I saw that in the paper. Ick. Don't you just love his defence: "And anyway, I've stopped now. So I'm suing for libel." I'm sure Fred West would have liked to use that one.
It makes me even more glad that I refused to go on the staff trip to the dogs a few years ago, I'd hate to have supported such an evil industry even in a small way.
It does make you wonder what will happen with the dogs now though. Hopefully this will signal the end of the industry, unless it can put in place adequate support for dogs once they reach the end of their racing lives.
The industry loves to give the impression that all retired racers are now rehomed. Although I have never been to dog races (and wouldn't want to anyway) I was under that impression.
Having said that, this story does not surprise me at all. Where money is concerned there are alway people willing to put animal welfare after financial interest, but 10 000 per year is an incredible figure.
'over 10,000' is the estimate by Greyhound Action: I have seen much higher figures quoted, in fact - but I very much hope those are wrong. That estimate is based on the number of pups registered each year, the retirement rates, and the numbers given by the Retired Greyhound Trust for successful rehomings.
The industry says 500 - 1,000 retired greyhounds are put to sleep, ISTR - but then they didn't know about this guy, and can give no details of where the extra dogs have gone, so it's hard to believe that number.
Every greyhound is registered and tracked with a unique ID number tattooed in the ear, and the entire database is publicly accessible and online: given that it seems incredible that they cannot produce publicly checkable put to sleep figures.
Here is Mollydog's database entry, in case you are interested: http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?d=I+feel+great . Occasionally I torture myself by looking at the records for her brothers and sisters and wondering why they almost all stop in 2001. I really, really hope they all got adopted by people who never updated the database...
As they have the records they should be able to give some answers but I suppose they probably don't want to.
I'll ask my friend if she has updated Tommy's records.
Greyhounds are such lovely animals- and this comes from someone who is not normally keen on dogs.If they have to be put down it should at least be done by a competent person using the most humane method. But then that might show up on their figures and spoil the image.....
£10.00. I doubt if a vet would charge an awful lot more than that.
Hmmm... OK, it does seem nasty to enjoy a sport which directly results in animals being bred and then put down after a few years, but I don't feel in a position to take the moral high ground here. After all, that's exactly what happens to all the animals I eat. And I eat far more animals than I would need to just to avoid the health issues associated with vegetarianism. So I don't really feel able to argue that MY dead animals are less dreadful than THEIR dead animals. So... can't do the outrage I'm afraid. Are you guys all vegetarian? Even so it's interesting that you seem to feel much more angry about this than just about plain old killing animals for food -- maybe you feel there is more of a difference than I feel able to defend.
Oh and technical point, I believe in law animal welfare issues are defined as affecting the quality of life of animals (poor veterinary care, inadequate housing etc); killing animals quickly & humanely is not said to affect animal welfare, because the life of an animal is considered to have no intrinsic value. Speciesist obviously and many of you will disagree; I'm just pointing out that this is not legally a welfare issue.
2) nobody is going to be able to take a retired cow home to their living room.
3) Although I eat meat, I am extremely careful where it comes from, (particularly pork) and the same goes for milk and eggs. I don't buy products that come from animals that are kept in small boxes for 23 hours a day, and that is what many greyhounds endure.
4) racing greyhounds don't seem to get kept in conditions that would be considered acceptable for pet animals, and ISTR are explicitly exempted from the upcoming Animal Welfare bill.
(I thought this was overstatement to start with. Then I adopted a dog that had not come from a 'bad' kennels, but none the less was bald from lying on concrete, had the tip of a hypodermic embedded in the bone of her leg. At first I thought I was just unlucky, but as I supported my local greyhound rescue, and talked to the people who run other rescues, I started to realise that my dog had got off lightly.)
5) your point about the killing being legal is excellent, and goes right to the heart of the problem. The guy is performing a service that is required because of the way that the industry is structured. In fact, the dogs shot so horribly are in many ways the lucky ones. It is not unknown for dogs to be 'killed' so badly they don't die and turn up later wandering in horrible pain - and every year greyhounds turn up with their ears hacked off, because without ears nobody can trace the dog to his owner.
