Ignorance or shame?

[merlot]

I was staggered to witness an Advertisement on ITV1 Anglia region this Christmas for Yarmouth greyhound stadium. I have since spoken to ITV expressing my objection and sent the email below.


Dear Sir/Madam

Is it that ITV are putting profit before the welfare of greyhounds? That would appear to be so unless the 'error' is down to ignorance.

I witnessed yesterday evening (30.12.06) an advertisement on ITV1 (Anglia region) for Yarmouth stadium and greyhound racing (about 20 seconds long and no doubt to be repeated). To run such an ad is appalling. Approximately 20,000 greyhounds (of the 25,000 bred annually for racing in Britain) suffer an untimely death because they are judged not winning material, and to save money, many are not humanely put-to-sleep. Methods used include drowning, shooting and poisoning. Some of the greyhounds are killed when only a few months, many are killed after sustaining an injury that will effect their performance on the track and the remaining majority will be killed on reaching 'retirement' (at an average age of just 3 years). The greyhounds are seen purely as a commodity and Yarmouth stadiums participation in the 'sport' contributes to the enormous suffering and slaughter of these beautiful animals. If you question any of the above please view www.greyhoundaction.org.uk/ This site will supply you with further horrific facts about what happens behind the scenes of the greyhound racing industry.

This is not a matter for the Advertising Standards Authority as I do not question anything depicted or said in the advertisement. I question ITV broadcasting an advertisement for a venue that, through its existence and staging of greyhound races is, in part, responsible for the horrendous cruelty briefly detailed above. It is a matter for ITV's conscience and what local businesses you wish to be associated with.

I appreciate that ITV relies on advertising revenue but to be aware of the facts and run the ad would beggar belief and show that ITV puts profit before animal welfare.

Kindest regards

[tanya1]

i will put my neck on the line here and stand up and say i do not agree with banning racing , what i do object to is the over breeding and then abuse and neglect after the racing career is over, many non ped whippets are born every year to race in friendly local clubs , these are racing pets if that makes sense? so no a ban will not help or assist but stricter breeding rules would help and those that do breed such have homes lined up for if a dog isnt made for the track for whatever reason, i know of trainers and owners who also breed and they ensure their dogs have the upmost of care and love throughout their career and have forever sofas after racing, this is what shouldbe encouraged and not the mass production lines we hear of ! horse racing is just as destuctive and i can asure you that many more horses end up in a far worse condition then greys but sadly this is never highlighted, cruelty is all around us but if each of us took 1 step together then problems could be addressed in a civilised and humane way , sorry to go on !

[merlot]

It would be unbelievably naïve to ever think that self-regulation or government legislation will ever improve significantly the welfare of greyhounds. A ban is the only solution and to achieve that the public need educating. Of course, there are always going to be some people who simple do not care what happens to the dogs and its unfortunate our society is infected by such sick individuals. The greyhound at the best of times does not have a great life, many are subjected to the most vile cruelty and few will live beyond about 3 years. I won’t bore you with all the facts and figures but take it from me, it makes for harrowing reading. The litter, in which every puppy is treated with equal value, and the trainer and owner who treats the animal’s welfare as more important than its performance on the track, exists only in a Mills and Boon novel but you can bet that every trainer or owner you speak to is the one that really does care for their dogs! In a ‘sport’ governed by money, the scale of cruelty is unfortunately inevitable and I would not be at all surprised if the suffering was just as horrendous within horse racing.....and would I propose a ban on that ‘sport’? You bet I would!

