Greyhound vets hit out over charities’ call to ban racing

A vets’ group official fears thousands of dogs could face being euthanised if three charities succeed in their campaign for the abolition of UK greyhound racing.

The sport’s regulator has accused the RSPCA, Blue Cross and Dogs Trust of pandering to “extremists” after they claimed its welfare issues could not be resolved in any other way.

But Michael Watts, honorary secretary of the Society of Greyhound Veterinarians, said any moves to outlaw the sport are likely to make the existing problem of rehoming dogs that leave it far bigger.

‘Nowhere to go’

Mr Watts said the industry and charities already cannot find homes for all the dogs that are no longer racing, adding: “If people can’t rehome the greyhounds, there’s nowhere for them to go.”

Asked how many could die as a result of a ban, he said: “We’re probably talking thousands.”

Phased out

The charities are not calling for the sport to be banned immediately, but argue it could be phased out within five years, allowing time for dogs’ post-racing care needs to be met.

They say their campaign, dubbed Cut the Chase, follows the completion of internal policy reviews that exposed significant welfare concerns about the sport.

They have also highlighted figures from the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) – the body that oversees licensed racing – which showed more than 2,000 dogs died across the industry between 2018 and 2021, while nearly 18,000 were injured at GBGB-regulated venues.

However, the annual fatality figure fell from 932 in 2018 to 359 last year, while the number of dogs euthanised at the track fell by more than half, from 242 to 120, over the same period.

The GBGB said track fatalities accounted for just 0.03% of all greyhound runs last year.

‘No justification’

But Blue Cross chief executive Chris Burghes said there was “no justification for exploiting these animals” and urged the Government to act to stop it.

He added: “We are committed to working with, and advising, the industry and Government as to the fastest, most efficient way to bring greyhound racing to an end, while giving the highest priority to the dogs and their welfare during this time.”

His Dogs Trust counterpart Owen Sharp said: “We’ve worked closely with the greyhound industry for many years to try to improve welfare conditions for the dogs, but progress has not been made quickly enough or on a big enough scale.”

‘Consigned to past’

RSPCA boss Chris Sherwood added: “We feel that now, moving forwards, the only way we can secure good lives for these dogs is to call for the sport to be phased out and we want to see greyhound racing consigned to the past.”

Mr Watts stressed the Society of Greyhound Veterinarians, which is a division of the BVA, does not take an ethical view of the sport, and opinions among members on its morality are divided.

But he claimed that the charities had failed to present a convincing case for their stance, even if their argument was valid, and called for them to publish the reviews on which their call is based.

‘Less radical action’

Mr Watts said: “More could be achieved by less radical action, if there was a will to do so.”

He believes increasing prize money would help to address some of the sport’s welfare issues; although, he conceded some of the alternatives to abolition could involve “considerable expenditure”.

Mr Watts also argued there was a strong case for existing regulations – which only apply to racing venues – to be extended to other sites connected with the sport, such as trainers’ and breeding kennels, plus schooling facilities.

He acknowledged the sector was unlikely to be a major priority for Government legislation amid the current economic crisis, though.

Warning

In an open letter responding to the charities’ announcement, the GBGB said their approach was not justified, warning other sports and sectors involving animals would be “shocked and threatened” by it.

It also argued their actions risked making the welfare challenges that they themselves had identified in connection with the current cost of living crisis even worse.

It added: “Thus, to waste time, resource and attention in putting the welfare of thousands of dogs at risk through the implications of a ban, as well as the livelihoods and jobs of all those involved in our sector, is both misguided and utterly irresponsible.”

‘Ill-conceived’

The board’s chairman Jeremy Cooper, who is also a former RSPCA chief executive, said: “These are the ill-conceived tactics of organisations feeling pressured into playing to the extremists in their midst.

“Families and individuals who support these charities will be shocked that they are spending the money they donate on pursuing this activist agenda, rather than focusing on the pressing need to protect household pets that owners are unable to afford to keep.

“It says everything about what is wrong with these charities and nothing about animal welfare.”