lurcherdan Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Help all racing greyhounds and sign the petition today! The RSPCA is calling for a better life for all racing greyhounds. Each year at least 10,000 greyhounds are retired from racing. The fate of many greyhounds is unknown and huge numbers ‘disappear’. The greyhound racing industry must reveal the true extent of the problem. Racing greyhounds may face a number of welfare problems during their lives including: Over breeding of greyhounds leading to thousands of unwanted dogs Injury caused by inappropriate track surfaces and design Being abandoned and killed when they don’t make the grade because they are unsuitable for racing Sign the petition now! Ask the Government to introduce regulation to protect the welfare of all racing greyhounds throughout their lives. http://www.greyhoundpetition.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abigailj Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Is it possible to have 'regulation to protect the welfare of all racing greyhounds throughout their lives'? If everyone who wanted a ban actually asked for one I think we would get alot more changes made as they will perhaps try and find some middle ground between the race industry and the 'antis'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going to the dogs Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 (edited) No thanks. I would rather stick out for a total ban on Greyhound racing. I don't believe that "welfare" and "racing Greyhounds" are compatible concepts. Racing Greyhounds exist to make profit for uncaring people and there will be no "welfare" for Greyhounds until the industry is stopped. Then the breeding will stop. Then, when numbers diminsih, maybe Greyhounds might have a hope of a decent life in homes rather than used to make a quick buck and later discarded. Edited July 28, 2006 by Going to the dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 If everyone who wanted a ban actually asked for one I think we would get alot more changes made as they will perhaps try and find some middle ground between the race industry and the 'antis'. But I thought the protest/campaign being organised at present was deliberately not calling for a ban? I thought that was why GA was not getting involved officially and is organising its own march? I'm getting confused - it might be me, I may have misunderstood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurcherdan Posted July 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Exactly my thoughts Ange. I posted it here as I thought most people seemed to want regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going to the dogs Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 But I thought the protest/campaign being organised at present was deliberately not calling for a ban? I thought that was why GA was not getting involved officially and is organising its own march? I'm getting confused - it might be me, I may have misunderstood Ange, I think that many of us who would like a total ban can march with GA and also march under the "Stop the Slaughter" banner. But I, for one, would not be able simply to call for better welfare for racing Greyhounds. It would never happen. Welfare is very low on the list of priorities of racing Greyhound owners, I fear. It's money that counts. I would prefer to still have a ban top of my agenda and any compromise would be a cop-out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abigailj Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 (edited) But I thought the protest/campaign being organised at present was deliberately not calling for a ban? I thought that was why GA was not getting involved officially and is organising its own march? I'm getting confused - it might be me, I may have misunderstood I think you are confusing my own personal thoughts about the RSPCA petition with the purpose of the proposed march. The two are not connected in anyway Personally I'd rather see a ban because I don't believe that welfare can ever truly come first when part of a commercial profit driven venture and I have always been very open about that. The reason that I can attend and support the stop the slaughter march is that it does not specify between a ban or independent regulation. I do seriously think that many many people really want a ban. Some find that their positions with rescues/organisations compromise their ability to publicly express this opinion. Other people don't ask for a ban simply because they don't believe it will ever happen. If everyone who really wanted it said so, in their own individual letters, then I believe it could make a real impact - it may not neccesarily result in a ban, but perhaps it could make the huge difference between self regulation being allowed to continue and independent regulation. Someone posted a reply from DEFRA/MP earlier (I will try and find it). It seemed to say that NGRC registered tracks may continue to be self regulated, whilst independent 'flapping' tracks would be regulated. Are the flapping tracks to blame for the problems? No. Is that a good enough solution? IMHO no it isn't. By asking for the absolute maximum,as individuals and where possible, perhaps we will get more for the dogs. Edited July 28, 2006 by Abigailj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Could someone clarify, is the "Stop the Slaughter" campaign/committee/march calling for a ban on greyhound racing or not? Or has that not been decided yet? I'm getting awfully confused. Thanks Sorry Abigail, you edited your post after I posted, I wasn't ignoring you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going to the dogs Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 I think one of the organisers of the march can best answer you, Ange. My understanding is that: Greyhound Action want a total ban and are organising their own march Stop the Slaughter will be calling for just what that says and stricter regulation but there will also be people who want to stop the slaughter and ban the "sport". And then there are are rescues who work with the industry for the sake of the Greyhounds and who feel that it would not be in the interests of their fragile relationship with trainers etc to put their name to a total ban and who will be demonstrating as individuals at the Stop the Slaughter march but not officially as organisations. These would presumably not attending the GA march. But I could have got that all wrong. My take is that: a total ban is the ideal and eventual objective. In the meantime stopping the slaughter would be a good move but I do worry what on earth is going to happen to the Greys if they are not "humanely" killed. I doubt if there are enough rescues in the country to cope with the overspill of this industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abigailj Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 (edited) My understanding of the situation is: Greyhound Action are marching for a ban because they believe that is the only way to solve the problem properly. The stop the slaughter march isn't a march to ask specifically for regulation and it isn't a march to ask specifically for a ban either. It is a march to simply ask them to stop the slaughter. The individuals marching will all have their own opinions about how best to sort the problem, (either regulation or ban) but having the one banner 'stop the slaughter' will enable them all to march together in one big group to show just how many people care about it and want it sorted out. Edited July 28, 2006 by Abigailj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going to the dogs Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 My understanding of the situation is: Greyhound Action are marching for a ban because they believe that is the only way to solve the problem properly. The stop the slaughter march isn't a march to ask specifically for regulation and it isn't a march to ask specifically for a ban either. It is a march to simply ask them to stop the slaughter. The individuals marching will all have their own opinions about how best to sort the problem, (either regulation or ban) but having the one banner 'stop the slaughter' will enable them all to march together in one big group to show just how many people care about it and want it sorted out. I think we are in agreement then. I can quite happily march with GA because I want a total ban. I can quite happily march with Stop the Slaughter because I want that as well as a total ban I can't sign a petition asking for better conditions for racing Greyhounds because I don't want there to be racing Greyhounds and I don't believe the industry would ever do more than pay scant lip service to the idea of welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 The individuals marching will all have their own opinions about how best to sort the problem, (either regulation or ban) but having the one banner 'stop the slaughter' will enable them all to march together in one big group to show just how many people care about it and want it sorted out. Thanks Abigal - and Wendy. I can fully understand this bit The stop the slaughter march isn't a march to ask specifically for regulation and it isn't a march to ask specifically for a ban either. It is a march to simply ask them to stop the slaughter. OK, so assuming the campaign takes off and the press contact the Stop the Slaughter organisers (the committee as I understand it) ... when the press asks how the organisers envisage the slaughter will be stopped, will it be a case of them saying that there are many groups and individuals taking part in the campaign/march, many of whom feel a ban on the "sport" is necessary, while others feel industry regulation would be adequate? So no one "solution" will be presented to the current situation, by the organisers? As an individual I would like to see the darn industry banned. I did wonder however whether groups appealing for more regulation, the industry to put more money into the welfare of racing and ex-racing greys etc. might just be aiming to tackle the problem from a different, perhaps more acceptable (to some) way? Perhaps if the industry is more regulated and welfare improved enough, the industry will do itself out of business because it wouldn't be profiting enough? I'm not saying that would happen, but wonder if that's the angle the RSPCA and others might be tackling this from . I would also think that the RSPCA have a great deal in terms of publicity to offer to any solution, since I would guess that every adult in the UK will have heard of them, which will not be so for the majority of smaller organisations involved in the campaign. I'm not involved in greyhound rescue, I'm not a member of GA, I have a better understanding of the issue than the "general public" I guess, but am just trying to understand things - and possibly not doing a very good job of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abigailj Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 OK, so assuming the campaign takes off and the press contact the Stop the Slaughter organisers (the committee as I understand it) ... when the press asks how the organisers envisage the slaughter will be stopped, will it be a case of them saying that there are many groups and individuals taking part in the campaign/march, many of whom feel a ban on the "sport" is necessary, while others feel industry regulation would be adequate? So no one "solution" will be presented to the current situation, by the organisers? Any press statements will have to be carefully thought out. There are people involved who have a wealth of experience in this particular area (but not my specialist subject I must admit ). Perhaps if the industry is more regulated and welfare improved enough, the industry will do itself out of business because it wouldn't be profiting enough? I'm not saying that would happen, but wonder if that's the angle the RSPCA and others might be tackling this from . Yes maybe. Raising welfare standards could force some people out of the sport, or as you say, if pushed high enough it may cause the industry to become unviable. I personally think that it is worth asking for a ban in personal letters etc, as the heavier the changes that are made, the greater the benefit to the dogs, whether 'retired', racing or never made the grade in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoots Posted July 30, 2006 Report Share Posted July 30, 2006 I'm not sure there's any conflict of interests here tbh. The RSPCA petition is concerning the next legislative tranche of the Animal Welfare Bill, which may or may not include regulation of greyhound racing. Can't remember the timescales offhand but the industry was given a period to self-regulate and clean up its act. The Animal Welfare Bill exists and there will be resultant secondary legislation. Don't see why that should stop anyone campaigning for an end to racing as a separate issue. Hope that made some kind of vague sense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melp Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 Hi Scoots Dan I'm happy to sign the petition despite the fact they're not calling for a total ban. As I've said before, it's not going to happen in the forseeable future and if conditions are improved while we campaign long term, thats a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts