RTE Investigates programme on greyhound racing industry

Bannasidhe

Discodog wrote: »

Plus they fund the industry through entrance fees, subscriptions etc. If all the members left then the industry would die.

Exactly, if this legion of decent greyhound owners we keep being told are the majority stood outside the tracks - with their beloved (as we have been led to believe they are) dogs - alongside the owners of the rescued greyhounds and demanded that the IGB immediately act then I would have respect for them.
If they spoke out about any abuses they have witnessed and provided evidence then this guilty 'minority' could be prosecuted.

But they aren't doing that. They are still participating.

Discodog

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Exactly, if this legion of decent greyhound owners we keep being told are the majority stood outside the tracks - with their beloved (as we have been led to believe they are) dogs - alongside the owners of the rescued greyhounds and demanded that the IGB immediately act then I would have respect for them.
If they spoke out about any abuses they have witnessed and provided evidence then this guilty 'minority' could be prosecuted.

But they aren't doing that. They are still participating.

Just like they have after every other revelation. You would of thought that 10,000 dead dogs on a farm would of stopped them years ago. It's a powerful industry with powerful friends.

gozunda

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Pointing out your tactics is not 'personalising'.If a person participates in the greyhound industry, regardless of whether they have one dog or 100, they are part and parcel of what is happening.So yes, they are complicit. Which is what I said.

No but this was ...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Finished being condescending?...

This is not an 'argument'. I do not have 'tactics'
This is a discussion. Try it ..

As for blaming all and sundry. No not everyone is 'complicit' (sic) any more than the average dog owner is responsible for backyard breeders

Bannasidhe

gozunda wrote: »

No but this was ...



This is not an 'argument'. I do not have 'tactics'
This is a discussion. Try it ..

As for blaming all and sundry. No not everyone is 'complicit' (sic) any more than the average dog owner is responsible for backyard breeders

Calling a perfectly reasonable post you disagree with a 'rant' is being condescending.

And you do have tactics - you try and deflect. Constantly. Several posters have pointed this out.

And yes, if someone buys a puppy from a puppy farm they are complicit in that industry.

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

No but this was ...



This is not an 'argument'. I do not have 'tactics'
This is a discussion. Try it ..

As for blaming all and sundry. No not everyone is 'complicit' (sic) any more than the average dog owner is responsible for backyard breeders

The average dog owner doesn't pay money to the backyard breeder.

Do you agree that it's acceptable to kill a healthy dog ?

gozunda

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Calling a perfectly reasonable post you disagree with a 'rant' is being condescending. And you do have tactics - you try and deflect. Constantly. Several posters have pointed this out. And yes, if someone buys a puppy from a puppy farm they are complicit in that industry.

Resorted to point scoring now rather than discussion? Ok so. Of note you referred to me personally as 'condescending'. That is personalisation.

I referred to your comment as a rant. Imo the post was far from reasonable and largely ignored what I had commented on. I presumed you'd understand that tbh.

Again with the 'tactics' 'deflection' ****e. A mod has already called foul on posters throwing that allegation at other posters. If you do not wish to discuss - then fine. But dont pretend that you are discussing the issue at hand....

Anyway enough of that type of rubbish. I leave you there ..

Igotadose

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s been signed into law. Have a read. https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/act/2019/15/eng/enacted/a1519.pdf

It allows the board to regulate for slaughter. By inference, that means slaughter is acceptable unless the board's regulated against it. Has it? Is that regulation online somewhere?

Otherwise, it's all about what the board can do via regulations which isn't really all that transparent, it 'kicks the can' down the road to the board.

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

Resorted to point scoring now rather than discussion? Ok so. Of note you referred to me personally as condescending. That is personalisation.

I referred to your comment as a rant. Imo the post was far from reasonable and largely ignored what I had commented on. I presumed you'd understand that tbh.

Again with the 'tactics' ****e. A mod has already called foul on posters throwing that allegation at other posters. If you do not wish to discuss - then fine. But dont pretend that you are discussing the issue at hand....

Anyway enough of that type of rubbish. I leave you there ..

Can you answer my question before you go ?

gozunda

Igotadose wrote: »

It allows the board to regulate for slaughter. By inference, that means slaughter is acceptable unless the board's regulated against it. Has it? Is that regulation online somewhere?

