Dog Racing

[greyhound pal]

Its not so much they are a weaker breed as it is that they have short hair and thinner skin than 'normal' breeds which means that they tear so much easier because they don't have the protection of hair and thicker skin like othar breeds. Their skin really is paper thin which means a nick you probably won't even notice in another breed of dog is more apparent and I swear the wound opens as they move. One example of how extreme it can be is tail injuries. It can be something simple like wagging their tails and hitting it off a door or whatever. Vets rarely attempt to fix them because there isn't enough skin there and what you do get is further tears and infection so they tend to amputate. Anyway I digress...

 

Their bones aren't any thinner or more fragile that other breeds of dogs. What is different is the speed the greyhound runs at which means if they do knock or fall or slide, then the injury is likely to be much more severe. Which leads me back to it doesn't matter what breed they are, they are just as likely to be injured as a grehound (but perhaps not as serious).

 

However the design of the track isn't helpful to the dogs themselves due to the bends and the surfaces and straight line racing apparently equates to significantly reduced injury. Not that the industry cares

Edited July 23, 2008 by greyhound pal

[jane-f]

You appear to have misunderstood my words and accused me of being pedantic so I'll change what I wrote just to ensure what I meant is clear. I apologise for getting confused but whatever word used, it boils down to the same point:

 

"And why the hell should we encourage an industry thats all about smoke screens. Should we encourage them on rehoming however many dogs they rehome when we KNOW there are two or three times that amount lying dead? So ignore the dead ones and concentrate on what good they do?

 

No thanks."

 

 

Why shouldn't we encourage them to change, encourage them to take responsibility for the dogs they produce,

instead of palming them off to rescues, surly by rescues taking in there unwanted dog its helping keep the industry going,

the trainers know they can just palm there unwanted dogs off with out a care in the world,

tbh i would much prefare a trainer to have to take responsibility, weather that is having to re-home the dogs properly at cost to themselves, or putting them to sleep properly, instead of dumping them, using a bolt or knowing they can rely on a rescue,

to help them make room for more dogs,

 

all around the country there are pet dogs from homes that are being dumped, every day these pet dogs are being pts,

cause there is no one that wants them, everyday people are fighting to help the ones in pounds before they are pts,

even saving just a few - you know there are hundreds more that are being pts, from working homes right down to pets,

there are rescue that are taking from puppy farms, taking there unwanted dogs - helping them make room for other breeding machines

why not make people responsible, why not encourage people to do right be there dogs.

[Terrier]

What reforms could stop the mass death? And where exactly do you get these homes from - bearing in mind 8000+ non greyhounds are pts each year due to lack of homes?

 

What reforms could stop the mass death? I wish I knew the answer to that.

 

I'll not deny that there are problems with the racing industry (that really would be stupid) - I just wonder whether killing it (either by banning or by starving it of funds) is the best way to deal with the problem(s).

 

 

And why the hell should we congratulate an industry thats all about smoke screens. Should we congratulate them on rehoming however many dogs they rehome when we KNOW there are two or three times that amount lying dead? So ignore the dead ones and concentrate on what good they do?

 

No thanks.

 

Re: congratulate/encourage, I'll explain what I meant (it's obviously been misunderstood).

 

What I meant was that I feel there is a difference between encouraging the dumping of greyhounds and encouraging the offer of a service to pet owners, should they CHOOSE to use it?

 

Congratulate them? For what?

 

I would consider that giving dogs and their owners a fun day out together is an acceptable thing to do. THAT is what I think should be encouraged, not the dumping of dogs.

 

Of course we shouldn't ignore the problems!! I am baffled as to how you interpreted my comments in that way. I personally believe that the best way to deal with the problems is to push for racing to improve welfare. That means tackling the problems, **not** ignoring them.

 

You say that we KNOW that there are 2 or 3 times the number dead as rehomed. Perhaps this comes from my misunderstanding of the issue, but I thought the point was that we DIDN'T know how many are dead/dumped.

[cycas]

I wouldn't say that. By nature, you can't be sturdy and heavy and still be fast!

 

I dunno - I've met a number of collies that were faster than Mollydog (much to her annoyance, I might add).

 

You can get dogs to be pretty fast without having a dog that is likely to collapse from overheating in temperatures that to most normal dogs are merely a bit warm, that has a sensible amount of body fat, that doesn't have a skin that is so thin that it tears like paper, protected by practically no hair, and bones and tendons that sit within the thinnest possible sheath of covering. You can see sunlight through parts of my dog!

 

OK, you might not get a few top-rated individuals from the breed who would end up quite so superbly, insanely fast as the fastest modern grey, but you could still have a pretty quick dog. Look at salukis, they can chase hares across the Sahara all day: whereas a greyhound can be near collapse on a sunny British summer day after an hour's gentle stroll.

Edited July 23, 2008 by cycas

[greyhound pal]

Why shouldn't we encourage them to change, encourage them to take responsibility for the dogs they produce,

instead of palming them off to rescues, surly by rescues taking in there unwanted dog its helping keep the industry going,

the trainers know they can just palm there unwanted dogs off with out a care in the world,

tbh i would much prefare a trainer to have to take responsibility, weather that is having to re-home the dogs properly at cost to themselves, or putting them to sleep properly, instead of dumping them, using a bolt or knowing they can rely on a rescue,

to help them make room for more dogs,

 

all around the country there are pet dogs from homes that are being dumped, every day these pet dogs are being pts,

cause there is no one that wants them, everyday people are fighting to help the ones in pounds before they are pts,

even saving just a few - you know there are hundreds more that are being pts, from working homes right down to pets,

there are rescue that are taking from puppy farms, taking there unwanted dogs - helping them make room for other breeding machines

why not make people responsible, why not encourage people to do right be there dogs.

 

Your first point. There will never be enough homes there for all the greyhounds that retire from racing. No amount of money will buy homes for all the dogs retiring from racing. The sheer numbers of greyhounds out there mean it is impossible for trainers/owners to rehome all their dogs. And as this is something they should be doing in the first place, I dont' see what encouraging them to change would actually achieve. I don't blame rescues for taking in dogs. And I certainly don't agree that rescues cleaning up the mess caused by the racing industry is keeping teh industry going. Without the rescues, more would just end up pts in local pounds or killed by some other means. We have a 'trainer' locally who hands out dogs to anyone who asks about them. As a result there was an incident a few months ago where the unsuitable homed greyhound was killed. I don't think this man should be encouraged to rehome his dogs like this. Not when the reality is he just wants the space and doesn't care less what happens to the dog as long as its off his hands.

 

I'm trying to say that by encouraging them is buying in to the claims that welfare reforms would be effective when the reality is no welfare reforms would even touch the surface and they would only create another smoke screen like so many 'reforms' have in the past.

 

Your second point about pet homes, puppy farms and whatever. Its a sore point for me at the moment because of other things going on. I just want to point out that I do as much as I can for all dogs but try to stay focused on the greyhound. I just want to say that without greyhounds and the massive numbers of them clogging up rescues, the chances are the UK could significantly reduce the numbers of dogs beng pts each year. Each space a greyhound (which no one can argue the breeding of greyhounds is way out of control) takes up in rescues and homes is taking up a space that another breed of dog could be in. The industry's waste product doesn't just touch those involved in greyhound rescue - it touches every council tax payer who picks up the bill for greyhounds being pts and every LA area who pts dogs. It touches all breed rescues in one way or another.

 

 

 

You'll have to excuse me for the badly written posts - I've got so much else going on tonight that I'm finding it hard to focus

[Terrier]

Sorry, greyhound pal - I just realised I'd missed a part of my post out and couldn't edit it. It covers a lot of what you just said in your last post as well.

 

Here is what I tried to add:

 

 

As for your question: "Where do you get these homes from?". The problem should be tackled at BOTH ends. Racing cannot continue without SOME dogs being bred, but I'm pretty sure it could continue with LESS bred and still continue as a sport. Perhaps increased levies to rescue, a certain amount per dog owned? That would not just enable the rescues to cope better, but surely would also deter some of the more excessive breeding if they had to pay more per pup.

 

As for where the extra homes come from - I honestly believe that there is room for more homes to be created (whether those homes are for greyhounds or other breeds/mixes).

 

Educating the public to take on dogs **that are right for them** would imo be the best way to do that. To reduce the numbers of pet dogs dumped in the first place would clear up more space for the retired grey - to encourage more people to go to rescue would take yet more dogs out of the rescue system and into happy homes.

