Is it Time for a Complete Ban on Greyhound Racing?
Going ‘online’ reaches thousands of like minded individuals and there are many benefits to this including the increasing popularity of online petitions. One such petition, submitted recently by Ms Maureen Purvis, is calling for the “Prime Minister to withdraw the proposed regulations under the Animal Welfare Act which cheat racing greyhounds of protection.”
It is a petition that is likely meaningless to the majority of the public but refers to proposed regulations drafted by Defra to promote the welfare of racing greyhounds in England, writes Clive Ellis of Greyhound Watch. Essentially, the new legislation is intended to provide minimum welfare standards across all tracks in England and largely bring the independent (flapping) tracks in line with those tracks licensed under the Greyhound Board of Great Britain.
Key detail of the proposals includes the requirement for a vet to be present at all race/trail meetings and the provision of suitable veterinary facilities, greyhounds to be examined by a vet prior to each race/trial (and withdrawn if judged not fit to run) and injuries sustained to be recorded.
Such measures are vital because of the frequency and nature of injuries greyhounds sustain in trails and races. Injuries sustained annually across all tracks in Britain total 5 figures, and about 1,000 greyhounds are put-to-sleep every year following injury. And whilst standards at licensed tracks exceed the minimum requirements under the proposed regulations, that is far from the case for the majority of flapping tracks.
Limb fractures and, in particularly, hock fractures of varying severity are common. Indeed trainer Craig Hopkins has stated: “Day in, day out, racing dogs break their hocks, it’s as simple as that.” Needless to say, the pain can be excruciating but the petitioner wants the withdrawal of new measures that, if properly enforced, will ensure dogs at all tracks receive immediate treatment.
Regulations, however, cost money for both the financially strapped track operators and trainers. And whilst trainers and owners are undoubtedly passionate about the racing of greyhounds, the dogs are merely a commodity – essentially a betting medium – and have little value. As such their welfare is not a priority.
It might, therefore, be reasonably to think Ms Purvis is a promoter or perhaps a regular on the track terraces each week, a fag in one hand, a betting slip in the other and her face plastered in pound-shop make-up (solely based on observation you understand). Ms Purvis was certainly held in high regard by the late Armine Appleton – a trainer of 30 years – who enjoyed her support at a racing disciplinary hearing.
As many, however, will know Ms Purvis is of celebrity endorsed Greyhounds UK fame – a group that if nothing else has raised the subject of greyhound welfare – but is not, and I stand to be corrected, seeking the abolition of racing. With though an unquestionable passion for the welfare of greyhounds why then a petition calling for the proposals to be withdrawn?
To the right of signatories listed it states: “These regulations cheat greyhounds out of the protection they deserve for the 99% of their time spent in kennels while racing and, when they are no longer able to race, protection from abandonment or destruction. They allow greyhounds to continue to be kept away from any independent publicly accountable inspection, defeating the purpose of the Animal Welfare Act.”
Not strictly true as there will be a requirement for all dogs to be earmarked and micro-chipped before competing on the track and this will offer limited protection to ex-racing greyhounds but certainly the proposed regulations do not cover many areas of concern endemic in greyhound racing. Is that, however, reason to scrap the proposals? Better surely, to have limited protection specific to racing dogs than none at all.
Backing the petition is Greyt Exploitations (GE) that, according to the ‘group’ website is “campaigning for the abolition of betting on greyhounds.” An admirable aim indicating perhaps a desire to see an end to racing but GE has this year been very much regulation focused and is supporting the petition, not least, on the assumption the proposed regulations are “unenforceable and worthless.”
In defence, GE reference a press release by Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) in which it states: “The new legislation to be issued by Defra requires councils to issue licenses for greyhound tracks to operate. It does not, however, contain any offences, inviting track owners to break the law and leaving councils with no powers to prosecute them.”