[tanya1]

a ban will result in the deaths of more than the amount killed and neglected now sadly, no ban will come in force in either race activity, i have been around these type of dogs all my life and seen both sides and yes i did have a racing grey and yes he was homed with me after racing , so i still stand by my point more legislation needed and ensure all dogs have homes to go to. use the money to help the animals , you will never stop it but a ban drives it underground and THEN you will see horrors!! so if a ban is unworkable mmake those who make money accountable

[merlot]

So a ban will result in the slaughter of more than 20,000 greyhounds annually? Back that up with research, if you can. What you say is nonsense. It’s a ‘sport’ (greyhound racing), that by its very nature would never be successfully executed ‘underground’. No doubt, some would try but the numbers of animals involved could only ever be minuscule compared to the numbers currently racing on official and ‘flapping’ tracks. And a ban could never come into force? Think again. It’s happened in America where six states have banned it since 1993. And in this country we have seen more recently the end of racing at Abbey Moor stadium (Glastonbury) and Newton Abbot (thanks largely to the fantastic work of Greyhound Action supporters). And it’s an industry that can be stopped in its tracks simply through lack of support, and that’s why it’s so important educating the public. You stick with the racing and appalling suffering if you so wish. I believe, indeed know, there is a far better alternative - a total ban.

[tanya1]

please dont think i support any cruelty, i dont but im real to what truly happens in the world of dogs, if you cruelty i can show you cruelty , come to crufts with me??? i will leave you to ponder on that, banning will result in many more deaths of greys as there will be no use at all for them, alll the dogs in training at the time of a ban would undoubtable be destroyed execpt for the few lucky ones who would be given a home or placed in kennells til the needleman comes around! since the ban of hunting we have seen a marked reducution in the breeding of certain hounds and whole packs destoyed as there is no room at the inn so to speak, again it goes back to breeders and reducing the amount bred, tell me honestly do you enjoy seeing a dog run? yes we all do , what we dont agree with is the money making that goes with the race industry, sighthounds love to run and would be utter cruelty not to allow runninng, so back to non ped whippet racing (whippet x greyhound) a fun and family activity where families get together and race their dogs for fun! thats a sport for all the family pet dogs doing what they love all the family having fun and for no profit! good racing imo? cruelty needs addressing in a balanced and effective manner , realising what we can do rather then what we want to do, i would like to see the good trainers and owners rewarded and the bad named and shamed, if you go on the dog site k9 at the min you will see droopys kennels are offering free matings to anyone, that to me is disgusting as its over breeding again and no thought for the dogs after?

[merlot]

And what is the fate for the vast majority of greyhounds currently in the system! No racing – no breeding – no suffering. It’s not difficult to understand and a ban, or at least a massive curtailment in racing, is not unrealistic. And yes I do enjoy seeing a dog run……as fast or as slow as it wants to run in a safe field without a muzzle on.

[tanya1]

lets say for insantance there is 100,000 dogs in training today and 20,000 waiting for homes, if a totally ban occurred then 120,000 dog would be put to death there and then, so no i still say a ban wont work but higher penalties and resticted breeding and racing for fun not profit would be a far better way forwards

[merlot]

What figures are those? Let’s keep to greyhounds. Out of the 40,000 bred in Ireland and Britain annually something like 25,000 are destined for racing in Britain (the majority bred in Ireland (figures vary on how many but it would be safe to say in the region 75% - 90%)). As I am sure you know each litter has to be registered and then each dog will later be registered. There is a shocking disappearance of 10,000+ pups before second registration (on the total figure (Ireland and Britain)). You may also know that dogs have to be registered again (with the NGRC) for racing on official tracks and that figure is close to 10,000. One has to guess on the numbers for ‘flapping’ tracks but no more than 5,000 would be a fair estimate. So if only 15,000 of 25,000 dogs bred annually for the British industry get as far as actually racing, what has happened to the other 10,000? The majority of dogs that enter racing will later be killed, and looking at re-homing figures (as few dogs are later looked after by their owners) will provide a good indication of the total number slaughtered. The RGT find homes for perhaps 2,000 annually, and the other centres combined no more than this figure. Behind the lights, the tote and the non-starters is a spiral of suffering and death perpetrated for profit - 20,000 dogs slaughtered annually is not an unrealistic figure and when you consider the methods of execution often employed the scale of suffering is horrific. Perhaps the most unlucky dogs are those sold to Spain. They suffer a brutal existence and the method of killing commonly employed is hanging. Tanya, I don’t know whether you are blind, indifferent or ignorant about the reality of racing but we are clearly poles apart. Few dogs bred for racing will ever receive a loving home and the actual numbers slaughtered and homed annually represent the number of dogs going through the system at any one time. I care passionately about the welfare of greyhounds and that is why I support a total ban.