I feel that there is something horribly wasteful about an industry that produces thousands of very beautiful, intelligent animals every year, fails to give them the basic training they would need to find retirement homes, in fact, trains them deliberately so that they are relatively difficult to home (no house training, no recall skills, honed chase instincts) then dumps them anywhere that will take them - rescues, export to Spain (where truly horrible things happen) man with bolt gun, the streets - wherever.
I actually don't have a problem with dog racing as such - for example, terrier racing seems to be a lot of fun. But greyhound racing seems to be just so riddled with problems that it is at the very least in desperate need of reform.
I originally thought that reform was what was needed, but I've just heard too many nasty stories now: I now believe they should close the industry down for at least 5-10 years to force it to get its house in order.
I think it is worse than many other animal-related industries, and more to the point, is completely unnecessary.
I appreciate that you probably feel that the greyhound industry is under attack unjustly because you have seen too many badly thought out animal rights protests, but personally, I think this one is different.
I think you're right about the badly thought out protests, and I'm quite willing to believe this one is different. The reasons you give are all excellent, although rather different from the original story I saw (which was that a guy had been killing dogs with a gun -- no suggestion that he had been doing so other than quickly and cleanly). The welfare issues you mention induce much more outrage in me than the shooting. I don't have much of a problem with dogs being shot quickly and cleanly when no longer required (I agree with you it seems a shame to breed them just for entertainment and then to be killed, but as I said I don't feel in a position to take the moral high ground when so many pigs (etc) are bred purely in order to be killed on my behalf). Indeed, I think it's much more respectable to take responsibility and have your unwanted animal killed cleanly than to dump it on an animal charity or whatever. However, dogs being kept in poor conditions & not killed cleanly is obviously a massive animal welfare issue. I am stunned if the greyhound racing industry is immune from animal welfare legislation. Are you sure it isn't just immune from "pet" welfare legislation but subject to its own legislation? If it is exempt from all legislation, that is truly outrageous. - Neuromancer
What the RSPCA says about the situation is this: "Greyhound racing in the UK falls into two categories, those tracks registered by the National Greyhound Racing Club (NGRC) and the non-registered independent sector. There are 31 tracks and more than 9,000 greyhounds registered by the NGRC2 in Britain and there are 21 unregistered dog tracks outside of their control.3 The independent sector is unregulated and standards are entirely dependent on the track manager."
DEFRA says: "the legislation in the UK governing farmed animal welfare is very comprehensive. However, protection of non-farmed animals has not kept up with these developments."
The regulation of the 'registered' tracks is carried out by the NGRC, which is not really an independent body. Although in theory the 'regulated' tracks should be better, there are far too many eye-witness reports that suggest this is not the case, and even on those tracks dogs are not getting appropriate treatment, doping is widespread, dogs are running on tracks that are designed to cause injury, not exercised, not given basic healthcare, etc.
The new Animal Welfare Bill 2006 at the moment looks like it will require the industry to be self-regulating. Given that the regulators seem to have wholly overlooked this guy and his moderately large dog disposal operation and are now acting all shocked and surprised, this is not promising.
I had you down as a vegetarian, not even technically. (although Bunn makes a good point -- presumably you have to worry about what happens to all the retired dairy cows.) - Neuromancer
Actually my thinking up until now has been that dairy herds ended up as beef for you lot and leather goods etc. In fact I happily wear leather shoes, belts and a jacket on the grounds that it's using bits of cow that might go to waste otherwise.
ISTR that old dairy cows make terrible beef and it would be illegal to eat animals over 30 months anyway, because of the BSE thing. I'm thinking probably dog food and bonemeal?
That does sound more likely in the post-BSE (a problem caused by feeding animals animals to make quicker profits) world. Still at least they're not landfill.
I have less of a problem with animals being bred to eat, rather than being bred for sport/entertainment. At least when they are bred to be eaten they are providing humans with one of their basic needs in life (ok, that need could be met through a vegetarian diet, but I'll leave that debate for another time. Like Bunn I'm not a vegetarian, but I am concerned about the welfare of the animals I eat and have bought only free range/organic milk and eggs for years. I also only buy meat that is either organic or certified as meeting high standards of animal welfare. Because of this we don't eat meat very often as it is too expensive, but I'd rather eat less of it and pay more to ensure the animals I do eat were well looked after while they were alive. Similarly with fish, I will not knowingly buy from a source that is farmed because of the overcrowding that takes place.
I realise the guy in the article wasn't actually doing anything illegal, just cashing in on a problem created by the dog racing industry and I think it is very bad he's had death threats as that really doesn't do anyone any good. You have to wonder what sort of person thinks that's a good way of making some cash on the side though. My real problem is with the industry itself, the conditions the animals are kept in, and that no thought is put into how many unwanted animals are produced each year as a by-product. I just don't think it's right that they should be able to brush under the carpet what happens to the dogs when they come to the end of their working lives. The dogs should be accounted for, even if they do end up being put down. Obviously it would be better if all the dogs could be re-homed, but in practice if 10,000 are retired each year, that's going to be impossible. Which is why I think anything that would require that many animals to be put down each year, is intrinsically wrong and should be stopped. But then I believe using animals for sport/entertainment is wrong anyway and I'll happily admit to holding very strong views on this subject.
I'd actually have less of a problem with it, if the dogs that were too old to race were fed (no pun intended) into the food chain, it would be less of a waste than just burying their carcasses. Though again I wouldn't eat them personally, unless I knew the conditions they had been reared in were acceptable. I also suspect that greyhound would be rather tough but then that's what casseroles are for...
It's an excellent point that if you are going to have an industry that does something like this in order to provide people with fun, it seems only fair that someone should at least keep records and the fun-makers should be able to easily find out the impact of their hobby.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 10:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 11:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 12:32 pm (UTC):-(((
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 12:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 12:27 pm (UTC)Which is true, but it is still horrible.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 12:48 pm (UTC)It does make you wonder what will happen with the dogs now though. Hopefully this will signal the end of the industry, unless it can put in place adequate support for dogs once they reach the end of their racing lives.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 12:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 12:58 pm (UTC)Having said that, this story does not surprise me at all. Where money is concerned there are alway people willing to put animal welfare after financial interest, but 10 000 per year is an incredible figure.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 01:25 pm (UTC)The industry says 500 - 1,000 retired greyhounds are put to sleep, ISTR - but then they didn't know about this guy, and can give no details of where the extra dogs have gone, so it's hard to believe that number.
Every greyhound is registered and tracked with a unique ID number tattooed in the ear, and the entire database is publicly accessible and online: given that it seems incredible that they cannot produce publicly checkable put to sleep figures.
Here is Mollydog's database entry, in case you are interested: http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?d=I+feel+great . Occasionally I torture myself by looking at the records for her brothers and sisters and wondering why they almost all stop in 2001. I really, really hope they all got adopted by people who never updated the database...
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 06:06 pm (UTC)As they have the records they should be able to give some answers but I suppose they probably don't want to.
I'll ask my friend if she has updated Tommy's records.
Greyhounds are such lovely animals- and this comes from someone who is not normally keen on dogs.If they have to be put down it should at least be done by a competent person using the most humane method. But then that might show up on their figures and spoil the image.....
£10.00. I doubt if a vet would charge an awful lot more than that.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 05:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 06:03 pm (UTC)Oh and technical point, I believe in law animal welfare issues are defined as affecting the quality of life of animals (poor veterinary care, inadequate housing etc); killing animals quickly & humanely is not said to affect animal welfare, because the life of an animal is considered to have no intrinsic value. Speciesist obviously and many of you will disagree; I'm just pointing out that this is not legally a welfare issue.
OK, flame away! - Neuromancer
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 08:20 pm (UTC)2) nobody is going to be able to take a retired cow home to their living room.
3) Although I eat meat, I am extremely careful where it comes from, (particularly pork) and the same goes for milk and eggs. I don't buy products that come from animals that are kept in small boxes for 23 hours a day, and that is what many greyhounds endure.
4) racing greyhounds don't seem to get kept in conditions that would be considered acceptable for pet animals, and ISTR are explicitly exempted from the upcoming Animal Welfare bill.
