RTE Investigates programme on greyhound racing industry

Straffan1979

Discodog wrote: »

You are so right. You will find exactly the same tactic, by the same posters on other animal welfare threads. Are you a Vegan is always one of the first.

There is a determined, vocal & influential group that are determined to continue cruel activities & justify them as sport.

You can’t have a legitimate discussion after the manner in which PTI tried to pitch the legitimate concerns for Greyhound welfare etc through what is essentially propaganda;

the heat is dying down now after the initial emotional outbursts and we’re left with potential legal actions facing RTE for not following basic law and due process; I think several posters on this thread are also now feeling somewhat deflated after the facts are examined... Greyhound racing won’t be shut down next week and no

- Irish Greyhounds are not boiling in pots of water in China as a result of Irish owners

- the blood of all Irish Greyhounds is not ‘flowing like treacle’ ( says the PTI vet- again no figures as to how many Greyhounds he has assessed professionally)

- no examination of the facts for what was recorded on Whiddy Island and no right of reply

I could go on and on. Search PTI on boards and look at the posts from people highlighting just basically very poor reporting practices on this programme for many years- tabloid stuff.

Discodog

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

There is a lot of pet rescue fraud. Also abuse or ignorance IN rescues.

There are some I would have nothing to do with.

I don't think there is much fraud (whatever that is)?
This division just reduces the overall level of welfare.

ILoveYourVibes

Straffan1979 wrote: »

the heat is dying down now after the initial emotional outbursts and we’re left with potential legal actions facing RTE for not following basic law and due process;

People don't seem to be. The IGB seem to be condemning the treatment shown. No talk of them or anyone taking legal action etc.

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

There are those that do and viciously advocate for all pet ownership to be ended - they deem it cruelty. What you are calling 'cruel' ' do you actually mean illegal?

In the current discussion - Is it rogue individuals breaking national laws (or not breaking them eg where export is still permitted) or is it the the 'venues ' which are being cruel?

So apply that elsewhere- motorists illegally speeding and killing people? Close down all roads? Politicians taking bribes and corruption - shut down the government?

No banning is not a solution to issues of illegal behaviour. Prosecution and better laws are.

Hardly rogue individuals. More like endemic in the whole industry.

Discodog

Straffan1979 wrote: »

You can’t have a legitimate discussion after the manner in which PTI trued to pitch the legitimate concerns for Greyhound welfare etc through what is essentially propaganda;

the heat is dying down now after the initial emotional outbursts and we’re left with potential legal actions facing RTE for not following basic law and due process; I think several posters on this thread are also now feeling somewhat deflated after the facts are examined... Greyhound racing won’t be shut down next week and no

- Irish Greyhounds are not boiling in pots of water in China as a result of Irish owners

- the blood of all Irish Greyhounds is not ‘flowing like treacle’ ( says the PTI vet- again no figures as to how many Greyhounds he has assessed professionally)

- no examination of the facts for what was recorded on Whiddy Island and no right of reply

I could go in and on. Search PTI on boards and look at the posts from people highlighting just basically very poor reporting practices on this programme for many years- tabloid stuff.

So where are the thousands of "missing" greyhounds?

Discodog

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Thanks! :cool:
Your making me blush
I genuinley have been thinking about the overproduction of dogs for nearly 10 years.
I really want to get back into greyhounds but couldn't do it with the way it is set up at the moment.



Pretty much.
They basically allowed it to become a numbers game.
Keep firing out pups until you win the derby and then cash in on the stud fee.
Like buying scratch cards for winning streak.
If the dog was no good sell it to England, but then that demand dried up when the English tracks started closing. (For me Seaham & online gambling are the root causes of that)

There is also the fact that the guys who attached to their dogs and want to keep them around and give them a chance to make a name for themselves.
If you have a bitch that you get fond of it's easy to breed her and keep the dream alive.

All of this can be remedied by having 100 ~ 150 licences for brood bitches, depending on how the maths works out and what the tracks need to keep the show on the road.
These can be bought and sold like off-licences or taxi licences of old.
Economics will ensure that the better breeding prospects are given a chance to breed, while there will be a predictable and managable greyhound population for the regulatory bodies.

It will make it a bit more expensive to buy a dog - because there will be less of them and they will cost more to produce, but this can be offset if the IGB guarantee to have a grade for every dog.
A lot of guys buy dogs for E400-E500 knowing there is a good chance they won't qualify, if you have a dog for E1500-E2000 that is guaranteed to run every couple of weeks and has a few euro already put aside for retirement. There will be alot more syndicates back in the game.
Thats when the sport will start to grow again.

I would expect this system to result in larger breeding centres where multiple broods will be kept in one yard. This would mean easier regulation as well.
There was talk of a limit of 3 litters for each brood bitch a couple of years ago. If that didn't come in I would introduce that and let the bitch retire then using her pension fund.

The problem here is measuring how many licences is optimum.
Estimate using rough numbers:
63 (the number of meetings a month) * 66 (dogs needed for a meeting) / 3.5 (length of dogs career) / 8 (average size of litter)= 150
Maybe closer to 100 as dogs typically run more than once a month on average.
If there is a demand for more meetings then up the licences & vice versa.
That will leave us with enough dogs for ourselves and no exporting & everyone is guranteed a few nights of fun with their dog.

QED

But any system is going to produce uncompetitive, unwanted dogs.

If the IGB adopted your numbers how many unwanted dogs produced per year & who should take responsibility for them?

MarinersBlues

Discodog wrote: »

But any system is going to produce uncompetitive, unwanted dogs.

Why is that a certainty?
I have explained how it works several times and the post you quoted accounts for all dogs produced.

Discodog wrote: »

If the IGB adopted your numbers how many unwanted dogs produced per year & who should take responsibility for them?

The numbers are in the post you quoted.
My earlier posts described a tariff on every litter that would pay for each dog after racing.
You could also add a small tariff to each race entry to raise funds.
The owner takes responsibilty and this is enforced by the IGB.
There will be IGB managed funds available at the end of the career of the dog to help with retirement.

ILoveYourVibes

Discodog wrote: »

I don't think there is much fraud (whatever that is)?
This division just reduces the overall level of welfare.

More common than you think.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/warning-dog-scam-limerick-646650
https://www.rte.ie/news/investigations-unit/2018/0914/993701-charity-regulator-concerns-at-ahar/

https://evoke.ie/2019/05/27/news/irish-news/bogus-vet-with-animal-cruelty-convictions-ran-a-rescue-farm-in-limerick

And even in decent rescues etc not giving adopters the full story or lying about a dog's age etc.

A lot of people don't ask for a vet check for rescue dogs. They take it on trust.

Horses too. Lots of draft horses in rescues have cpl (genetic disorder of edema in the legs common in drafts its caused from the small gene pool street cobs etc are bred from and lack of understanding of bloodlines or genetic testing its incurable and it gets worse and worse Treatment is time consuming and expensive) its either the people in the rescue think the horse's legs are meant to be like that because they are drafts or ..I dunno really. But during the early stages they don't seem to pass this knowledge on.




I understand this is an animals last chance etc and they are working with volunteers who are not professionals just people trying etc. But there you go.

It tends to be the smaller ones rather than the DSPCA or the Irish horse trust etc.

Discodog

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Why is that a certainty?
I have explained how it works several times and the post you quoted accounts for all dogs produced.



The numbers are in the post you quoted.
My earlier posts described a tariff on every litter that would pay for each dog after racing.
You could also add a small tariff to each race entry to raise funds.
The owner takes responsibilty and this is enforced by the IGB.
There will be IGB managed funds available at the end of the career of the dog to help with retirement.

So you propose that every puppy goes on to race irrespective of it's ability?

MarinersBlues

Discodog wrote: »

So you propose that every puppy goes on to race irrespective of it's ability?

Every dog has it's level.

At the very worst there will be one dog on it's own that just cannot find someone in the same bracket of slowness.
It only takes two to race.

Banded horse racing in England worked on this basis and did well.
The only thing they didn't manage was restricting the amount of low level horses produced.
This system does.

ILoveYourVibes

Discodog wrote: »

So you propose that every puppy goes on to race irrespective of it's ability?

I could be totally wrong. But I assume that is the last thing trainers would want to do.

ILoveYourVibes

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Every dog has it's level.

At the very worst there will be one dog on it's own that just cannot find someone in the same bracket of slowness.
It only takes two to race.

Banded horse racing in England worked on this basis and did well.
The only thing they didn't manage was restricting the amount of low level horses produced.
This system does.

I don't think it's good idea.

MarinersBlues

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I don't think it's good idea.

Could you expand a bit more?
There is a lot of detail there and I don't know where your issue lies.

ILoveYourVibes

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Could you expand a bit more?
There is a lot of detail there and I don't know where your issue lies.

For the same reason we neuter dogs.

Its not simply financially providing for them. We need fewer dogs much less fewer. Like 12000k fewer.

MarinersBlues

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

For the same reason we neuter dogs.

Its not simply financially providing for them. We need fewer dogs much less fewer. Like 12000k fewer.

I have gone into this in a lot of detail.

MarinersBlues wrote: »

The problem here is measuring how many licences is optimum.
Estimate using rough numbers:
63 (the number of meetings a month) * 66 (dogs needed for a meeting) / 3.5 (length of dogs career) / 8 (average size of litter)= 150
Maybe closer to 100 as dogs typically run more than once a month on average.
If there is a demand for more meetings then up the licences & vice versa.
That will leave us with enough dogs for ourselves and no exporting & everyone is guranteed a few nights of fun with their dog.

From that rough outline we now know we need 63*66 = 4200 dogs to keep racing going at the tracks we have presently.
To keep that population up we need to produce 4200/3.5 = 1188 dogs a year.

Everything going well 1188 dogs retire every year.
The IGB should track all dogs produced, all dogs racing and all dog retiring.
They can now budget for the dogs they expect to retire and manage the situation accordingly.

ILoveYourVibes

MarinersBlues wrote: »

I have gone into this in a lot of detail.



From that rough outline we now know we need 63*66 = 4200 dogs to keep racing going at the tracks we have presently.
To keep that population up we need to produce 4200/3.5 = 1188 dogs a year.

Everything going well 1188 dogs retire every year.
The IGB should track all dogs produced, all dogs racing and all dog retiring.
They can now budget for the dogs they expect to retire and manage the situation accordingly.

Its always good to keep something rarer than it's needed. Under produce a bit.

BTW maths is not my strong point!

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

Hardly rogue individuals. More like endemic in the whole industry.

Just like all motorists drive dangerously and all elected representatives are corrupt...

So some would have us believe. Thankfully most people have more cop on than that...

Igotadose

Though I like the idea of a high bar to entry for professional breeders, the analogy with Taxi medallions is attractive, I still don't see that it will
work without drastic change to the industry as it exists today.

For one, coursing still must end. It's *still* barbaric.
For another, imagine the bleating from the greyhound breeders when their lazy livelihood now requires a serious investment, maybe tens of thousands of euros per year. Although at a mathematical level a much reduced number of litters per year makes sense, as long as there's demand (races, and gambling), they'll all still want "in." As the IGB's proven to be pretty inept when it comes to oversight, can it be drastically reduced/replaced with an independent body with real enforcement powers? One whose goal really is greyhound welfare independent of business success?

Finally, not sure any of this works without a dramatic shock to the system, just don't trust this industry in the slightest.

jackboy

Igotadose wrote: »

For another, imagine the bleating from the greyhound breeders when their lazy livelihood now requires a serious investment, maybe tens of thousands of euros per year.

'lazy livelihood'.

What is your 'livelihood' that gives you the high moral ground to mock others?

MarinersBlues

Igotadose wrote: »

Though I like the idea of a high bar to entry for professional breeders, the analogy with Taxi medallions is attractive, I still don't see that it will
work without drastic change to the industry as it exists today.

This is as drastic as it gets

Igotadose wrote: »

For one, coursing still must end. It's *still* barbaric.

That is a different topic to the overproduction of dogs.
I would have a different viewpoint on that but don't really want to deviate from the topic at hand.

Igotadose wrote: »

For another, imagine the bleating from the greyhound breeders when their lazy livelihood now requires a serious investment, maybe tens of thousands of euros per year.

Very few breeders make money from the industry as it stands.
That is the fundamental point of the report and the show.
The current system doesn't even make sense economically when you tke the ethics out of the equation.

There seems to be an assumption on the part of people who want to ban racing that there is millions of euros swishing around the industry for owners and breeders.

There is not.
There never has been.
There never will be.

Igotadose wrote: »

Although at a mathematical level a much reduced number of litters per year makes sense, as long as there's demand (races, and gambling), they'll all still want "in." As the IGB's proven to be pretty inept when it comes to oversight, can it be drastically reduced/replaced with an independent body with real enforcement powers? One whose goal really is greyhound welfare independent of business success?

You don't really seem to be disagreeing with what I have proposed but are still implying I am wrong.
I am finding it hard to pin down what your issue with my proposal is.
If it just the case that you want greyhound racing banned no matter what is proposed there is little point in me taking part in a conversation with you on the topic.

Strumms

jackboy wrote: »

'lazy livelihood'.

What is your 'livelihood' that gives you the high moral ground to mock others?

When you earn a living by getting up in the morning, going to work, working hard and earning a few quid without resorting to violence, cruelty and killing...i think you have every right to judge, look down upon, critisize and highlight those who do the opposite.

"Ohhh this dog is not good enough at racing to provide me with money, useless, lets kill it"

Id hope society will always take the high ground against vicious vermin like that..to a greater extent then it does currently.

MarinersBlues

MarinersBlues wrote: »

I have gone into this in a lot of detail.



From that rough outline we now know we need 63*66 = 4200 dogs to keep racing going at the tracks we have presently.
To keep that population up we need to produce 4200/3.5 = 1188 dogs a year.

Everything going well 1188 dogs retire every year.
The IGB should track all dogs produced, all dogs racing and all dog retiring.
They can now budget for the dogs they expect to retire and manage the situation accordingly.

In order to do this, the IGB need take control of the stud book, or divide it into coursing and track and let each discipline look after its own.

MarinersBlues

Deleted User wrote: »

In order to do this, the IGB need take control of the stud book, or divide it into coursing and track and let each discipline look after its own.

Valid point.

I suppose the ICC could administrate it.
All funds should be ringfenced anyway.
I have been trying to keep it as straight forward as possible for thos who wouldn't be up to speed on the adminstrative roles of each organisation.

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

So where are the thousands of "missing" greyhounds?

As was detailed previously in this thread - probably the same place where the 30,000 pet dogs exported from this country every year ...

This is not a one sector problem - This is an issue which needs to be investigated and controlled and dealt with right across the board re the movement of all dogs. For some who use this as a cudgel to beat just one group is dishonest and disingenuous at best.

https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-puppy-farm-dogs-3008473-Oct2016/

https://www.thejournal.ie/dog-breeding-ireland-3007298-Oct2016/

Plenty of good suggestions on this being put forward already ...

Igotadose

MarinersBlues wrote: »

This is as drastic as it gets



You don't really seem to be disagreeing with what I have proposed but are still implying I am wrong.
I am finding it hard to pin down what your issue with my proposal is.
If it just the case that you want greyhound racing banned no matter what is proposed there is little point in me taking part in a conversation with you on the topic.

Your proposal has merits. Can it be implemented in Ireland? My proposal is we need a more dramatic, abrupt overhaul than something administered by the usual suspects in what seems like, well, geologic timelines to get anything done. How do we implement your proposal in, say, the next 3 years? What is your timeline? Reducing exports by 50% for next year, followed by subsequent reductions in the subsequent 2 years is my first proposal. Likewise the IGB has had enough opportunities to fail, reduce the subsidy dramatically. Then, implement your 'taxi medallion' proposal, which will leave a smaller but presumably better breeding industry in Ireland.

My fear is, that the IGB and the likes will egg on the protesters knowing that insulates them from actually having to make dramatic change in a short period of time, as they can always 'blame the antis, see we passed more regulations aren't we great, no satisfying everyone yadda yadda.'

archer22

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You are talking about rehoming dogs to these countries. Remember why you had an issue with it in China?

Coursing racing etc HUGE in italy germany spain etc.

Its not to say you can't find the right owner. But you would need to be very careful and make sure they were not going to be rehomed again.

Coursing is illegal in Germany and Italy.

In fact hunting with hounds was banned in Germany 85 years ago in 1934.

The only countries where coursing is legal in the EU are Ireland, Spain and Portugal.

Greyhound racing in Italy and Germany is strictly amateur..no betting is allowed

archer22

Oh and for those who think this issue will soon be forgotten...no it won't the documentary was so shocking it will remain in people's minds forever.

Discodog

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Every dog has it's level.

At the very worst there will be one dog on it's own that just cannot find someone in the same bracket of slowness.
It only takes two to race.

Banded horse racing in England worked on this basis and did well.
The only thing they didn't manage was restricting the amount of low level horses produced.
This system does.

Has the IGB ever tried banded racing here ?

Discodog

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Valid point.

I suppose the ICC could administrate it.
All funds should be ringfenced anyway.
I have been trying to keep it as straight forward as possible for thos who wouldn't be up to speed on the adminstrative roles of each organisation.

I was interested up till now.

The ICC are even worse than the IGB .

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

I was interested up till now.

The ICC are even worse than the IGB .

The ICC controls the stud book for all greyhounds bred in Ireland.