 

Lets not forget, greyhounds make fantastic pets, and given today's lifestyles I can think of few more suitable breeds for the modern family pet. If more people realised that, the problem would - if not be solved, certainly be improved.

[greyhound pal]

What reforms could stop the mass death? I wish I knew the answer to that.

 

I'll not deny that there are problems with the racing industry (that really would be stupid) - I just wonder whether killing it (either by banning or by starving it of funds) is the best way to deal with the problem(s).

 

 

 

 

Re: congratulate/encourage, I'll explain what I meant (it's obviously been misunderstood).

 

What I meant was that I feel there is a difference between encouraging the dumping of greyhounds and encouraging the offer of a service to pet owners, should they CHOOSE to use it?

 

Congratulate them? For what?

 

I would consider that giving dogs and their owners a fun day out together is an acceptable thing to do. THAT is what I think should be encouraged, not the dumping of dogs.

 

Of course we shouldn't ignore the problems!! I am baffled as to how you interpreted my comments in that way. I personally believe that the best way to deal with the problems is to push for racing to improve welfare. That means tackling the problems, **not** ignoring them.

 

You say that we KNOW that there are 2 or 3 times the number dead as rehomed. Perhaps this comes from my misunderstanding of the issue, but I thought the point was that we DIDN'T know how many are dead/dumped.

 

Sorry will quickly answer then really need to go get on with all this other stuff...

 

Think I've cleared up the using congratulate instead of encourage which I amended my post - got confused and I've already apologised for that. I won't be doing it a second time. It didn't change the whole point of the post though.

 

I don't agree that encouraging welfare reforms would be effective. What I always try to ask but never get much of an answer from anyone who promotes welfare reforms is this: if the industry could produce figures on the numbers of dogs culled/pts and reduced it to say, 1000 greyhounds a year, would that be reformed enough for you? Because the reality is that as long as there is an industry, dogs will die either on track or when they are no good for racing. Thats something that no welfare reforms can change.

 

The number dead was a liberal estimate - a very liberal one. Given the industry could have easily collated and provided info on how many dead dogs we're talking about many years ago but didn't (wonder why!) then its a dud argument in so many ways. APGAW state at least 5000 dogs are unaccounted for. They believe thats grossly underestimated. However work ot the number of pups who don't make it as far as earmarking (maybe up to half the numbers registered) and 25000 pups bred for racing each year with around 18000 retiring. Also remember the pups that didnt' make it that far (scary thinking we could be talking about as many as 36000 pups) then the official figures (last time I heard) were around 4000 rehomed. Where are the other dogs? But its all speculation and will remain so until the industry tells us different (which it never will). I'd like to think there are as little as 5000 but I believe due to various experiences I've had that its at least triple that amount

 

As for being baffled about how I interpretated you. Welfare reforms within the industry is to a certain extent accepting the things that can never be changed as being okay. Thats how I came to the conclusion that you perhaps aren't seeing the wider picture.

 

I'm not quite understanding several of your points but I think thats more about me than you.

[greyhound pal]

We're posting at the same time

 

Sorry, greyhound pal - I just realised I'd missed a part of my post out and couldn't edit it. It covers a lot of what you just said in your last post as well.

 

Here is what I tried to add:

 

 

As for your question: "Where do you get these homes from?". The problem should be tackled at BOTH ends. Racing cannot continue without SOME dogs being bred, but I'm pretty sure it could continue with LESS bred and still continue as a sport. Perhaps increased levies to rescue, a certain amount per dog owned? That would not just enable the rescues to cope better, but surely would also deter some of the more excessive breeding if they had to pay more per pup.

 

As for where the extra homes come from - I honestly believe that there is room for more homes to be created (whether those homes are for greyhounds or other breeds/mixes).

 

Educating the public to take on dogs **that are right for them** would imo be the best way to do that. To reduce the numbers of pet dogs dumped in the first place would clear up more space for the retired grey - to encourage more people to go to rescue would take yet more dogs out of the rescue system and into happy homes.

 

Lets not forget, greyhounds make fantastic pets, and given today's lifestyles I can think of few more suitable breeds for the modern family pet. If more people realised that, the problem would - if not be solved, certainly be improved.

