rspca, dogs trust, blue cross et al

Everyone who supports any of the above needs to read this.
There is shortly to be published a statement signed by various charities in response to the rules and regulations for greyhound racing drawn up by DEFRA under the the Animal Welfare Act.
These proposed regulations will do nothing to prevent another Seaham and will leave thousands of dogs still at the mercy of a gambling business that remains operated by the bookmakers and promoters who own the tracks (and in many cases bookmakers are both) in their own interests.
The statement is not going to say any of this because, as I understand it, Dogs Trust doesn’t want the statement to be ’emotive” and prefers that it should be businesslike.
For those of you who may read this and don’t remember Seaham, that’s where the Sunday Times, in 2006, discovered and photographed a man who was in the process of killing two greyhounds to add to the estimated 10,000 he had already disposed of, with a boltgun and his mechanical digger, in his field, as he had been doing for the last 10 years. And, we were told, his father had been doing before him.
The Chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board at that time was Lord Lipsey, who was sufficiently embarrassed perhaps to write to all 646 MPs a two page letter, possibly reiterating his assurance that it was a “one-off”. Two months later Leigh Animal Sanctuary, in Greater Manchester, was discovered – again by the Sunday Times – to be an abbatoir for greyhounds and used on an almost daily basis by trainers for many years.
Three months before Seaham Lord Lipsey had declared to the House of Lords that the idea of greyhounds being dropped into a black pit when they finished racing was a “myth”.
So Lord Lipsey, I imagine, will be relieved for the ommission in the statement.
Those of us who have patiently and meekly collected evidence and submitted it to various Government departments, committees and Reports over the years and listened to promises and assurances from our elected representatives are not so sanguine.
How does the word “businesslike” attach itself to uncontrolled slaughter of thousands of dogs bred for a gambling entertainment?
If Dogs Trust believes “A dog is for life not just for Christmas” why is the mere mention of Seaham only, perhaps, to be used in debate? Why leave it to chance? We have already seen how amendments attempting to deal with welfare of the dogs were swept aside by Lord Rooker in a previous debate.
And why, when Ministers have been falling over themselves to condemn self-regulation as a huge mistake – for themselves and their Lordships – and are trying to rein in the bankers, is it still the “preferred option” of this Government for greyhound racing? Where’s the logic in that? Or is it all about the money the dogs make for the Treasury?

Advertisements

5 responses to “rspca, dogs trust, blue cross et al

  1. Dumfriesshire and Cumbria Greyhound Rescue believes that there should be independent oversight of greyhound welfare with no industry involvement.

  2. On average Greyhound Compassion holds a street collection once per month in UK shopping centres. It is fair to say that virtually every donor in these towns on a Saturday morning is well aware of the ills in the greyhound racing industry as a result of the Sunday Times exposé of the Seaham slaughter in 2006 and of the killing of greyhounds for £20 per greyhound by Holt’s knacker’s yard in Hertfordshire in 2008. In the latter case the killing cost just two pence per greyhound and the disposal was covered by the rest of the twenty pounds.

    The Sunday Times coverage referred to the Inland Revenue’s annual income of £70m from greyhound racing. Consequently, every donor at Greyhound Compassion street collections (regardless of whether or not they are dog owners) is abhorred by the fact that the government makes a significant amount of money on the back of a cruel industry. The regulations proposed by DEFRA concentrate only on welfare at the track. If implemented, they will ignore “off-track” welfare, which is where the atrocities we have seen in the past occur. The cases of greyhounds being killed with the bolt gun will not be prevented by these regulations. This regulatory inertia, coupled with widespread awareness of the Inland Revenue’s income from greyhound racing, will do nothing to change public opinion about the government’s apathy to greyhound welfare and the regulation of the industry. The time has come for ethical taxation and independent regulation.

  3. These politicians and charities are too busy looking after their own interests to do much about cruelty to animals in this country . Its the same story regarding puppy farming , no one has the guts to sort it out once and for all.

    If one person is unkind to an animal it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once large sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people.”
    — Ruth Harrison,

  4. Keep up your excellent work on this campaign, Annette

  5. I support all of the above organisations with time and money. All who do should write and relay our disgust at the way these charities are ignoring the plight of these defencless animals. I know they see the cruelty on a daily basis, they too take greyhounds into their care. If they want our support they should listen to our voices when we advocate on behalf of these beautiful unfortunate dogs. Thank you so much for drawing my attention to awful situation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s