Abigailj Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 Has anyone had a reply from Ben Bradshaw/DEFRA? I am aware of a couple of people who received replies. Have you had one? What do you think about the response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brindlebabe Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 No, no reply as of yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abigailj Posted July 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 I'm sure someone here had a reply a few days back and posted it - but I can't remember who it was now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavenderblue Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 I havent had a reply . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelli Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 i didnt write directly to Ben Bradshaw - I did the MP routeand I received a letter back from him (Peter lilley) saying he will be taking the matter up with Ben Bradshaw & will be in touch as soon as he receives a reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abigailj Posted July 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 (edited) It was Magic that got the reply. She posted it HERE and I have pasted it below. Someone else has since received the same reply. What do people think about it??? Thank you for your email of 18 July 2006 to Ben Bradshaw about greyhound racing. I have been asked to reply. I can assure you that we share your concerns on the allegations in the press of the killing of a large number of retired racing greyhounds. Government Ministers have called upon the National Greyhound Racing Club (NGRC) – the organisation which sets and administers welfare standards for those tracks and owners/trainers who race under NGRC rules - to investigate the allegations made in the press. The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW) - an all-party parliamentary group made up of MPs, Peers and associate animal welfare organisations – has also launched its own investigation into the allegations. We welcome this enquiry and will certainly wish to consider any recommendations APGAW makes. Until such time as further evidence is produced, we are unable to comment on whether any offences have been committed in the case mentioned in the press. On the issue of the number of greyhounds retiring from racing each year, there is very little reliable evidence on the fate of greyhounds on retirement. Although, of course, the welfare of greyhounds during and after their racing career is ultimately the responsibility of the owners and trainers themselves. However, welfare organisations and the racing industry have worked together in recent years in an effort to improve the number of retired greyhounds who are re-homed. The racing industry has increased considerably the financial support that it provides for the welfare of retired greyhounds. Funding for greyhound welfare is channelled through the British Greyhound Fund, which is funded by the industry, including the betting industry. In 2005 grants relating to welfare totalled £2.5m, including £1.3m to the Retired Greyhound Trust (RGT). In 2000, funding from the industry for the RGT was £240,000. There are now more than 60 RGT Branches from Jersey to the Isle of Skye. The British Greyhound Racing Board is also working with other canine welfare organisations to examine what is happening to retired greyhounds and is committed to addressing any problems identified. All of its publicity material informs prospective greyhound owners that they are responsible for the proper provision of their greyhound in retirement. A Welfare Executive employed by the NGRC works with the RGT by helping to enforce it welfare rules – especially by stressing to owners their primary responsibility in finding homes for their retired greyhounds. Under NGRC rules those dogs that cannot be re-homed have to be humanely destroyed by a veterinary surgeon. It is already an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to destroy an animal in a manner that will cause it unnecessary suffering. In addition, the Animal Welfare Bill, currently before Parliament, will introduce an offence of failing to provide for the welfare needs of an animal. This will apply to owners and keepers of all animals, including racing, and retired, greyhounds. The Bill also provides powers to introduce secondary legislation to regulate animal related activities. We are considering making specific regulations under the Animal Welfare Bill in relation to the welfare of racing greyhounds. Defra has set up a working group to examine the issue of greyhound welfare. The group has been asked to offer advice to Ministers and officials in the drafting of regulations to improve greyhound welfare. Members of the group include representatives of welfare organisations, the racing industry, local authorities, the devolved administrations and Defra. While this group has yet to make any recommendations - our preference is that whenever possible welfare standards should be regulated by the industry. Although we recognise that industry self-regulation may not be an option for those tracks that are not operating under the aegis of the NGRC, I can assure you that we would not recommend any system of self-regulation unless it can be commended to parliament as a system that is open and auditable, with the standards set and the effectiveness of the enforcers monitored by central Government. This is a key issue and clearly one which the working group will want to address in its recommendations. There will also be a full public consultation on our proposals before approval by parliament. I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Yours sincerely Michael Akano Customer Contact Unit Edited July 31, 2006 by Abigailj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abigailj Posted July 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 . What do people think about it??? Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeti Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 It was Magic that got the reply. She posted it HERE and I have pasted it below. Someone else has since received the same reply. What do people think about it??? I got one today that looked remarkably similar - sort of identical really. Nothing from my MP though. What do I think about it? Well, trying to keep the language suitable for public forum, it's pretty poor really. (my initial reaction included an anagram of a well known clothing brand) The jist of it is that: they want regulation - even if one asked for banning to be considered. The reality is that regulation means squat - dogs will still die by the thousand. Ohhhh, it's a vet killing them. That makes it OK then. Not. they want self regulation, despite the fact that the industry has demonstrably failed in this to date. Self regulation means business as normal, for the industry and the Mr. Smiths up and down the country. The only potentially good point was the last scentence that states: There will also be a full public consultation on our proposals before approval by parliament. Whether this means anything in reality only time will tell, but between now and then is the time for voices to be heard. Mr. Mark Quinlan closes by asking if the letter addresses my concerns. I shall be replying in the negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going to the dogs Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 I think the response is a cop-out. While expressing concern, the letter is really a defence of the Greyhound racing industry and the money it gives for welfare. I wonder what happens to that money because it doesn't seem to be even starting to solve the problem. He is obviously in favour of self-regulation and we have seen that does not work. Auditable? By whom? This view is blinkered: the writer seems unconvinced by the scale of the problem. A disappointing response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going to the dogs Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 A disappointing response. The writer seems unconvinced that there is a problem of monumental scale. He writes almost in defence of the industry quoting sums of money donated to the welfare of retired Greyhounds. He is obviously in favour of self-regulation and we know that that doesn't work. So I guess he's in favour of the industry getting a bit of a telling off - told to clean up its act - and then life can go on as before. And the government goes on getting its sizeable cut from the betting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelli Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 I read it as though he doesnt really think there is a massive problem - thinks that the fact that there is a RGT make it ok whats so right about a vet killing a dog????????????????????? there shouldnt be the need to kill them - FULL STOP Doesnt sound like they are even considering a ban sounds as though they want self regukation - i mean HELLO??? It annoys me how they sort of brush off that anything has happened - I hate the way that it was repeated Until such time as further evidence is produced, we are unable to comment on whether any offences have been committed in the case mentioned in the press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abigailj Posted August 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 He writes almost in defence of the industry quoting sums of money donated to the welfare of retired Greyhounds. That is what disgusted me the most about this letter. I know they make 70 million a year out of it so expecting them to be impartial is perhaps a bit naive of me, but I don't expect them to respond with the kind of fluff that would be plastered on a BGRB leaflet/website. They should be listening to, and answering our concerns, not defending the racing industry. The me the end paragraph reads as if they don't want the hassle of regulating it, (and they seem to be sucked into thinking that the flapping tracks are the problem). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brindlebabe Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 I get the feeling that nothing is going to change. If the recent events haven't shown them that self regulation isn't working, what the hell will? How many greyhounds being destroyed, abused, neglected will tip the balance. It's like they are living in their own little narrow world, totally alienated from the brutal reality of the truth. It would be quite simple for them to find the evidence if they wanted to, but BB seems intent on brushing everything aside to keep racing going. It is just not good enough. We wrote to 66 people and have received replies from less than 10. That is a very arrogant way to deal with the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelli Posted August 22, 2006 Report Share Posted August 22, 2006 I had a letter from Ben Bradshaw this morning - I wrote to my MP who took the matter up with Ben Bradshaw - the reply is 3 pages long so I will work out how to scan or something?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted August 22, 2006 Report Share Posted August 22, 2006 I wrote to my MP and thought he might take it up with Ben Bradshaw, as he did when I went to see him about something else. I don't think he has contacted Ben so I will write direct now. However what my MP has told me is that during the passage of the Animal Welfare Bill earlier this year, he voted to support an amendment which he said would have raised the priority for a welfare code which would have improved greyhound welfare. He said the government voted against this twice He also advised me that the government takes £70m in tax from the racing sector and said it can't keep blaming others. He also said, unlike some animal welfare situations, the industry does have funds available that could be put towards improving greyhound welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts