End 99-year-old greyhound shame

Sign to help end greyhound racing

Introduction

In this heartfelt letter to BBC Countryfile Magazine, Ann Shannon, a long-time advocate for greyhound welfare, recounts her decades-long battle against the greyhound racing industry's neglect and mistreatment of these animals. Beginning in 1959, she witnessed firsthand the industry's disregard for greyhounds deemed no longer useful, leading her to initiate efforts to find homes for these discarded dogs. Despite facing opposition from industry authorities, she persisted in her mission, collaborating with organisations like the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) to rehome greyhounds and expose unethical practices. She highlights the industry's failure to provide for retired greyhounds, the cruel fates many endure, and the inadequacies of self-regulation. She calls for a phased ban on greyhound racing, stricter enforcement of animal welfare laws, and greater accountability from governing bodies and the government to protect these vulnerable animals.

Letter:

Dear Sir,

I fully endorse Rob Kelvey's concern for greyhounds (Country File Magazine page 92 08/08/24) which I have acted upon to the best of my ability and with the valuable and greatly appreciated help and skills of others since 1959 when I took employment in a trainer’s kennels, licenced by the then ruling body: National Greyhound Racing Club (NGRC), now; Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) in conjunction with Greyhound Trust. I discovered the dogs’ fate and the despicable efforts of the NGRC and various trainers to hide or deny the facts. Those facts prompted me to advertise for homes for the injured dogs and those who proved 'unsuitable for purpose’ or were fading in performance.

I was swiftly summoned to the Racing Manager's office and commanded to stop the adverts immediately, presumably because it made it look bad for greyhound racing that no provision was made for the dogs at the end of their track careers. The frequent instruction of many owners to trainers was "have it put down or give it away". I was taken aback.

My reply to the Racing Manager was: "I've been told it's up to the owners." Silence followed. I subsequently contacted owners, and they were pleased and relieved to offload their responsibility. Only a very few retired their dogs into their own homes.

As the demand for homes increased I began adverting nationwide and contacted the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) seeking the help of the nationwide experienced volunteers of its Derek Roy Homefinding Scheme for Greyhounds to check any home offers resulting from the adverts for suitability and to help with transport.

Fifteen years later the NGRC was at last embarrassed by the BUAV into acknowledging the greyhound industry's own responsibility for the dogs. BUAV supporters understandably felt that its funds should be used to find alternatives to vivisection.

Having opposed the home-finding efforts of Homesafe Greyhound Rescue for 15 years the NGRC then had the audacity to request a list of my (Homesafe Greyhound Rescue) contacts in order to form its NGRC Retired Greyhound Trust. For the sake of the dogs it seemed best to comply.

What has followed since then (and prior to) shames the industry of greyhound racing to the core and also Defra, which has named responsibility for greyhound welfare, plus some impatient owners and trainers, anxious for kennel spaces for new racers, channelling injured and ‘for other reasons' no longer wanted dogs into vivisection laboratories as a quicker solution than homefinding.

Some trainers chose to stockpile the no longer useful dogs in the back ends of their kennel blocks but that provided no real quality of life and, in some cases, resulted in appalling suffering. Some thought 'unsuitable for homing' (by whose authority?) or ‘no home could be found’ was an excuse for euthanasia. On the other side of the coin some trainers/owners actually chose euthanasia to keep the dogs safe from falling into bad hands, thus acknowledging that they were vulnerable when of no further use for racing. ‘Bolt gun and bury’, which remains legal, was a popular solution. Seaham was a prime example: in 2006 an estimated 10,000 greyhounds were found in a layered 'grave' area there. Parliamentary recommendations were then made but, 18 years later, have never yet been fully or satisfactorily implemented. Similarly, the Welfare of Racing greyhounds 2010 document [remains unimplemented].

The NGRC began charging owners an extra £5 when they registered their dogs for racing, to fund homefinding. The result was that they then expected, even demanded, immediate homes for their injured or ‘for other reasons' no longer wanted dogs. The Trust's response was to tell them to advertise personally for homes then contact its volunteers to check any resultant homes for suitability prior to placing the dogs. Some impatient owners and trainers, mainly uncaringly or perhaps naively, did not bother with that time-consuming and possibly disappointing refinement and instead let the dogs go regardless, many of whom were sooner or later passed on to someone else, sometimes even in the local pub, or abandoned as strays.

Battersea has taken in abandoned and stray greyhounds for many years; more recently direct from trainers offloading the greyhound industry's responsibility.

There is immense cruelty in this world. Shamefully greyhounds are one of the most vulnerable victims. Sympathy for the dogs is not enough. Action is needed; a long-overdue but caringly phased ban on greyhound racing plus a halt on breeding more (perhaps achievable by the requirement of a licence but no licences being allowed) could blessedly remove them from the ‘prime victims' category.

In order to safeguard the final tide of dogs involved in greyhound racing in the UK which is urgently necessary, support for the Blue Cross "Cut the Chase" campaign, plus the utmost knowledgeable report by Dr Andrew Knight, which I understand was funded by Greyt Exploitations, plus League Against Cruel Sports information and also APGAW, is vital. 

Importantly, the RSPCA and Dogs Trust, who ‘worked with the industry’ for years in an attempt to improve life for the dogs but to no adequate or widespread effect, now also support and, I understand, would be involved in facilitating the phased ban. Meanwhile the dogs remain vulnerable.

In particular the GBGB's "Code of Practice" is not compulsory and various trainers continue their traditional solution to persistent barking, kennel-chewing and self-mutilation (due to flea infestation or stress) by permanently muzzling the dogs, which contributes to prevalent dental decay and associated pain as well as resigned depression. Sores on black dogs were commonly camouflaged with black boot polish on race rights when the dogs were on view to the public. Vets' cursory pre-race check on the dogs brought no comment. Fawn dogs were more fortunate in that Fuller's Earth powder was used. Permanent muzzling also puts the dogs at risk of choking to death if they vomit (I have seen victims. It must be a terrible way to die).

Cases of appalling suffering, which could not have happened if the GBGB's claim of twice-yearly inspection of its licenced trainers' kennels by its stewards had been conscientiously carried out, have been revealed. Please see enclosures. The trainers' neglect should/would have been noticed long before the dogs' condition deteriorated to the extent eventually discovered.

Prosecution after the event is too late: it does not remove the cruelty suffered. Typically but ridiculously the GBGB now claims credit for action taken after the events: RSPCA accommodation, care and homing arrangements for the surviving dogs is commendable, but some were already skeletons. Others, severely emaciated, collapsed on being removed from their cages and were beyond help. Again, the GBGB is seen to rely on a charity to care for the dogs and the public to provide homes, hence the financial strain and work burden on a charity. The GBGB offloads its responsibility. DEFRA continues to accept the proven fragile welfare ‘assurances’ and cosmetic front put forward by the GBGB, in conjunction with Greyhound Trust: rescue groups and organisations have been harvested to accommodate or foster and then home the 'no longer useful’ greyhounds, thus denying other dogs, who do not have a rich industry responsible for them, the precious chance of a safe haven and eventual adoption into homes. The industry's contributions are totally inadequate to cover cost of accommodation, assessment time, equipment, health checks, dental attention, spaying or neutering, transport for home check prior to placing the dogs then subsequent follow-up visits including guaranteed provision of ‘returned dog' accommodation in the event that adopters’ circumstances have changed.

Charities’ requests for donations are apparently regarded as exploitation by a journalist and columnist steeped in breeding and racing greyhounds who, years ago, with blatantly gleeful satisfaction, responded to my concerns for the dogs with the words "The dogs are property and owners can do what they like with them”. Worryingly, they still can, despite 'assurances' to the contrary which have proved to leave the dogs vulnerable as already described.

A Westminster consultation, already qualified for by a petition of 100,485 signatures but delayed due to the complications of Covid, remains necessary to progress a ban on greyhound racing in England (already in the pipeline in Scotland and Wales). There is now a second petition organised by Grey2kUSA Worldwide with the same aim, please support it. 

The sale of redundant tracks for much-needed housing development could/would provide redundancy pay and skills training for kennel staff and also help to finance the dogs' redundancy needs owed to them by the industry, including compulsory, instead of voluntary, contribution by bookmakers.

The ban would bring to an end a disgraceful 99-year long chapter of England's animal welfare history which Defra has prolonged by its failure to enforce the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The dogs are knowingly put at risk of injury, often fatal or life-changing, resulting in life-long pains for the sake of entertainment and profit. The GBGB unwittingly admits it by offering help towards cost (not even full cover) of treatment of injuries.

1.  Proof exists of all points covered in this letter so denial is pointless and inappropriate.
2. The facts shame a nation of so-called dog lovers.
3. Those who claim that greyhound racing has a proud history are turning a blind eye to the facts.
4. Greyhound racing encourages gambling addiction, usually resulting in debts which can’t be afforded, causing family friction and hardship
5. Beyond dispute greyhound racing should now be banned. It contravenes the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which should now, at last, be enforced.
6. Beyond dispute greyhound racing breaks the law.

Thank you for affording time to read this letter and enclosures and for any kind effective attention.

Sincerely,

Ann Shannon.

Sign to help end greyhound racing