RTE Investigates programme on greyhound racing industry

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly

Personally I'm glad that racing & coursing are legal. Greyhounds obviously have a very strong drive to chase moving targets and they come alive when able to do so. I own a retired coursing bitch and she's (still) an awesomely powerful athlete.

Unquestionably the issues of doping, traceability, welfare, care, export, etc. must immediately be fully addressed. If not the subvention will surely end and racing will end. Coursing would possibly survive.

I have personally met a small number of working greyhounds owners and they've all treated their dogs impeccably. This made it all the more shocking for me to see owners bringing dogs to be shot.

It might be useful if folks who want to ban racing & coursing could talk to decent owners with at least a reasonably open mind. Some posts in this thread do come across as myopic, even if that is not the intention. A middle ground can surely be reached.

The factual accuracy of the program is almost irrelevant; if these amazing dogs that give pleasure to so many people become fully protected from birth to death due to the outfall from the documentary, that will be some progress.

Bannasidhe

I think that many poster here have tried to engage but tbh when faced with denials of there being anything wrong now - it all happened ages ago apparently, hyperbolic statements about 'extremists' and death threats going to happen because different situation in England, constant quibbling about demonstrable facts - including the figures supplied by the IGB themselves - it becomes impossible to have a dialogue.

When faced with the usual Irish reaction to whistleblowers and a broadcast exposé of deny/cover up/deflect it's hard not to believe nothing will ever change and for the sake of the dogs it's best to just shut the whole thing down.

I suppose when two sides are so opposite, they’ll never agree.
Some believe that dogs are being pumped full of EPO, on the word of a Vet who is opposed to greyhound racing and makes his ridiculous claims on a program made by his partners employers. The last case of EPO was 14 years ago. He also claimed that dogs are having their ears mutilated in huge numbers when there were a few cases years ago. Mutilating ears to remove tattoos is pointless when we now since 2015 have to microchip all dogs and DNA has been used for over 10 years.
Yes, there are improvements to be made. The killing in knackeries for one. Clamping down swiftly and severally on drugs cheats is another.
Penalties for not informing stud book when a dog leaves your premises for whatever reason.
On the subject of the stud book, I think that it should be run by an independent body and not the ICC as present.
Some believe that dogs boiled alive or being killed with an axe are actually happening in Ireland.
I know that I’m hopping my head off a brick wall, but it really cheeses me off to be considered a bad person because I like greyhound racing.

Discodog

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose when two sides are so opposite, they’ll never agree.
Some believe that dogs are being pumped full of EPO, on the word of a Vet who is opposed to greyhound racing and makes his ridiculous claims on a program made by his partners employers. The last case of EPO was 14 years ago. He also claimed that dogs are having their ears mutilated in huge numbers when there were a few cases years ago. Mutilating ears to remove tattoos is pointless when we now since 2015 have to microchip all dogs and DNA has been used for over 10 years.
Yes, there are improvements to be made. The killing in knackeries for one. Clamping down swiftly and severally on drugs cheats is another.
Penalties for not informing stud book when a dog leaves your premises for whatever reason.
On the subject of the stud book, I think that it should be run by an independent body and not the ICC as present.
Some believe that dogs boiled alive or being killed with an axe are actually happening in Ireland.
I know that I’m hopping my head off a brick wall, but it really cheeses me off to be considered a bad person because I like greyhound racing.

Do you believe that it is acceptable for an owner to have a dog killed that is healthy & surplus to requirements ?

gozunda

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think that many poster here have tried to engage but tbh when faced with denials of there being anything wrong now - it all happened ages ago apparently, hyperbolic statements about 'extremists' and death threats going to happen because different situation in England, constant quibbling about demonstrable facts - including the figures supplied by the IGB themselves - it becomes impossible to have a dialogue.
When faced with the usual Irish reaction to whistleblowers and a broadcast exposé of deny/cover up/deflect it's hard not to believe nothing will ever change and for he sake of the dogs it's best to just shut the whole thing down.

And that in itself is a prime example of hyperbole. Read the comments - there's plenty of discussion and even discussion of some workable solutions to existing problems put forward. Some have critical of the RTE documentary- and rightly so imo. Unfortunatly much of the discussion has been drowned out by a repetitive ban ban ban mantra of the few.