Otherwise, it's all about what the board can do via regulations which isn't really all that transparent, it 'kicks the can' down the road to the board.

Euthanisation of domestic animals is legal in this country. So why would any organisation chose to put in a determination against current legal practice?

Just a question btw. I'm genuinely curious.

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

Can you answer my question before you go ?

Lol. It's ok discodog that comment wasnt for you. Apologies I didnt see a question - what was it?

Igotadose

gozunda wrote: »

Euthanisation of domestic animals is legal in this country. So why would any organisation chose to put in a determination against current legal practice?

Just a question btw. I'm genuinely curious.

First off, because they can. Lots of things are legal, (e.g., drinking) but various organizations have regulations against them - try having a pint at an AA meeting. The IGB could, for example, regulate that all greyhounds of any age if they are to be slaughtered must have a lethal dose of barbiturates administered by a qualified veterinarian.

Secondly, note the word 'slaughter'. What's lacking in the document is a definition of slaughter, and what's an acceptable means of slaughter. For all we know, the IGB is content with status quo, so nail guns at the knackery, no problem. Like I asked, what is the IGB regulation on euthanizing greyhounds?


And slaughter sound very much like a farming term, treating greyhounds as farm animals (which they are, under the law).

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

The average dog owner doesn't pay money to the backyard breeder.

Do you agree that it's acceptable to kill a healthy dog ?

Ok see it now.

Not directly perhaps. But many may end up with such dogs. These breeders continue to do what they do. If everyone stopped buying / adopting puppies ... And thats my point. It was designed to highlight the ridiculoness of framing everyone of who own greyhounds who were targeted in this thread

As for your question:

I accept the fact is healthy dogs are often put down even - it's not illegal atm. Even responsible owners fo this - the dog may be 'healthy' but may be facing future disgnosed disability, have behavioural issues or be in decline. Some peoples circumstance change and despite trying to rehome a dog and the risks this carries- they may chose to humanly euthanized their dog.

I also accept that there are currently more dogs than good homes or responsible owners.

So yes in the current situation - I agree it may well be sometimes acceptable to put down a 'healthy' dog.

gozunda

Igotadose wrote: »

First off, because they can. Lots of things are legal, (e.g., drinking) but various organizations have regulations against them - try having a pint at an AA meeting. The IGB could, for example, regulate that all greyhounds of any age if they are to be slaughtered must have a lethal dose of barbiturates administered by a qualified veterinarian.

Secondly, note the word 'slaughter'. What's lacking in the document is a definition of slaughter, and what's an acceptable means of slaughter. For all we know, the IGB is content with status quo, so nail guns at the knackery, no problem. Like I asked, what is the IGB regulation on euthanizing greyhounds?
And slaughter sound very much like a farming term, treating greyhounds as farm animals (which they are, under the law).

Fair enough. I think they may be ahead of you.

From the link posted previously

“IRISH GREYHOUND BOARD STATEMENT: 28TH JUNE, 2019
IGB

Preparation of a statutory instrument to make it a legal requirement that euthanasia of a greyhound must be carried out by a veterinary practitioner. (this is already the standard expected under the IGB Code of Practice for the Care and Welfare of the Greyhound).

Igotadose

And violation of the legal requirement will result in what? A fine? Loss of license? Criminal charges? Expulsion from the greyhound organization(s)?

Simple solution is to ban live export of greyhounds, then the industry would be much easier to control within the borders of Ireland.

strandroad

gozunda wrote: »

Fair enough. I think they may be ahead of you.

From the link posted previously

It's nothing new, it's already in place in their rules; it is simply being ignored, not inspected and not enforced.

That's what corruption means: it's not the lack of rules, it's the lack of accountability.

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

Ok see it now.

Not directly perhaps. But many may end up with such dogs. These breeders continue to do what they do. If everyone stopped buying / adopting puppies ... And thats my point. It was designed to highlight the ridiculoness of framing everyone of who own greyhounds who were targeted in this thread

As for your question:

I accept the fact is healthy dogs are often put down even - it's not illegal atm. Even responsible owners fo this - the dog may be 'healthy' but may be facing future disgnosed disability, have behavioural issues or be in decline. Some peoples circumstance change and despite trying to rehome a dog and the risks this carries- they may chose to humanly euthanized their dog.

I also accept that there are currently more dogs than good homes or responsible owners.

So yes in the current situation - I agree it may well be sometimes acceptable to put down a 'healthy' dog.

Does than mean you think that killing perfectly healthy Greyhounds is acceptable ?

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

Does than mean you think that killing perfectly healthy Greyhounds is acceptable ?

I referred to all dogs. As does the law afaik. There appears to be a whole load of new actions - adoption and rehoming by the IGB btw from that link previously listed. Didnt get around to reading it all I'm afraid. Take a look. I'm not a representative or involved btw so my views are largely immaterial btw.

Do you mean are greyhounds dogs - or do you think they are something else?

MarinersBlues

Sorry for the late reply. Good weather and life and all that.

STB. wrote: »

£100 million. That's what the online UK market turns over from Greyhound Bets.

Where did you get that figure. I cannot find a breakdown of turnover by sport anywhere online?
It looks to be a suspiciously round number.
I know greyhound betting is a small portion of turnover from my time in the industry.

STB. wrote: »

If you ever want to see a disproportionate system, I suggest you go onto Betfair and see the amount of money bet on one particular greyhound race versus the money for the winning owner.

On Betfair Exchange for a basement grade (A10) at Crayford, the prize money was 105stg for the winner. Yet just shy of 14k was bet on the race through the exchange with that one bookie alone. There will be 24 meetings on today with anything up to 14 races at a meeting. I'm sure you can do the maths.

To be fair from what you posted your depth of knowledge was not apparant.
I agree with the points you have highlighted. They are arguements I have been making for years.
I don't think the scale of betting on minor events is good for anyone apart form the online betting industry.
I worked in ot for a while and have multiple issues with the way it is run.

STB. wrote: »

Irish tracks are now providing graded races for SIS and the UK industry in the mornings from 8am and at night time.

The root of the problems in the UK industry is from the take out merchants who owned the tracks and controlled it in every way, not sticking a whole lot back in. Only online gambling is keeping the "industry" alive. The industry of making money.

The dogs that end up at UK tracks are mainly sourced from Ireland. They are sold for small money to fill gambling needs in the UK.



No I have not. I fully understand it.

Here is where we diverge.

You don't see a place where greyhound racing can keep going without major involvement from betting.
I disagree.

Your assumption that it cannot is flawed. A point proven by the fact that more and more race meetings in Ireland don't have any bookmaker present.


There were steps in the early 00's brought in by a former IGB chairman to make the game more "professional". This largely suited his business interests.
That approach has nearly killed the sport for the ordinary man.
He pandered to bookmakers.
He tried to support large training and breeding operations over one man and his dog, using morally questionable methods
They tried to make it into a numbers game where more racing => more income => a more succesful business.

I don't think it should be run this way.
It should be run as a non-profit for the grass roots.
These steps have lead us to where we are today.
Undoing that won't be easy but is the only way the sport can hope to survive.

STB. wrote: »

I fully understand it.

Statements like this make it difficult to have a conversation on a topic.
You chose to ignore my previous posts where I outlined my vision for how the industry can survive in an ethical manner.
Then told me loads of stuff I already know and then implied you knew better than me.
Try to leave some scope for understanding an alternative point of view.

gozunda

Igotadose wrote: »

And violation of the legal requirement will result in what? A fine? Loss of license? Criminal charges? Expulsion from the greyhound organization(s)?

I refered to this bit

You stated

"Igotadose wrote:

The IGB could, for example, regulate that all greyhounds of any age if they are to be slaughtered must have a lethal dose of barbiturates administered by a qualified veterinarian.

And in reply I posted this from that link which was posted earlier

Preparation of a statutory instrument to make it a legal requirement that euthanasia of a greyhound must be carried out by a veterinary practitioner.

Not being difficlt but no idea- maybe go ask them? Though I would presume they would be recommended penalties and repercussions. They do it in other sports - so yeah catcthing up I reckon.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Well for one I reckon the pet dog industry would show many thousands of multiples well above that number if it was properly investigated. Up to recently there have been little or no controls on what happens to pups breed for sale. You only have to look at the huge number of pets being taken in by the dog Pounds overv the last 5 years to get the scale of the over breeding and treatment of these animals. But then hey no one wants to know about that...

