UK. from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/scotland/2840371.stm Published: 11/03/2003

Call for greyhound registration

Greyhound owners and animal welfare groups are calling for compulsory national registration of racing dogs in an attempt to prevent cruelty.

The plea was made to MSPs on the Scottish Parliament's public petitions committee. The campaigners called for the creation of an independent regulatory body, answerable to parliament, which would ensure all dogs had "passports" on a central database.

The proposed body would be supported by a levy from bookmakers and oversee regular veterinary inspections and the re-homing of retired dogs. The committee was told that about 450 of the 760 racing dogs in Scotland were run at unlicensed or "flapper" tracks.

Some of the worst cases of cruelty that we have dealt with have involved greyhounds at the end of their career The tracks have no requirement for vets to be present or for doping tests.

Of the existing six tracks in the country, only one, Shawfield in Glasgow, is registered with the industry-led British Greyhound Racing Board (BGRB). Andrew Wood, from Dumfriesshire, said the measures could help ditch the sport's "Del Boy image" and attract a wider following.

"Scotland must make a start in pulling together all those who have an interest, creating a fair, honest and accountable sport," he told MSPs.

Howard Wallace, from Gorebridge, near Edinburgh, who races greyhounds in Ireland, said that a levy on the £221m Scots bet on greyhound racing every year offered "an opportunity to regenerate" the sport.

Doreen Graham, of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA), said it was among a number of groups which had worked with the BGRB to formulate a greyhound charter to protect the dogs but this could not be implemented across Scotland due to the predominance of "flapping" tracks.

"Some of the worst cases of cruelty that we have dealt with have involved greyhounds at the end of their career," Ms Graham told MSPs. "We want to see some statutory body in place which would actually offer a degree of protection."

Central Scotland MSP Alex Neil, who backs the petition, said the issue of a levy was reserved to Westminster, but the welfare measures could be incorporated in an animal welfare Bill which is expected to be published early in the next parliament.

MSPs agreed to write to Sports Minister Mike Watson, the various greyhound administrative bodies and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Cosla) to seek their views on the proposals.

Greyhound Action responds:

If this creates an improvement, it will be only slight. It does nothing to address the core of the problem, which is that commercial greyhound racing creates a demand for a large number of dogs to be bred, most of which will end up dead because there are no homes for them - and many of which will be killed by cruel methods because vets' fees eat into the profits of those driven mainly by commercial considerations.

The statement that "about 450 of the 760 racing dogs in Scotland were run at unlicensed or "flapper" tracks" is very interesting. It means that an average of 90 dogs run at each of the flapping tracks, whereas 310 run at Shawfield - and so supports our contention that the registered tracks are much more to blame for the problem of greyhound abandonment and killing than the flapping tracks.

There is a predominance of flapping tracks in Scotland (and Wales), but in the UK as a whole there are about 20 flapping tracks as opposed to 31 registered tracks. Based on the Scottish figures, this would mean that a total of 1800 dogs run at the UK flapping tracks as against 9610 at the registered tracks. Thus there would be 5 times more demand coming from the registered tracks for greyhounds to be bred than from the flapping tracks - and so the registered tracks are 5 times more to blame for the greyhound holocaust than the flappers. And this is without taking into account that there are many dogs that run at flapping tracks which would have previously run at registered tracks.

We're not saying that the flapping tracks shouldn't be registered, just that registering them will do little to solve a problem which is mainly caused by the registered tracks anyway. The proposed levy from bookmakers is also a worry, as more of the money from this is likely to go to "regenerate" greyhound racing than to improve the welfare of the dogs - and the last thing that's needed is for greyhound racing to "attract a wider following". A pity that people like Doreen Graham aren't calling on the public to boycott greyhound racing, which is the only thing that will really help the dogs, rather than supping with the Devil to produce ineffective charters.

UK. Extracts from a letter to the Daily Telegraph (27 July 2002) by Denis Beary, Vice President, Society of Greyhound Veterinarians, Nottingham

"The state of the greyhound racing industry in this country is as bad as that in America (Features, July 24). A visit to a city track in Britain may present an impression of a thriving sport with a rising betting turnover and a younger audience. The reality is different: promoters are doing very well but money is not going elsewhere. Training fees can be as low as £4 a day in some parts of the country.

Prize money has not kept pace with inflation; open races worth £50-£60 in the mid-1960s are now worth £100-£150. Owners with greyhounds in training at most tracks will be lucky to cover two weeks' fees with a win.

The consequences are that corners are cut. Veterinary bills cannot easily be afforded by trainers, who struggle to make ends meet. Tracks pressure them to keep the maximum number of greyhounds "on the strength" so they can receive bonuses. One trainer was suspended and fined for daring to refuse to run his dog for the second time in three days as he considered he had not recovered from his previous run.

The only source of income from the bookmakers is a voluntary levy, and the promoters control the body that disburses it. One London track has received £100,000 to build toilets but most lack proper watering systems or air-conditioned kennels for animals who may be confined for up to six hours."

USA: The Fund for Animals http://www.fund.org/ has informed us about the following victories in the 2002 ballot initiatives.

ARIZONA: Proposition 201 -- VICTORY -- 20% to 80%. Voters rejected Proposition 201, which would have expanded gambling at greyhound racing tracks and provided a new revenue stream for the greyhound racing industry, which mistreats and kills thousands of dogs a year. Surplus dogs and dogs who do not meet racing standards are often shot or bludgeoned to death. The failure of Proposition 201 helps to minimize the profit that can be made from the exploitation of greyhounds.

GEORGIA: Amendment 6 -- VICTORY -- 71% to 29%. The approval of Amendment 6, to create a special spay/neuter license plate, will bring sorely-needed funds to spay/neuter programs. Money from the sales of the special "animal-friendly" license plates will subsidize low-cost companion animal sterilization programs in the state, preventing the birth and ultimate euthanasia of tens of thousands of unwanted cats and dogs. Georgia joins nineteen other states that already have a special animal-friendly license plate and, like them, Georgia will help raise millions of dollars to combat the problem of companion animal overpopulation and the suffering it causes.