Dear Tim. Animal welfare takes many guises. The current (but very dated – 1985 I believe) codes for greyhound racing in the ACT only refer to animal welfare in the context of kenneling and transport, and humane euthanasia when a greyhoun gets injured. Nowhere do they mention the fact that any time a greyhound races, it runs (literally) the risk of injury or death. To me, and many others involved in the rescue of greyhounds, this is a very valid animal welfare issue. We pick up the pieces of greyhounds that are deemed “not fit for purpose”. The fact that they are referred to by a NSW breeder as “product” should send chills down the spine of anybody who believes that greyhounds should be pets, not bets. Whenever money talks, welfare walks.

We too have a concern about the welfare of dogs if the greyhound racing industry continues in the ACT, but for different reasons – certainly NOT because of any direct correlation between current government funding and the industry’s spend on animal welfare.

The greyhound industry is self-regulated. Racing stewards for Canberra based races are from Greyhounds Racing NSW, and they can overrule a vet on the race track. Revelations from the NSW Special Commission of Inquiry into Greyhound Racing produced copies of emails where the Chief Steward told his subordinates to doctor reports to downplay injuries. This same individual has overseen races in Canberra in recent times.

The local industry itself decides how often it swabs for prohibited substances and conducts its own investigations for any issues with racing integrity. Furthermore, starting in February this year, public access to the race steward reports was turned off making it even harder to monitor any animal welfare concerns independently.

As far as the cost of animal welfare, if one actually reads their financial statements for 2014/15 (last year’s is still unavailable), “animal welfare” costs appear to be less than 10% of their total operating and administrations expenses.

Finally, the reason why the gambling aspect has not been raised as a major issue is because the financial benefit to the ACT is minimal, particularly since there appeared to only be 12 trainers who were residents of the Territory in 2015. If the $90 million a week figure suggested in the article is accurate, then the local industry wouldn’t need any government funding to survive. That’s because at $90 million a week for 40 weeks, they would be responsible for generating about $1.4 billion MORE revenue than Tabcorp reports in their own financial statements.

Purely looking at publicly available information, evidence would suggest that animal welfare is not a financial priority now and therefore is unlikely to change when the ACT Government cuts funding as promised at the end of this financial year.

Dear Tim, You stated, and I quote, ” it’s worth noting that the gambling aspect hasn’t been raised as a major issue in the debate.”

Whilst gambling might be an issue in this debate, gamblers have a choice, greyhounds do not, and there are plenty of support networks available for problem gamblers.

During your investigation, did you ask how surplus greyhounds are disposed of? By surplus, I am referring to the hundreds, if not thousands, of dogs that are born each year that do not meet trainers/owners racing expectations. From my observation, the number of surplus dogs that are re-homed are far less than the total, which suggests that they might be euthanized – either humanely or otherwise.