(I thought this was overstatement to start with. Then I adopted a dog that had not come from a 'bad' kennels, but none the less was bald from lying on concrete, had the tip of a hypodermic embedded in the bone of her leg. At first I thought I was just unlucky, but as I supported my local greyhound rescue, and talked to the people who run other rescues, I started to realise that my dog had got off lightly.)
5) your point about the killing being legal is excellent, and goes right to the heart of the problem. The guy is performing a service that is required because of the way that the industry is structured. In fact, the dogs shot so horribly are in many ways the lucky ones. It is not unknown for dogs to be 'killed' so badly they don't die and turn up later wandering in horrible pain - and every year greyhounds turn up with their ears hacked off, because without ears nobody can trace the dog to his owner.
I feel that there is something horribly wasteful about an industry that produces thousands of very beautiful, intelligent animals every year, fails to give them the basic training they would need to find retirement homes, in fact, trains them deliberately so that they are relatively difficult to home (no house training, no recall skills, honed chase instincts) then dumps them anywhere that will take them - rescues, export to Spain (where truly horrible things happen) man with bolt gun, the streets - wherever.
I actually don't have a problem with dog racing as such - for example, terrier racing seems to be a lot of fun. But greyhound racing seems to be just so riddled with problems that it is at the very least in desperate need of reform.
I originally thought that reform was what was needed, but I've just heard too many nasty stories now: I now believe they should close the industry down for at least 5-10 years to force it to get its house in order.
I think it is worse than many other animal-related industries, and more to the point, is completely unnecessary.
I appreciate that you probably feel that the greyhound industry is under attack unjustly because you have seen too many badly thought out animal rights protests, but personally, I think this one is different.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 08:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 09:36 am (UTC)"Greyhound racing in the UK falls into two categories, those tracks registered by the National Greyhound Racing Club (NGRC) and the non-registered independent sector. There are 31 tracks
and more than 9,000 greyhounds registered by the NGRC2 in Britain and there are 21 unregistered dog tracks outside of their control.3 The independent sector is unregulated and standards are entirely dependent on the track manager."
DEFRA says: "the legislation in the UK governing farmed animal welfare is very comprehensive. However, protection of non-farmed animals has not kept up with these developments."
The regulation of the 'registered' tracks is carried out by the NGRC, which is not really an independent body. Although in theory the 'regulated' tracks should be better, there are far too many eye-witness reports that suggest this is not the case, and even on those tracks dogs are not getting appropriate treatment, doping is widespread, dogs are running on tracks that are designed to cause injury, not exercised, not given basic healthcare, etc.
The new Animal Welfare Bill 2006 at the moment looks like it will require the industry to be self-regulating. Given that the regulators seem to have wholly overlooked this guy and his moderately large dog disposal operation and are now acting all shocked and surprised, this is not promising.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 09:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 08:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:56 pm (UTC)I realise the guy in the article wasn't actually doing anything illegal, just cashing in on a problem created by the dog racing industry and I think it is very bad he's had death threats as that really doesn't do anyone any good. You have to wonder what sort of person thinks that's a good way of making some cash on the side though. My real problem is with the industry itself, the conditions the animals are kept in, and that no thought is put into how many unwanted animals are produced each year as a by-product. I just don't think it's right that they should be able to brush under the carpet what happens to the dogs when they come to the end of their working lives. The dogs should be accounted for, even if they do end up being put down. Obviously it would be better if all the dogs could be re-homed, but in practice if 10,000 are retired each year, that's going to be impossible. Which is why I think anything that would require that many animals to be put down each year, is intrinsically wrong and should be stopped. But then I believe using animals for sport/entertainment is wrong anyway and I'll happily admit to holding very strong views on this subject.
I'd actually have less of a problem with it, if the dogs that were too old to race were fed (no pun intended) into the food chain, it would be less of a waste than just burying their carcasses. Though again I wouldn't eat them personally, unless I knew the conditions they had been reared in were acceptable. I also suspect that greyhound would be rather tough but then that's what casseroles are for...
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 04:31 pm (UTC)