The press release is, however, “not best worded” according to Defra. If flapping tracks do not comply with new regulations their licence can be revoked by the local authority and any track operating without a licence is committing an offence. The maximum penalties will be imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding £5,000 or both. Alternatively, the local authority has the power to suspend a licence until such time the track can demonstrate all licensing conditions will be met. The regulations are therefore, at least in theory, enforceable.
Is your dog trying to tell you something? Do you know what is REALLY going in to your dog’s food? Is your dog eating things that could be harmful CLICK HERE >
GE makes no mention of the above and believes a statement by Defra clarifying the powers of local authorities “serves no other purpose than to confuse readers.” On the contrary, Defra’s clarification enables the public to make an informed and qualified decision.
Of course, whether local authorities wish to use their new powers or not is another matter entirely. The RSPCA have been widely and in my view, rightly, criticised for not enforcing the Animal Welfare Act. Indeed GE is very damning of the RSPCA in a submission made as part of the consultation process on the proposed regulations. Would GE like to see the scrapping of the above Act in its entirety?
A video being used by GE to further strengthen their support for the petition is equally perplexing. Proposed regulations are specific to England and yet the video covers only flapping tracks in Scotland. Furthermore, the video highlights precisely the welfare issues that new regulations are intended to eliminate. To use words from a classic Elton John song, ‘it’s getting more and more absurd’.
All welfare groups are highly critical of the proposed regulations, none more so than the Dogs Trust, who are “appalled that the Government has decided to restrict greyhound welfare provisions to just trackside activity, thereby condemning thousands of dogs to a life of misery and in some cases an early death.”
It’s important also to note that whilst new legislation is essentially track focused it will impact little on the abhorrent scale of injuries greyhounds sustain – a point all welfare groups fail to mention and a point significantly that will never be adequately addressed through regulation.
The Dogs Trust, whilst critical of the new measures, also state in their submission to Defra: “(We do) not wish to see an end to greyhound racing in the UK, but we do wish to see an end to cruelty, exploitation and ‘light touch’ regulation.”
I’m sorry to drop this bombshell on the Dogs Trust, on also Greyhounds UK and the RSPCA who have yet to call for the abolition of racing, but the humane treatment of greyhounds and commercial greyhound racing are simply incompatible. No likely welfare regulations will cover and remedy all welfare issues from cradle to grave endemic in racing. The naivety of welfare groups leading up to Defra’s public consultation I found staggering.
I do maintain, however, the measures proposed are a significant step forward in protecting dogs running on flapping tracks in England, or will be if properly enforced. And more importantly, are likely the best protection the dogs will get. The petitioner though, backed by GE wants this protection withdrawn. Whilst no doubt driven by the best intentions, the petition I conclude is both ill-conceived and misguided.
On a more positive note, the ease in which petitions can now be compiled via the internet serves also to devalue them. Anyone can start a petition addressing any concern. Recent petitions include a call for the Prime Minister to make teachers correct errors when pupils make mistakes (5 signatures). And Jack Andrews is seeking a space flight launch pad and landing runway in England (1 signature (Jack’s)).
By 21 December 2009, 1,290 had signed the petition submitted by Ms Purvis so not a poor response but isn’t that, at least in part, due to ‘group mentality’? You know what I mean; someone says “jump” and the rest say “how high?” It is trait of human kind found amongst the majority of like minded persons but one, interestingly, few recognise within themselves.
Its worth also considering, signatories may also include members of the racing fraternity and advertising the petition on popular racing websites may double, treble, even quadruple the figure as it is the people who exploit these beautiful animals that are, in the main, apposed to any further regulation – regulation that will in fact see independent tracks closing.
Clive Ellis. Greyhound Watch. All rights reserved.
Highly Recommended: As summer approaches, your dog will thank you for – clicking this link…!
Related posts:
I’m interested by your comment that campaigning to abolish betting on greyhound racing is an “admirable aim”.
How would removing betting improve the well being of racing greyhounds, do you think? My view would be that the majority of greyhounds are well cared for and the minority are not. I cannot imagine how this balance would be affected by the abolition of betting on those races.
