penalty between the penal code and in SB 626 -- fine of $1,000.00 for the Penal Code and
$5,000.00 for a violation of SB 626. The difference could be used for the prosecutor to decide which act to use..

Our membership is deeply concerned about the reasons why these significant restrictions and penalties should be made on a
recreational activity that is not intended as gambling or wagering but clearly fits the definition in the penal code. In reality, it
recognizes the superior performance for their animal and their breeding and training programs. The awards are minor in a
monetary sense but reflect great pride, recognition and personal accomplishment. It is difficult to understand why gambling and
wagering are acceptable for state sponsored activities which are promoted as a source of revenue for the state treasury but
similar activity should be penalized in the private sector.

There are hundreds of dog events scheduled in Michigan - events that bring thousands of visitors to several hundred cities each
year. Drummond Island is a site of sled dog races in mid-winter. The Marquette Kennel Club show brings hundreds of entries
for their Labor Day weekend show – an important tourist event. The Detroit Kennel Club show in Cobo Hall brings nearly
2,000 entries for a two-day-show and demonstrations of many dog activities. Frankenmuth is becoming a popular site for
national dog breed shows. The Borzoi Club of America will bring hundreds of dogs and their families to Michigan this summer.

Dog racing for the purpose of gambling is not legal in Michigan. If it should become wise to initiate that form of gambling or
wagering, then I assume the Michigan Legislature would make the appropriate decision and establish the necessary rules and
regulations. Certainly the definitions and rules could be more clearly defined than in this superficial and undefined act!

When SB 626 was considered by the Senate Commerce and Tourism Committee, the one person who testified in favor of the
bill and the accompanying information for public use (SB 626 Information Sheet, SB 626 Selection of Relevant News Articles,
and U.S Greyhound Racing Fact Sheet) was mainly devoted to the cruelty of racing greyhounds and the distribution and
adoption of the dogs that did not succeed at competitive racing. I suggest this is the motivating justification for the bill as written.

A similar bill in 1996 by the same author was rejected by the legislature at that time. The Legislative Analyst for SB 626 noted
that: “There are no data to indicate how many offenders would be convicted of the proposed offense.” Should you not
have some data to verify the need for the legislation in 2008? It is basically a “feel-good” bill to leave the impression that the
legislature “feels” the concerns of the public about an issue (cruelty) but ignore the fact it will deprive the public of some of their
freedoms to enjoy an innocent recreational relationship with their companion animal.
                                                                                                                                                                             Page 2

Privacy Statement