[tanya1]

please DO NOT call me ignorant , i am offering you a balanced and personal opinion which im sure im entitled to? i am not blind but very much at the real end of all rescue and personally a breeder! the galgos in spain is horrific no more needs to said on that but thankfully italy are taking many per year to rehome and rehabilitate. i work at the brutal end of dog rescue! so please do not try to insult me as i care very passionately about all dogs hence why i said about show dogs are you aware of what goes on in those circles? the figure i gave was a for example , just a figure to show the difference, could you then please tell me where these dogs would go after you ban the racing? to rescue kennels? what would be your placement of these dogs?

[tanya1]

and no we are not poles apart we are very much on the same side we both care for dogs and are passionate on issues

[tanya1]

heres a recent rescue , this is what we take in regularly!

[tinabow]

IF YOU NEW TANYA LIKE I DO YOU WOULD NEVER HAVE ACCUSED TANYA OF BEING IGNORANT OR BLIND I KNOW MANY PPL WITH DOGS AND TANYA'S WANT FOR NOWT HER AND HER DAD WORK DAM HARD WITH DOGS PPL REFUSE TO TAKE ON ONLY THE OTHER WEEK THEY HAD TOOK IN 2 DOG THAT WOULD MAKE YOU CRY IF YOU SAW THE PICS
THEY DONT ASK FOR ANYTHING BACK OTHER THAN SEEING THE DOG BACK HOW IT SHOULD BE
AND HER MOTHER AS JUST TOOK ON ANOTHER RESCUE GREYHOUND

[merlot]

"Where these dogs would go" With no ban in place the majority will suffer an untimely and perhaps horrific death. If a ban was imposed it could be seen that most are humanely put-to-sleep and I am sure many people and rescue centres would come forward to home what numbers they could. More importantly, the horrendous suffering inflicted on hundreds of thousands of greyhounds since commercial racing began in 1926 (July 24th, Belle Vue Stadium, Manchester) would cease. That is something worth fighting for!

[merlot]

Tinabow, there could no better posting than yours (and the picture supplied by tanya) to support a ban. Thank you.

[tanya1]

thats a saluki cross im afraid merlot not a grey. The rescues are at breaking point now so where would they all go except to their deaths? never be a right or wrong nswer im afraid here, money talks to so hit them where it hurts them most! watch the numbers go down then! if say for instance every breeder had to pay a fee for every pup born to them for lifetime care in either rescue or rehoming kennels or in the evnt of a bad injury , many would think hard again, take a lot of the profit away and you will see a drop, if every bookie also had to pay a fee for attending meetings to a greyhound charity , again we would see a drop and many dogs wouldnt have to lose lifes down to mans greed

[merlot]

It seems you still don’t understand - “where would they all go except to their deaths” - where do you think they are going anyway!!! I’m not going to repeat myself anymore. If you cannot support a ban, let’s hope (for the sake of the greyhounds) that you would, at least, never support the industry in any way, shape or form. Whilst it continues receiving patronage from the blind, the indifferent and the ignorant, so the suffering and slaughter will continue.

[Johnny]

As Chairman of the club, and a moderator of the board, I would like to point out a few things:

1. This continuing debate is not black and white. There's people on both sides of the argument that have valid facts.
2. Yes, there is cruelty involved in greyhound racing
3. No, not all greyhound racing people are bad. Some of them DO care for their greyhounds. I would personally like to see more, but I know for a fact that not all owners are irresponsible. We know this, because club members have dogs from them. So it's impossible to blame all owners.
3. Now, Merlot - I appreciate you see the situation from the dogs angle; and you see the irresponsibility that some owners have shown. I think the job you are doing in supporting ex-racing greyhounds, and in bringing the plight of those that suffer to public attention is very comendable.

I do however wish to see people refrain from using language such as "blind" or "ignorant", when discussing matters with other board members. If you knew Tanya as Kitty, myself and many other club members do - you would know that she is very passionate about her dogs, and she cares very much when it comes to animals. It's true when she says, that you're not poles apart at all.