Reply
Betting on the greyhounds only helps the bookmakers and maybe a few punters but the real issues are welfare for the greyhounds whilst they race and after the end of their racing careers.I think that new and improved laws and legislation is the way forward. It will take time and flapping tracks will ultimately close down but is that not better for the greyhounds in the long run? The greyhound racing industry has a lot to answer for. It is strange that this lucrative industry don´t exclude members who mistreat and abuse the greyhounds. It is strange that greyhounds are found murdered with their ears hacked off. It is strange that some people can make a profitt out of shooting greyhounds with a captive bolt pistol and not manny raise their voices to oppose this. It is strange that greyhounds are allowed to live in squalor. It is strange that anyone will treat these gentel athletes with such contempt and disdain for all to see. Is it not high time that this industry tiedies up their act and begin to provide better acomedations and much better welfare for the greyhounds and not the industry in itself? Greyhounds deserve the same consideration and protection that other dogs are getting. Why singel this lovely breed of sighthounds out for mistreatment and abuse. Please consider the greyhounds in the years to come. Let us see an end of the abuse mistreatment and murder of these gentel and nobel athletes. Do more to promote greyhounds as familymembers and pets they are wonderful to live with and to see them run across a fenced in paddoc just because they can is a sight well worth it to know that they are loved and well cared for. Most sincerly Lisbeth Mønsted Larsen Greyhound Action Denmark. Merry Christmas and happy New Year hopefully a better year for the greyhounds than this previous one has been.
Reply
Many thanks to Lisbeth Mønsted Larsen (Greyhound Action Denmark) for being a champion to the greyhound.
Reply
Group mentality is a good thing if the group is campaigning to end the suffering of animals that seem to be propelled out of the Animal Welfare Act or at least somewhat excluded from it, i.e. greyhounds. There is hope that more people are becoming aware and concerned regarding the fate of greyhounds who are injured and who often die for the purpose of winning money. I have the greatest respect for many individuals and groups who campaign tirelessly for greyhounds, not least Greytexploitations who do their very best to raise the profile of this much maligned breed of dog and speak up for their need for protection whenever possible.
Reply
http://www.giveanimalsavoice.org.uk/greyhounds/
Reply
The abolition of gambling on greyhound racing would lead to a mass exodus of those whose interests are primarily profit-driven and thus lead to an increase in welfare standards.
We don’t see thousands of ex-flyball dogs being killed or dumped into rescue but we surely would if William Hill et al got involved.
Reply
Please link to the article which details why the proposed regulations are being opposed
http://www.greytexploitations.com/resources-and-reports/proposed-welfare-regulations-unenforceable-and-worthless
Please also click here to read Defra’s response to LACORS’ Press Release
http://www.greytexploitations.com/images/downloads/defra_response_to_LACORS.pdf
Confused?
Now please watch this video, which highlights precisely the dangers of existing and new animal welfare legislation
http://www.youtube.com/user/Greytexploitations#p/a/f/0/K9eBvkc3-cY
Trudy Baker
coordinator
http://www.greytexploitations.com
As always – many thanks for your support, care and compassion for the greyhounds
Reply
the greyhound industry could not suffer the loss of funding gained from levys on the bookmakers of the uk.thus the welfare of the greyhounds themselves would suffer beyond anydoubt.If you yhink banning the sport for the want of a better term would achieve anything without putting 30000 racing dogs on the knackers heap not to mention the 15000 puppys bread in that year.Orwould funding be forthcoming from the gouvernment to allay this mass genocide of one of the first recognised breed of dogs .please dont forget that the greyhound has been developed to run fast for reasons
Reply
I am sitting in my livingroom looking at the decorated christmas trees. Yes plural I love christmas trees and decorating them is wonderful. Better yet as I look at the sofas soft bedsstrewn around the room I see three content snoozing ex-racing greyhounds and one whippet. They are safe and deeply loved family members. Their lives have not always been that way. Connor was found starving to death in Madrid Spain.He was raced at the mobile tracks and likely stolen by gypsies. I was the fortunate person who was allowed to adopt him. Then there is Tristan my hands on rescue from last year he was sadly neglected and too thin when I picked him up. I am owner nr 9. Tristan diden´t deserve to live in squalor and then to be forgotten for loyal winnings. I am fortunate to have him. He has been through a transformation and is now a happy and content familymember. Mike my whippet and Darcy my third greyhound were both surplus to requirements. They were both well treated and loved before I got them they are as loved as the other two. So if anyone has an empty spot on their sofa. Why not consider a greyhound. They are wonderful to be with and regal in every way. I and my four sighthounds wish all of you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Most sincerly Lisbeth Mønsted Larsen Greyhound Action Denmark.