 

There isn't a both ends for problem. To have an industry you need to mass produce dogs. When you mass produce dogs you end up with a surplus. Plus of course there are all the dogs who aren't any good for racing in the first place - the non-chasers/racers. The greyhound farmers will not and never will stop culling these pups because financially its not viable to rear such a dog. There is so much more to it but I'm not focused enough tonight to go into it.

 

I'm reluctant to say there is more rooms for homes. I think that I would by choice only have two dogs but because there are so many out there I have five. Thats not about personal choice though. There are a lot of reasons for my hesitance on this issue which I'm probably best not going into at the moment. But I will say why should Joe Public take on a greyhound? Why should they take on a dog that has been exploited and dumped on them? A gryehound isn't for everyone and there is no way on earth that any amount of publicity would rehome them all.

 

I dont' understand where you are seeing we could make these homes come from? I don't understand why there are so many dogs being pts because they dont' have a home when there are more homes out there.

 

Although I can see where you are coming from, I'm a lot more cynical about pet homes for greyhounds and whether or not your idea wouldn't just create a load of greyhounds being dumped by pet homes who perhaps weren't really wanting that particular breed or not equipped to deal with the breed. I've lost count of the number of times I'veread trainers stating that they'd rather kill their greyhounds than let the general public near one of their dogs. And although that makes me quite angry, if they're handed out to anyone (which in order to rehome so many, rescues would need to be less strict) wouldn't that just give those trainers something to really worry abut?

 

Sorry - am so distracted tonight so I might have stopped sounding logical a few hours ago

[jane-f]

Your first point. There will never be enough homes there for all the greyhounds that retire from racing. No amount of money will buy homes for all the dogs retiring from racing. The sheer numbers of greyhounds out there mean it is impossible for trainers/owners to rehome all their dogs. And as this is something they should be doing in the first place, I dont' see what encouraging them to change would actually achieve. I don't blame rescues for taking in dogs. And I certainly don't agree that rescues cleaning up the mess caused by the racing industry is keeping teh industry going. Without the rescues, more would just end up pts in local pounds or killed by some other means. We have a 'trainer' locally who hands out dogs to anyone who asks about them. As a result there was an incident a few months ago where the unsuitable homed greyhound was killed. I don't think this man should be encouraged to rehome his dogs like this. Not when the reality is he just wants the space and doesn't care less what happens to the dog as long as its off his hands.

 

I'm trying to say that by encouraging them is buying in to the claims that welfare reforms would be effective when the reality is no welfare reforms would even touch the surface and they would only create another smoke screen like so many 'reforms' have in the past.

 

Your second point about pet homes, puppy farms and whatever. Its a sore point for me at the moment because of other things going on. I just want to point out that I do as much as I can for all dogs but try to stay focused on the greyhound. I just want to say that without greyhounds and the massive numbers of them clogging up rescues, the chances are the UK could significantly reduce the numbers of dogs beng pts each year. Each space a greyhound (which no one can argue the breeding of greyhounds is way out of control) takes up in rescues and homes is taking up a space that another breed of dog could be in. The industry's waste product doesn't just touch those involved in greyhound rescue - it touches every council tax payer who picks up the bill for greyhounds being pts and every LA area who pts dogs. It touches all breed rescues in one way or another.

 

 

 

You'll have to excuse me for the badly written posts - I've got so much else going on tonight that I'm finding it hard to focus

 

but making them responsible, could encourage less breeding, if they have no out let for there dogs, then how are they going to take more dogs in, if each time they have to keep hold of dogs or pay out for them to be spayed, vet checks,food etc until they are re-homed then they wont want to keep taking dogs in or breeding more dogs, hit them in the pocket and they think twice

there is a trainer not far from me,

who is doing all he can to re-home the dogs in his care, he does give them free,

but there spayed,vaxed and he gives each dog a life time of support,

each dog is used to living in a home before it gos, and he makes sure its the right home for the dog

so far i have never had to go and pick one of his dogs up and get it in to rescue,

there another bloke, his dogs go to the RGT, he pays for everything while the dogs are there - until the dogs are re-homed,

its actually encouraged him to keep less dogs, and some of the dogs he has taken home, and they live with him

until they die of old age.