Again, what other industry does the department of agriculture allow 6,000 animals go unaccounted for? Greyhounds are considered farm animals in this country.

In relation to puppy farms, yes big issues there but to say no one wants to talk about that is just deflection.

When a dog is surrendered to a pound, the owner can agree that the dog can be offered for rehoming. The dogs can then be rehomed through the pound or through the rescues that work with them. Greyhound owners when bringing the dog to the pound in the majority refuse to allow the dog be rehomed.

Put it this way, in the pound where my wife works they have euthanized three dogs this year so far; Two greyhounds where the owner refused to allow them be rehomed and one bull bread under a court ordered destruction as it was being used for guarding drugs and could not be safely rehomed. The rest who weren't reclaimed by their owners, were either rehomed directly through the pound or through the rescues that work with them.

Some councils outsource pound work and they tend to have the higher rates of euthanasia, but no where are there 6,000 dogs unaccounted for except the industry we are discussing in this thread.

gozunda

DubInMeath wrote: »

Again, what other industry does the department of agriculture allow 6,000 animals go unaccounted for? Greyhounds are considered farm animals in this country.In relation to puppy farms, yes big issues there but to say no one wants to talk about that is just deflection.When a dog is surrendered to a pound, the owner can agree that the dog can be offered for rehoming. The dogs can then be rehomed through the pound or through the rescues that work with them. Greyhound owners when bringing the dog to the pound in the majority refuse to allow the dog be rehomed.Put it this way, in the pound where my wife works they have euthanized three dogs this year so far; Two greyhounds where the owner refused to allow them be rehomed and one bull bread under a court ordered destruction as it was being used for guarding drugs and could not be safely rehomed. The rest who weren't reclaimed by their owners, were either rehomed directly through the pound or through the rescues that work with them.Some councils outsource pound work and they tend to have the higher rates of euthanasia, but no where are there 6,000 dogs unaccounted for except the industry we are discussing in this thread.

The lucky ones make it to the pounds. The numbers being taken in are only the tip if the iceberg imo. I am plagued here with dumped strays because of location.

And I do find a huge reluctance to talk about it. Thats about it.

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

I referred to all dogs. As does the law afaik. There appears to be a whole load of new actions - adoption and rehoming by the IGB btw from that link previously listed. Didnt get around to reading it all I'm afraid. Take a look. I'm not a representative or involved btw so my views are largely immaterial btw.

Do you mean are greyhounds dogs - or do you think they are something else?

They have always been there & represent a tiny number of dogs - it's a PR exercise. I have been told that rescues that take IGB dogs get a small donation under the condition that they don't criticise the industry.

There are very strict laws that govern dog welfare but as usual with the bloodsport community, they seek exemptions to justify cruelty as do those who use the working dog excuse. It's a bit like the way some use the word vermin to justify cruelty.

A greyhound is a dog & should enjoy the same protection as any other dog.

(a) the animal is kept and treated in a manner that—
(i) safeguards the health and welfare of the animal,

A person shall not—

(a) do, or fail to do, anything or cause or permit anything to
be done to an animal that causes unnecessary suffering
to, or endanger the health or welfare of, an animal, or

(b) neglect, or be reckless, regarding the health or welfare of
an animal.

(2) A person who contravenes this section commits an offence.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

The lucky ones make it to the pounds. The numbers being taken in are only the tip if the iceberg imo. I am plagued here with dumped strays because of location.

And I do find a huge reluctance to talk about it. Thats about it.

So you care about the welfare of stray dogs but not Greyhounds

Discodog

Igotadose wrote: »

First off, because they can. Lots of things are legal, (e.g., drinking) but various organizations have regulations against them - try having a pint at an AA meeting. The IGB could, for example, regulate that all greyhounds of any age if they are to be slaughtered must have a lethal dose of barbiturates administered by a qualified veterinarian.

Secondly, note the word 'slaughter'. What's lacking in the document is a definition of slaughter, and what's an acceptable means of slaughter. For all we know, the IGB is content with status quo, so nail guns at the knackery, no problem. Like I asked, what is the IGB regulation on euthanizing greyhounds?