Reply
Ant Elliot
Your comment epitomises the attitude that seeps throughout the whole racing industry. An attitude that can be seen in the abysmal levels of funding from the gambling industry, an attitude further promoted by the governing GBGB in their Rules of Racing and then adopted by breeders, owners and trainers.
The greyhound racing industry does not and never will take responsibility for ALL of the dogs bred to supply a gambling medium. The racing industry will always assume greyhounds – surplus to requirements – are the responsibility of everyone else but themselves.
Greyhounds continue to be culled as puppies, destroyed when uneconomical to race – either injured or too slow – and disposed of as cheaply as possible when they become a financial liability.
Your emotional blackmailing claiming a ‘mass genocide’ if greyhound racing was abolished – serves only to highlight how you wish to see the perpetuation of thousands of dogs and puppies ‘put on the knacker heap’ – annually – simply to keep this vile ‘sport’ alive.
The responsibility for greyhounds bred for this ‘sport’ lay firmly with the bookmakers, breeders, owners and trainers – the very people who earned millions and thousands of pounds on the back of them.
For the record, the bookmakers levy is paid 12 months in arrears – therefore, if it was banned tomorrow, the WHOLE levy of approximately £11 million could and should go to ensuring the welfare of redundant dogs, instead of the thousands spent on tarting up stadium restaurants and paying for research and dissection of these innocent creatures.
Reply
In reality is this more cruel than show exhibitors breeding dogs to alter conformation causing severe disability, causing loss of functionality, causing dogs to die prematurely, causing dogs to whelp unnaturally and in some cases culling unhealthy pups ?
Is it ethical to horse race, snail race, breed rabbits for fur, fam Salmon etc the list is endless.
We cannot ban everything but what we can do is EDUCATE , offer support, rescue, and put a stop to the handbag brigade of celebs who buy pups and never hope to offer a suitable homelife to the animals in their care…..
EDUCATION is the key to all animal welfare problems World-Wide
Reply
It is absolutely TIME TO STOP GREYHOUND RACING INDUSTRY. Thousands of greyhound pups are killed before the age of 2-3 months. if considered not good enough. Trials injure thousands every year and these greys either seek rescue orgs or are more likely ‘got rid of’. Approx 4-5000 are registered to race in england and then there’s another approx 4-5000 not registered who race on independent tracks and they are also frequently injured during races. every year the rescue orgs rescue approx 4500 greyhounds but it is not known what happens to the rest.
The government makes approx £78000 per a. from gambling. William Hill owns 3 stadiums in the UK.
It is just a horrible, cruel practice (not sport) and it required appros 3000 dogs per week to perform for the streamlining of private races directly to betting shops and online site. These dogs have a low price tag and therefore afford very little welfare.
They are just there to make money for BAGS( Bookmakers Afternoon Betting Service. How many are injured and die in these races we cannot tell. Look on U Tube and you can look into what happens in thousands of greyhound races all the time. Due to the long straights the dogs build up high speeds but then they have very sharp bends and thee are often crashes, pile ups and dogs get seriously injured the whole time. Once injured they aren’t of any use to their owners/trainers.
Reply