 

now there are two other trainers posing as rescues - one ive just found out about and the other has been going for a while,, they are palming dogs off to anyone, who will pay, they are giving these dogs to people with small kids,

they will even deliver the dog to you, one of these dogs i had to pick up last year and get it down to gaps care,

as it was fighting with the other dog, and the woman was frightened it would bite her kid.

 

Dont worry about badly written posts - i can understand them

most of my posts i have used spell check on, as i am so tired - and really need to go and get ready for

another night of work .

[DanishPastry]

I dunno - I've met a number of collies that were faster than Mollydog (much to her annoyance, I might add).

 

You can get dogs to be pretty fast without having a dog that is likely to collapse from overheating in temperatures that to most normal dogs are merely a bit warm, that has a sensible amount of body fat, that doesn't have a skin that is so thin that it tears like paper, protected by practically no hair, and bones and tendons that sit within the thinnest possible sheath of covering. You can see sunlight through parts of my dog!

 

OK, you might not get a few top-rated individuals from the breed who would end up quite so superbly, insanely fast as the fastest modern grey, but you could still have a pretty quick dog. Look at salukis, they can chase hares across the Sahara all day: whereas a greyhound can be near collapse on a sunny British summer day after an hour's gentle stroll.

to me Salukis and Greys are pretty much the same thing.... shows my ignorance! What am I doing in this thread anyway?

I would not let my dogs race at a greyhound track, flapjack or not, for association-to-industry reasons, but I would love for them to try lure coursing once. A friend in Denmark did it with her Ridgeback, all arranged by the RR club of DK as a "several times a year" event. They had great fun!

[raiye]

I would like to have others opinions on dog racing, not Greyhound racing.

 

I know that some dogs love to run and race and have no problems with them racing in a straight line, but when they are using Greyhound tracks, I find that very upsetting, to me it looks like they agree with Greyhound racing or they wouldn't support the tracks.

 

There is a section on this board for discussions against Greyhound racing but in another part of the board, pictures are put up of dogs racing on Greyhound tracks.

 

It is the use of the tracks that I find upsetting, not dog racing if that is what the dogs enjoy. There is also the damage to the dogs that the bends on a race track do to the dogs which may not show up until several years later.

 

From an insurance point, many insurance companies exclude racing in their small print.

 

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression this thread was about other breed racing, NOT greyhound racing?

[greyhound pal]

Sorry Raiye! Its digressed more than a little but I think its due to the industry owning the tracks that non-greyhounds are racing at which means they become very much linked. Think perhaps a new thread to do greyhound racing and leave this one on topic?

[redditchlady]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression this thread was about other breed racing, NOT greyhound racing?

 

Yes it is hun

 

 

But it was mentioned that people/dogs used the tracks on other days.

 

I guess none of us are going to agree on this one.

 

My thoughts are still the same, anyone that pays to use a track is supporting the industry. Greys/Lurchers injure themselves, we clear up the aftermath.

 

I had 2 foster Lurchers here that both had old injuries that could not be repaired. I saw it first hand.

 

 

No malice intended

 

Kazz xx

[one.eyed.dog]

Have you thought of it this way.

If the demand for Joe Public wanting to use the track to run their dogs for fun went up enough it would be booked all the time and maybe the track would do greyhound racing less often.

 

I think my dog will love it. I know when she is having a good time and this is just up her street. How she has not come a cropper going hell for leather through the forest with all that is on a forest floor is beyond me. She is like a demented gazelle. The track will be well safe for her.

 

She is a GWP.

[raiye]

Sorry Raiye! Its digressed more than a little but I think its due to the industry owning the tracks that non-greyhounds are racing at which means they become very much linked. Think perhaps a new thread to do greyhound racing and leave this one on topic?

That I understand

When I win the lottery (after I have brought Leigh cats and dogs home) the track my dogs run at will be used for nothing more than a safe and secure place for my dog(s) to run in a way they love. And all breeds will be welcome to come and run too. My friends terriers have so much fun

I don't think encouraging a dog to do what it was designed for is a bad thing. As with all good things, it is open to exploitation. In moderation, I think its a great pastime that all dogs could enjoy.

At present my £3 a month goes to the upkeep of the track we use. I will pay it because the upkeep of the track is important to me.