RTE Investigates programme on greyhound racing industry

gozunda

Hurrache wrote: »

I just did engage, it's not mob rule.Everything else worth saying has already been said. If people chose not to buy a product because they simply don't like it, that's by choice, not mob rule.
Equally if people chose not to buy a product because they don't want some of their cash going towards an activity they wouldn't support themselves, that too is choice, not mob rule.
Then again, maybe they just haven't turned up at my door questioning me as to what tea I drink and subsequently forcing me to never buy it again.

No you clearly did not. This is an ongoing discussion. If that doesn't suit - meh. But "Worth saying" according to who? From a quick search online the campaign against all types of greyhound activities has been ongoing for a lot longer than the current RTE documentary debacle. That much of this is being used as ammunition to further that is evident. Don't believe me tgo take a look online or not as you like. Yes there are evident issues which need addressing but no I dislike the tactics previously highlighted being used in any sphere tbh. Btw I am not saying this is everyone - I have clearly differentiated those who are not affiliated with these interests.

Mysterypunter

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah, the RTE 'set it up' defense.
They 'set up' the killing of a dog with a bolt gun did they?
They 'set-up' the export of greyhounds to China?
They 'set-up' the IGB sitting on reports?
They 'set-up' that 6000+ greys a year are unaccounted for?

Fair dues to RTE - who knew they could organise such a massive 'set-up' eh! Imagine what they could 'set-up' if they had an extra €16m year. :pac:

BTW, 'always been this way' is not a justification for animals being killed for so-called sport. Or perhaps you think all the various ways animals were traditionally killed for 'sport' should be re-introduced?
Bear baiting.
Cock fighting
Dog fighting.

Sure as long as someone 'enjoys' that and can have a flutter let's bring those back.

Its not a recent development. That's all I'm saying. Dogs are sold to China and Spain, and they are killed in this country, but not any more than the last 20 or 30 years. If you can't see that than any amount of ranting on the internet is pointless

xckjoo

Mysterypunter wrote: »

Its not a recent development. That's all I'm saying. Dogs are sold to China and Spain, and they are killed in this country, but not any more than the last 20 or 30 years. If you can't see that than any amount of ranting on the internet is pointless

I'm confused about your point here. It reads like you're saying that because it has happened for years and happens elsewhere, people should be fine with it. Is that the intent?

Mysterypunter

xckjoo wrote: »

I'm confused about your point here. It reads like you're saying that because it has happened for years and happens elsewhere, people should be fine with it. Is that the intent?

I'm saying its not a new development, I'm not saying its right, but when it was advertised I thought it was a repeat from 10 years ago. I'm surprised that people wouldn't have known about it already

klaaaz

Mysterypunter wrote: »

I'm saying its not a new development, I'm not saying its right, but when it was advertised I thought it was a repeat from 10 years ago. I'm surprised that people wouldn't have known about it already

Not really. Many people trusted the greyhound industry with their tales of great retirement for the champion dogs when in fact they were executing thousands of dogs per year for being too slow. The shock of betrayal is still there among the general public that we were not told about this.

jackboy

xckjoo wrote: »

Equating them has probably not been outright stated, but it's been brought into the conversation for no other reason than to try create a false equivalence in peoples heads and to keep the waters muddy with whataboutery.

And the majority of animal rights activists are not making that suggesting that, only the extremists. Keep trying to muddy though.

A lot of posters on this thread want to keep the discusssion very narrow and will not engage when the discussion widens a bit. That is fine, it is up to each individual what to engage with.

Why do posters want to keep the discussion so narrow? There are probably a lot of reasons. I suspect that one reason is because a ban on greyhound racing will have no negative impact on their lives. However, if they think about all the animal abuse that themselves are indirectly contributing to (I won't list them again), they are not prepared to take action because it will directly impact their lives.

Hurrache

gozunda wrote: »

But "Worth saying" according to who?

Me, you just quoted it.

But if you want to keep your head in the sand and believe that the only people who have issue with the greyhound industry are part of a greater conspiracy, and not the ordinary people in the street who can think independently, that's your prerogative.

Igotadose

jackboy wrote: »

A lot of posters on this thread want to keep the discusssion very narrow and will not engage when the discussion widens a bit. That is fine, it is up to each individual what to engage with.

Why do posters want to keep the discussion so narrow? There are probably a lot of reasons. I suspect that one reason is because a ban on greyhound racing will have no negative impact on their lives. However, if they think about all the animal abuse that themselves are indirectly contributing to (I won't list them again), they are not prepared to take action because it will directly impact their lives.