And slaughter sound very much like a farming term, treating greyhounds as farm animals (which they are, under the law).

But the Animal Welfare Act cruelty definition covers all animals.

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

They have always been there & represent a tiny number of dogs - it's a PR exercise. I have been told that rescues that take IGB dogs get a small donation under the condition that they don't criticise the industry.There are very strict laws that govern dog welfare but as usual with the bloodsport community, they seek exemptions to justify cruelty as do those who use the working dog excuse. It's a bit like the way some use the word vermin to justify cruelty.
A greyhound is a dog & should enjoy the same protection as any other dog.
(a) the animal is kept and treated in a manner that—
(i) safeguards the health and welfare of the animal,
A person shall not—
(a) do, or fail to do, anything or cause or permit anything to
be done to an animal that causes unnecessary suffering
to, or endanger the health or welfare of, an animal, or
(b) neglect, or be reckless, regarding the health or welfare of
an animal.
(2) A person who contravenes this section commits an offence.
Seems pretty clear to me.

Tbh I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise about the treatment of greyhounds and dogs here tbh.

So are you thinking that humane euthanasia (which what we are talking about) is cruel?

It remains that humane euthanasia is legal. And it happens for all types of reasons for all dogs.

Ahh the old "cruelty' yardstick beloved of the ban brigade!. As I said some believe keeping pets is cruel. And yes working dogs exist whether you like it or not. Yes I believe rats etc are still described as vermin. Thats not going to change afaik.

Funny on one hand we have people screaming that there is nothing being done - the IGB announce changes and it's still not enough.

And tbh I reckon these guys could stand on their heads and it still wont be good enough.
Seems fairly clear to me.

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

Tbh I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise about the treatment of greyhounds and dogs here tbh.

So are you thinking that humane euthanasia (which what we are talking about) is cruel?

It remains that humane euthanasia is legal. And it happens for all types of reasons for all dogs.

Ahh the old "cruelty' yardstick beloved of the ban brigade!. As I said some believe keeping pets is cruel. And yes working dogs exist whether you like it or not. Yes I believe rats etc are still described as vermin. Thats not going to change afaik.

Funny on one hand we have people screaming that there us nothing been done - the IGB announce changes and it's still not enough.

And tbh I reckon these guys could stand on their heads and it still wont be good enough.
Seems fairly clear to me.

I haven't seen thousands of other breeds shot with a bolt gun or badly injured during so called sport, or killed because their owner can be arsed to feed & look after them.

I wouldn't fancy the Vets chances of not losing business when it's discovered that they are on the IGB kill a healthy greyhound list.

Announcing changes is one thing. They can't significantly reduce the numbers being killed without damaging their "sport". It's simple mathematics.

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

So you care about the welfare of stray dogs but not Greyhounds :

Nope. Yeah you might chose to have that take on it. Did I say what breed the dogs are? Are you being speciest? Shame on you.

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

I haven't seen thousands of other breeds shot with a bolt gun or badly injured during so called sport, or killed because their owner can be arsed to feed & look after them.I wouldn't fancy the Vets chances of not losing business when it's discovered that they are on the IGB kill a healthy greyhound list.
Announcing changes is one thing. They can't significantly reduce the numbers being killed without damaging their "sport". It's simple mathematics.

Yeah no one knows what happens to them tbh. Just because you don't see it doesnt mean it's not happening...

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Yeah you might chose to have that take on it. Did I say what breed the dogs are? Are you being speciest? Shame on you.

You claim to look after strays & have no iron in the Greyhound racing fire but you think it's perfectly acceptable to kill healthy Greyhounds.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

The lucky ones make it to the pounds. The numbers being taken in are only the tip if the iceberg imo. I am plagued here with dumped strays because of location.

And I do find a huge reluctance to talk about it. Thats about it.

I don't think there is actually, but there is reluctance to discuss 6,000 unaccounted for greyhounds, given another poster claimed that they were not euthanized, simply unaccounted for.

Any of the strays that your finding, I assume that your bringing them to your local vet, or dog warden, or reporting sighting them to your local dog warden for them to locate and bring to the pound. If keeping them also reporting them to your local garda and dog warden as legally required.

Either way their accounted for, strays shot by farmers for attacking sheep and any other livestock are also recorded when reported to the local dog warden.