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

Do you believe that it is acceptable for an owner to have a dog killed that is healthy & surplus to requirements ?

No. I don’t. However, not all dogs would make pets but would be happy in a kennel. You might think that cruel, but the dog would be alive and happiest. One of my oldies almost thrashed the house whenever I brought him in. He was happy in his kennel with access to a grass paddock and walkies every day.
There are alternatives.

strandroad

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly wrote: »

Personally I'm glad that racing & coursing are legal. Greyhounds obviously have a very strong drive to chase moving targets and they come alive when able to do so. I own a retired coursing bitch and she's (still) an awesomely powerful athlete.

I agree. But you can take your pet greyhounds to a park or a beach with a tennis racket or thrower and a couple of balls and you can enjoy the view against some beautiful scenery.
No tight tracks, no injuries, no gambling, no need to get rid of surplus dogs. This is all human greed not greyhound nature.

strandroad

strandroad wrote: »

I agree. But you can take your pet greyhounds to a park or a beach with a tennis racket or thrower and a couple of balls and you can enjoy the view against some beautiful scenery.
No tight tracks, no injuries, no gambling, no need to get rid of surplus dogs. This is all human greed not greyhound nature.

Not true. Most parks and beaches no longer allow dogs run free. And greyhounds are supposed to be muzzled in public and kept on a lead.

Choc Chip

gozunda wrote: »

And that in itself is a prime example of hyperbole. Read the comments - there's plenty of discussion and even discussion of some workable solutions to existing problems put forward. Some have critical of the RTE documentary- and rightly so imo. Unfortunatly much of the discussion has been drowned out by a repetitive ban ban ban mantra of the few.

I've just looked up the word ban in this thread, and while there were calls for an outright ban from a good few posters when the programme first came out, over the past week I can only see 1, maybe 2 posters advocating that.

Of 24 posts including the word ban this week, you made 6 of them and maryanne made 1, so a third of posts even mentioning banning racing are from it's supporters.

263 posts have been made in that same timeframe, so the discussion is hardly being drowned out by talk of banning racing.

Choc Chip

Deleted User wrote: »

No. I don’t. However, not all dogs would make pets but would be happy in a kennel. You might think that cruel, but the dog would be alive and happiest. One of my oldies almost thrashed the house whenever I brought him in. He was happy in his kennel with access to a grass paddock and walkies every day.
There are alternatives.

Okay doke, so while I wait for the ICC to reply to my email, can we assume that 15k greys are bred every year. Provide an alternative number if you like. Are we saying that when these finish racing at whatever age, we'll be kennelling 15k dogs every year for the rest of their lives?

If they race for maybe 3 years, will they then be kennelled for another 9 years until they die?

At an average age of 12, that's (9*15k) 135k retired dogs to be placed somewhere to live out the rest of their natural lives.

Or do you propose sending them elsewhere? I'm trying to understand what you're suggesting.

xckjoo

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly wrote: »

Personally I'm glad that racing & coursing are legal. Greyhounds obviously have a very strong drive to chase moving targets and they come alive when able to do so. I own a retired coursing bitch and she's (still) an awesomely powerful athlete.

Unquestionably the issues of doping, traceability, welfare, care, export, etc. must immediately be fully addressed. If not the subvention will surely end and racing will end. Coursing would possibly survive.

I have personally met a small number of working greyhounds owners and they've all treated their dogs impeccably. This made it all the more shocking for me to see owners bringing dogs to be shot.

It might be useful if folks who want to ban racing & coursing could talk to decent owners with at least a reasonably open mind. Some posts in this thread do come across as myopic, even if that is not the intention. A middle ground can surely be reached.

The factual accuracy of the program is almost irrelevant; if these amazing dogs that give pleasure to so many people become fully protected from birth to death due to the outfall from the documentary, that will be some progress.

It's gone the way of most online discussions these days, where the more extreme people shout the loudest and the moderates go quiet because who wants to be dealing with that. I've said before that I'm not against greyhound racing in theory, but the is no doubt that a part of the industry engages in awful abuse as standard and it's looking like the governing body have no interest in fixing it beyond aesthetically so they'll be left alone.

It looks like that they've no idea of how many dogs are bred for the industry and have no interest in knowing. They dispute the 2016 figures from the report they commissioned but I haven't seen a proper rebuttal beyond that they look wrong. That was 3 years ago and they haven't released any updated numbers since then. They have mandatory chipping and DNA tracking for 10 years but still can't figure out numbers? It stinks of sticking your head in the sand and pretending everything is fine. I've no problem with people being into greyhounds racing, but do have a problem with how the industry ensures the welfare of the dogs involved in it.


@MaryAnne84: I just want to say that I do think you probably take great care of your dogs and shouldn't be made feel like a bad person because you enjoy racing them. As you said, there's plenty of good owners in the business. But we can't ignore the others. They make ye all look bad.

Thelonious Monk

Discodog wrote: »

Do you believe that it is acceptable for an owner to have a dog killed that is healthy & surplus to requirements ?

This happens with horses all the time, sold for meat. Dogs are man's best friend but I can't help being cynical about the reaction to this scandal when the same people couldn't care less about how the meat they've eaten is produced.

gozunda

Choc Chip wrote: »

I've just looked up the word ban in this thread, and while there were calls for an outright ban from a good few posters when the programme first came out, over the past week I can only see 1, maybe 2 posters advocating that. Of 24 posts including the word ban this week, you made 6 of them and maryanne made 1, so a third of posts even mentioning banning racing are from it's supporters. 263 posts have been made in that same timeframe, so the discussion is hardly being drowned out by talk of banning racing.

Ok you may nit pick if you wish - but yes the repeated call for a ban has been ongoing inspite of a the ongoing discussion and regardless of the solutions suggested. It has been picked up by myself and others as noticable hence the use of same by reply. This has also been described in other words but essentially calling for the same thing. That shouldn't need explained tbh.

However specifically that reference was in response to the aforementioned conclusion of

Bannasidhe wrote:

it's best to just shut the whole thing down...

in the post replied to. Same thing again - different words. But hey thanks for the input ...

Bannasidhe

gozunda wrote: »

And that in itself is a prime example of hyperbole. Read the comments - there's plenty of discussion and even discussion of some workable solutions to existing problems put forward. Some have critical of the RTE documentary- and rightly so imo. Unfortunatly much of the discussion has been drowned out by a repetitive ban ban ban mantra of the few.

And that is a prime example of why dialogue is difficult.
I could have back through your posts and find the many many times you attempted to drag this thread away from the greyhound industry or I could go through other poster's and find all the times the claim was made that these abuses happened years ago.

But I didn't. I made a general statement outlining what I think is part of the problem discussing it - naming no-one- and you come in and post that I, personally, am engaging in hyperbole.
And then, ironically, go on to say it's " a repetitive ban ban ban mantra of the few" - Choc Chip has demonstrated this is not the case, I would add to that that most of the outright calls to ban anything have been to ban exports in order to deal with the overbreeding issue.

gozunda

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And that is a prime example of why dialogue is difficult.
I could have back through your posts and find the many many times you attempted to drag this thread away from the greyhound industry or I could go through other poster's and find all the times the claim was made that these abuses happened years ago. But I didn't. I made a general statement outlining what I think is part of the problem discussing it - naming no-one- and you come in and post that I, personally, am engaging in hyperbole.
And then, ironically, go on to say it's " a repetitive ban ban ban mantra of the few" - Choc Chip has demonstrated this is not the case, I would add to that that most of the outright calls to ban anything have been to ban exports in order to deal with the overbreeding issue.

As I stated - if you wish to be pedantic like choc chip with regard to just one 'word' and ignore the other references to this - be my guest and completely ignore the point made - but I reckon you also may have missed my reply above ...

gozunda wrote: »

Ok you may nit pick if you wish - but yes the repeated call for a 'ban' has been ongoing inspite of a the ongoing discussion and regardless of the solutions suggested. It has been picked up by myself and others as noticable hence the use of same by reply. This has also been described in other words but essentially calling for the same thing. That shouldn't need explained tbh. However specifically that reference was in response to the aforementioned conclusion of

Bannasidhe"it's best to just shut the whole thing down.

in the post replied to. Same thing again - different words. But hey thanks for the input ...

Bannasidhe

gozunda wrote: »

Ok you may nit pick if you wish - but yes the repeated call for a 'ban' has been ongoing inspite of a the ongoing discussion and regardless of the solutions suggested. It has been picked up by myself and others as noticable hence the use of same by reply. This has also been described in other words but essentially calling for the same thing. That shouldn't need explained tbh.

However specifically that reference was in response to the aforementioned conclusion of in the post replied to. Same thing again - different words. But hey thanks for the input ...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think that many poster here have tried to engage but tbh when faced with denials of there being anything wrong now - it all happened ages ago apparently, hyperbolic statements about 'extremists' and death threats going to happen because different situation in England, constant quibbling about demonstrable facts - including the figures supplied by the IGB themselves - it becomes impossible to have a dialogue.

When faced with the usual Irish reaction to whistleblowers and a broadcast exposé of deny/cover up/deflect it's hard not to believe nothing will ever change and for the sake of the dogs it's best to just shut the whole thing down.

gozunda wrote: »

As I stated - if you wish to be pedantic like choc chip with regard to just one word and ignore the other references to this - be my guest but I reckon you also may have missed my reply above ...

On the contrary, you took what I said out of context and by the use of selected quotations tried to make it look like I was calling for a ban when what I actually wrote was : it's hard not to believe nothing will ever change and for the sake of the dogs it's best to just shut the whole thing down.

gozunda

Bannasidhe wrote: »

On the contrary, you took what I said out of context and by the use of selected quotations tried to make it look like I was calling for a ban when what I actually wrote was : it's hard not to believe nothing will ever change and for the sake of the dogs it's best to just shut the whole thing down.

"Out of context" lol...

Seriously how is what you said not calling for a 'ban'!!!

I give up ...

Choc Chip

Gozunda, I disagree that I'm being pedantic, but let's leave that lie.

I've just had a scan through your posts on thread and I can't see what you think should change in the industry, if anything. Could you give me a summary?

I know you said there were some good ideas already in thread, but what ideas were you referring to, was it mariners? And I think you mentioned stopping exporting but what will we do with the dogs bred if we're not exporting them?

I'm just trying to understand what your thoughts are.

Bannasidhe

gozunda wrote: »

"Out of context" lol...

Seriously how is what you said not calling for a 'ban'!!!

I give up ...

What part of "it's hard not to believe nothing will ever change..." is causing you difficulty in understanding?

You know, that bit you chose not to quote.

xckjoo

Some people are just antagonistic for the sake of it. Either consciously or subconsciously. Engagement is all they're looking for

gozunda

Choc Chip wrote: »

Gozunda, I disagree that I'm being pedantic, but let's leave that lie. I've just had a scan through your posts on thread and I can't see what you think should change in the industry, if anything. Could you give me a summary? I know you said there were some good ideas already in thread, but what ideas were you referring to, was it mariners? And I think you mentioned stopping exporting but what will we do with the dogs bred if we're not exporting them?I'm just trying to understand what your thoughts are.

Thank you for the repeated solicitude. However you narrowly focused on a single word 'ban' even though I referred to the constant 'mantra' regarding this idea and quoted an example of this being said - And you're not being pedantic? Ok so...

Yes Mariners seem to have both first hand knowledge and some very good ideas. Some good ideas from other posters as well. Take a read through the thread - its all there. There are definitely problems with greyhound breeding imo. But no I dont believe greyhound racing needs to be banned - if that's what you are getting at. Just my personal opinion - you can take it at that.

gozunda

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What part of "it's hard not to believe nothing will ever change..." is causing you difficulty in understanding?

You know, that bit you chose not to quote.

Quoting out of context? Give me a break - you finished that little piece with the call to shut the whole thing down!

Bannasidhe

xckjoo wrote: »

Some people are just antagonistic for the sake of it. Either consciously or subconsciously. Engagement is all they're looking for

While those with the spotlight being shun on them get media coaching

Bord na gCon has spent almost €50,000 on public relations advice in the first five months of this year, more than twice what it spent in the previous two years combined.

The semi-State agency, which has responsibility for the greyhound industry, attended last month before the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee to answer questions about its financial decisions.

They included the sale of it second Dublin track at Harold’s Cross, leading to a protracted dispute with greyhound owners and breeders.

The State-funded agency paid €47,831 for public relations (PR) advice up to the end of May this year, to Casey Communications, a Cork-based firm that specialises in strategic communications and crisis management. It was more than twice the €42,662 total it paid over the previous two years to a number of PR agencies.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/concerns-over-state-agencies-spend-on-pr-training-1.3141017

They might want to give some of the supporters of the greyhound industry a few pointers in strategic communications and crises management as denial and deflection aren't working.

Choc Chip

gozunda wrote: »

Yes Mariners seem to have both first hand knowledge and some very good ideas. Some other good ideas from other posters another's as well. Take a read through the thread - its all there. There are definitely problems with greyhound breeding imo. But no I dont believe greyhound racing needs to be banned - if that's what you are getting at. Just my personal opinion - you can take it at that.

I've read the thread. I'm asking you specifically what you think is wrong (if anything) and what changes you would make.

"some good ideas" and "good ideas from other posters" doesn't specify your own views.

If we can agree that there's an issue with breeding then at least we have some common ground.

gozunda

Choc Chip wrote: »

I've read the thread. I'm asking you specifically what you think is wrong (if anything) and what changes you would make. "some good ideas" and "good ideas from other posters" doesn't specify your own views.If we can agree that there's an issue with breeding then at least we have some common ground.

Yeah I get you - if you have a look at the comments you will see I’ve provided plenty of opinion and at this stage it's all been thrashed through imo. So yeah best take a read. But more specifically after the little exercise in pedanty above - I'm not going to bite. Thanks.

But If you like you can tell us your ideas about greyhounds and what the future might hold...

Choc Chip

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah I get you - if you have a look at the comments you will see I’ve provided plenty of opinion and at this stage it's all been thrashed through imo. So yeah best take a read. But more specifically after the little exercise in pedanty above - I'm not going to bite. Thanks.

But If you like you can tell us your ideas about greyhounds and what the future might hold...

I've made my own position perfectly clear - the industry breeds far too many dogs. They need to immediately restrict breeding and then start looking at other issues.

I wasn't being pedantic - you stated something that was incorrect and I pointed this out.

I have looked at your comments again today (having followed the thread over the past week). You don't provide any concrete thoughts on your own position as far as I can see. If you just want to be argumentative rather than discuss things then I'm done dealing with you.

gozunda

Choc Chip wrote: »

I've made my own position perfectly clear - the industry breeds far too many dogs. They need to immediately restrict breeding and then start looking at other issues.I wasn't being pedantic - you stated something that was incorrect and I pointed this out. I have looked at your comments again today (having followed the thread over the past week). You don't provide any concrete thoughts on your own position as far as I can see. If you just want to be argumentative rather than discuss things then I'm done dealing with you.

Yes the comment was pedantic. End of story. What I stated was indeed correct. Thanks.

Bannasidhe

<SNIP>

Apologies for the snip, but I am uncomfortable with Boards hosting unproven allegations against individuals. If this is reported by a verifiable media source, then please share.

dudara

Igotadose

Seems that the IGB are talking out of both sides of their mouth regarding the Preferred Results report. It was highly praised internally, then it seems it got out (via the documentary) and now they don't agree with it. Nothing to hide, they're transparent and open of course:

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0718/1063949-greyhounds-rte-investigates/

I suppose the good news is that the RTE and the Government haven't quite dropped this investigation.

And, lest we forget: "
The Irish greyhound industry is breeding 1,000% more puppies than its needs and this is leading to a cull of thousands of racing dogs every year. "
https://www.rte.ie/news/investigations-unit/2019/0624/1057320-greyhound-industry-over-breeding-by-1000/

donkeykong5

Seems thanks to rte investigates programme that Barry's piss tea have at long last stopped their sponsorship of the so called sport of greyhound racing. Any idea if rose of tralee organisation is still sponsering?