And, what does any of that have to do with the RTE documentary? Trying to guilt-merchant people into *not* discussing what was seen, trying to generate equivalences with the beef industry, for example, is deflection plain and simple.

We've got a few good suggestions on this thread:

1. End the live export of greyhounds
2. Reduce the number of animals needed per year for events to around 1800 per Mod9Maple's post, using a 'birth licensing' system like taxi medallions. Great idea.
3. Contact your TD to voice your displeasure

I think continuing to spread the word about the documentary and some of the recommended actions would only benefit the greyhounds, and the industry getting rid of the 'bad actors' who are a minority :rolleyes: and making the whole industry look bad.

xckjoo

jackboy wrote: »

A lot of posters on this thread want to keep the discusssion very narrow and will not engage when the discussion widens a bit. That is fine, it is up to each individual what to engage with.

Why do posters want to keep the discussion so narrow? There are probably a lot of reasons. I suspect that one reason is because a ban on greyhound racing will have no negative impact on their lives. However, if they think about all the animal abuse that themselves are indirectly contributing to (I won't list them again), they are not prepared to take action because it will directly impact their lives.

I get ya but the flip side is that not keeping the discussion narrow is pointless and unending. The greyhound industry and pet industry are not interdependent to any large degree so one could easily be cleaned up without any impact on the other. If this thread was about puppy mills, would you be on here complaining that the greyhound industry is also a problem and it's hypocritical to want puppy mills eliminated while ignoring the greyhound issue?
For what it's worth, I'm not personally calling for an end to greyhound racing, but I am struggling to see how it could be fully cleaned up. I'm also worried that if it was banned, the scumbags greyhound owners that give the rest a bad name will just continue to do it in an illegal setting. No clean answers as usual.

Discodog

klaaaz wrote: »

Not really. Many people trusted the greyhound industry with their tales of great retirement for the champion dogs when in fact they were executing thousands of dogs per year for being too slow. The shock of betrayal is still there among the general public that we were not told about this.

The so called welfare scheme was always a PR exercise. There are still a hard core of influential people who have no interest in animal welfare. After all Brian Cowen spoke out to support one of the biggest puppy farmers.

Bannasidhe

Mysterypunter wrote: »

I'm saying its not a new development, I'm not saying its right, but when it was advertised I thought it was a repeat from 10 years ago. I'm surprised that people wouldn't have known about it already

That honestly isn't how the post I responded to read.
It read as if 'RTE made it up/animals die for entertainment so what- it's always happened'.

No, it's not a new development.
Yes, people have been talking about it for years. Advocating for change on any media platform they could get access to. Dismissed as 'extremists' and 'cranks' and 'the usual suspects'.

But finally RTE broadcast what is happening into people's living rooms. They could have made it 10 years ago - they could have made it 20 years ago. They didn't. They made it this year and now the level of abuse and funding is truly out of the bag.

Most people genuinely had no idea. They thought it was just 'a night at the dogs' and are horrified at what they saw goes on behind the scenes.

Bannasidhe

jackboy wrote: »

A lot of posters on this thread want to keep the discusssion very narrow and will not engage when the discussion widens a bit. That is fine, it is up to each individual what to engage with.

Why do posters want to keep the discussion so narrow? There are probably a lot of reasons. I suspect that one reason is because a ban on greyhound racing will have no negative impact on their lives. However, if they think about all the animal abuse that themselves are indirectly contributing to (I won't list them again), they are not prepared to take action because it will directly impact their lives.

Posters are free to open threads about other things- have been asked to even - but fail to do so.
We could discuss Pounds.
We could discuss puppy farms.
Each in their own threads.

We could even have a thread all about general issues that covers both of those and a few others as well.

But this thread is about the greyhound industry. And most of these 'widening' posts are nothing more than deflection away from discussion the greyhound industry.

gozunda

Hurrache wrote: »

Me, you just quoted it. But if you want to keep your head in the sand and believe that the only people who have issue with the greyhound industry are part of a greater conspiracy, and not the ordinary people in the street who can think independently, that's your prerogative.

And to that as I said - meh. I wasn't discussing the issue with you when you helicoptered in out of nowhere. What 'conspiracy theory' would that be exactly? But yes stick the head in the sand and strangely pretend there are no ongoing and organised campaigns against greyhound racing etc then that's your prerogative. You missed the bit evidently when I stated the ongoing campaigns ridding this ****e to death are the product of an minority. For those who think independently fair play. However I'm not in this discussion because you have a personal beef. So I'll leave you there. Thanks.

batgoat

gozunda wrote: »

And to that as I said - meh. I wasn't discussing the issue with you when you helicoptered in out of nowhere. What 'conspiracy theory' would that be exactly? But yes if you wish to stick your head in the sand and strangely pretend there are no ongoing and organised campaigns against greyhound racing etc then that's your prerogative. You missed the bit evidently when I stated the ongoing campaigns ridding this ****e to death are the product of an minority. For those who think independently fair play. However I'm not in this discussion because you have a personal beef. So I'll leave you there. Thanks.

It's clearly not a minority if sponsors are withdrawing backing. They've concluded negative backlash is too large.

gozunda

batgoat wrote: »

It's clearly not a minority if sponsors are withdrawing backing. They've concluded negative backlash is too large.

Edit: I think you may have misunderstood the comment above btw. I referred to existing campaigns against everything relating to greyhounds...

JupiterKid

The entire greyhound racing industry is immoral and utterly rotten to the core. I won’t be lamenting its inevitable demise.

Graces7

Mysterypunter wrote: »

I'm saying its not a new development, I'm not saying its right, but when it was advertised I thought it was a repeat from 10 years ago.

So was I; shocked in fact as I knew nothing. I knew there was a need for homes for greyhounds as I lived near Limerick but like many folk, trusted the relevant authorities far far too much.

This is about a betrayal of that trust.

Graces7

jackboy wrote: »

A lot of posters on this thread want to keep the discusssion very narrow and will not engage when the discussion widens a bit. That is fine, it is up to each individual what to engage with.

Why do posters want to keep the discussion so narrow? There are probably a lot of reasons. I suspect that one reason is because a ban on greyhound racing will have no negative impact on their lives. However, if they think about all the animal abuse that themselves are indirectly contributing to (I won't list them again), they are not prepared to take action because it will directly impact their lives.

would rather ask why you want to dilute and distract from the issue? There is a whole separate forum for vegan discussion.

We need to focus on the greyhound issues; period. That is not being " narrow " which i think you mean pejoratively; it is being focussed and realistic and very sincere.

whisky_galore

I can see coursing surviving, they have a hard core of supporters funding it and attending events that outsiders rarely have the faintest interest in.
The bad press I think will kill off racing, 'ordinary' people who would book groups for a bitta craic and a night at the dogs simply opting having their parties somewhere else. Big expensive plush venues empty or near empty. Interest was waning, now it's about to drop off a cliff.

Discodog

whisky_galore wrote: »

I can see coursing surviving, they have a hard core of supporters funding it and attending events that outsiders rarely have the faintest interest in.
The bad press I think will kill off racing, 'ordinary' people who would book groups for a bitta craic and a night at the dogs simply opting having their parties somewhere else. Interest was waning, now it's about to drop off a cliff.

I wouldn't be so sure because the EU may tighten up animal welfare law.

whisky_galore

Discodog wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure because the EU may tighten up animal welfare law.

That remains to be seen. Assuming they don't coursing is very much a niche thing anyway without all the expensive venues of racing. Cost may be the rock racing will founder on.

jackboy

Graces7 wrote: »

would rather ask why you want to dilute and distract from the issue? There is a whole separate forum for vegan discussion.

We need to focus on the greyhound issues; period. That is not being " narrow " which i think you mean pejoratively; it is being focussed and realistic and very sincere.

Because the weight given to peoples opinions should based on their actions even more so than their words. If someone is involved in animal cruelty without too much concern then I wouldn't take their opinions on the greyhound industry too seriously.

Graces7

jackboy wrote: »

Because the weight given to peoples opinions should based on their actions even more so than their words. If someone is involved in animal cruelty without too much concern then I wouldn't take their opinions on the greyhound industry too seriously.

??? Not sure of your meaning or that you have read my post.

what I have bolded makes no relevant sense which is what I averred.

Protesting takes many valid forms. we cannot all take effective proactive part but words are action per se and we care very deeply and can use words to very good effect .

Words inspire and support those who can act. Words have power .

And again you are not staying on theme.... odd that!

jackboy

Graces7 wrote: »

??? Not sure of your meaning or that you have read my post.

what I have bolded makes no relevant sense which is what I averred.

Protesting takes many valid forms. we cannot all take effective proactive part but words are action per se and we care very deeply and can use words to very good effect .

Words inspire and support those who can act. Words have power .

And again you are not staying on theme.... odd that!

Fair enough. I wasn't referring to you, rather some other posters who have used extreme language.

There is no doubt greyhound racing needs to be cleaned up a lot. However, a quick banning of the sport will not really improve animal welfare. Yes, after an initial large scale cull the amount of greyhounds killed every year would come way down. But the parts of the countryside protected by coursing clubs would then be open to the hunters who will come in and shoot everything on site (like in many areas of the country with no coursing clubs). Yes the goverment could hire people to protect these areas but that would involve setting up an organisation thousands of people strong which would cost a lot.

gozunda

With regards to this discussion - interestingly
those going on about others being naysayers ironically is deflection in itself

Tbh it would be a very unhealthy if only one viewpoint had the remit to set the limits of the current discussion. Allied topics do not detract from the discussion but rather add to it. That much is evident.

Whilst discussing the specific issue - it is not a one sector problem - it is an issue which needs to be investigated and dealt with right across the board re the treatment and movement of all dogs. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous imo.

Bannasidhe

jackboy wrote: »

Fair enough. I wasn't referring to you, rather some other posters who have used extreme language.

There is no doubt greyhound racing needs to be cleaned up a lot. However, a quick banning of the sport will not really improve animal welfare. Yes, after an initial large scale cull the amount of greyhounds killed every year would come way down. But the parts of the countryside protected by coursing clubs would then be open to the hunters who will come in and shoot everything on site (like in many areas of the country with no coursing clubs). Yes the goverment could hire people to protect these areas but that would involve setting up an organisation thousands of people strong which would cost a lot.

Or - and this is a mad idea - actual custodial sentences and large fines should be handed down for animal abuse and illegal activities.

Plus - if a fraction of the funds handed over to the IGB were given to the Rescues already dealing with rehoming greys there wouldn't need to be any 'cull'. The IGB's rehoming scheme is nothing more than window dressing. Give the funds to the people with a proven track record in getting greys rehomed.
Make it compulsory that if an owner wants to race they are legally obliged to ensure the dog is rehomed with proper home check done etc when they retire . Make it compulsory that breeders are legally responsible for the welfare of each dog they breed until such time as legal ownership is transferred.
At the moment there is zero sanction so unscrupulous breeders/owners can carry on as before with no fear of repercussions. These measures wouldn't impact on those breeders/owners who genuinely care for their greys as they would be doing such things anyway.

It is completely unacceptable that healthy dogs are killed so a few people can enjoy a flutter. And that is what it is - a few people like to gamble so dogs must die.
It's barbaric.

jackboy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or - and this is a mad idea - actual custodial sentences and large fines should be handed down for animal abuse and illegal activities.

This should be done but it would take massive new resources to catch the culprits. Members of coursing clubs do report these illegal activities but in general the guards do not want to know (probably because they are under resourced also). So coursing club members frequently have to go out into the countryside to ask the illegal hunters to leave. Of course the hunters just move on to other areas.

Bannasidhe

jackboy wrote: »

This should be done but it would take massive new resources to catch the culprits. Members of coursing clubs do report these illegal activities but in general the guards do not want to know (probably because they are under resourced also). So coursing club members frequently have to go out into the countryside to ask the illegal hunters to leave. Of course the hunters just move on to other areas.

Well, there is a large sum of money 'ringfenced' to prop up the gambling industry. It would be fitting if 50% of this was diverted to fund the protection of animals given so much betting is on horses and greyhounds.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well, there is a large sum of money 'ringfenced' to prop up the gambling industry. It would be fitting if 50% of this was diverted to fund the protection of animals given so much betting is on horses and greyhounds.

Doesn’t that money come from the off course betting levy?

jackboy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well, there is a large sum of money 'ringfenced' to prop up the gambling industry. It would be fitting if 50% of this was diverted to fund the protection of animals given so much betting is on horses and greyhounds.

50% would be 8 million euro. If new staff were hired and paid say 30,000 Euro per year each that would result in less than 300 staff. Roughly 10 staff per county, not nearly enough to make a significant impact. Remember they would need to cover 7 days a week, 365 days a year from dawn till dusk (and maybe after for lamping). A lot is being made of the 16 million but in truth it is a small amount of money.