I will leave this posting as it is, because I fully support freedom of speech. I do ask all parties to keep comments non-personal, otherwise I will delete posts, or those parts of posts that become personal. That will be in the interests of the club in general.
Debate by all means, but please remember that we are all here because of the love we have for our dogs.
We are a friendly club, and as long as I'm on here, it will remain that way.

[merlot]

I cannot believe that anyone would harm a dog. People are so nice and caring in this world, and all the lovely doggies that race around a track must really enjoy their lives.

The above might seem in sharp contract to my earlier text but freedom of speech was not allowed and my initial, informed and respectful reply to the last post was removed.

I wonder what the greyhounds that never experienced a loving home before their untimely death would think?

[Johnny]

merlot said:

I cannot believe that anyone could ever harm any dogs. People are so nice and caring in this world and I think all the lovely dogs that race around the track must really enjoy their lives.

The above might seem in sharp contract to my earlier text but freedom of speech was not allowed and my initial, informed and respectful reply to the last post was removed.

I wonder what the greyhounds that never experienced a loving home before their untimely death would think?

Dear Merlot: I deleted your posts in the interests of the club.
I had the courtesy to both PM and email you to explain to you my reasoning behind that course of action.
As you are concerned by my curtailing of the loss of "freedom of speech" I will make myself clear on this matter.

THIS IS A FRIENDLY CLUB - Your (deleted) reply mentioned the words "blind" and "ignorant", and it was obvious that you saw no reason why those words couldn't be used to describe members of this board again like that in future.
I had tried to moderate fairly on this issue, but I was ignored.

WE ARE NOT A CAMPAIGNING FORUM: Whilst respecting members differing views and opinions, I pointed out that the thread was tending to go around in circles. To me it seems as if it's being used as a campaigning platform against the greyhound racing industry.
If this is you view, then fine - You are entitled to your view, and have made your point.

It might even surprise you to learn that the majority of people who belong to this club are opposed to the greyhound racing industry as well.
My wife (Kitty) and I, have never been to a racetrack in our lives, and never will, because we do not personally support that industry.

We donate quite a bit of money to both greyhound charities and the campaign group Action For Greyhounds, which (as you probably know) campaigns against the greyhound racing industry.
I'm sorry if we're not the model activists - out there protesting and waving banners, but that's our personal decision, and I couldn't care what way people take that, cos that's OUR decision.
With all respect - by how you post, you would think that people like us are either totally oblivious to the way things are, or are totally supportive of the greyhound racing industry.

It's up to the individual person to decide their own way on issues like this. It is for that reason that this club is neither for or against it. We recognise it is down to the individual to make up their own mind.

You stated above that "People are so nice and caring in this world". I totally disagree with that statement. The world is mostly filled with greedy, selfish, and unkind people. I have the unfortunate privilege to meet lots of them through my voluntary work in the political field.
And you have seen this yourself - through what you have pointed out is the appalling way greyhounds are treated.

But please use this forum in a respectful manner, and seperate that scorn away from the people on this board - because they are pet-owners first and foremost, and they have their pets interests at heart.

Please go onto the "Who We Are" thread on this message board site. That post was made in March 2005. It clearly states the following: "We exist to promote responsible dog ownership, and seek to bring together whippet & greyhound owners across the Norfolk & Suffolk area.
We are not involved in the racing of our dogs, we simply wish to have a friendly club, have meet-ups, plan fundraising and charity events, along with co-ordinating members meetings, both inside and at outside locations."

I think that says it all?
I would recommend that if this does not fulfill your objectives, that you join a relevant organisation (like Action for Greyhounds), that would be of more use to you.
I have told you that I welcome your input to this board.
You do a splendid job for ex-racing greyhounds.
But please respect the fact that we are a friendly club, and please don't suggest that I'm denying you freedom of speech. If I had been that tryannically inclined I would have not allowed this debate to have reached this far.

I would like to end this discussion here, as I feel that there's been enough said on this issue.
Sincerely - Johnny.

[merlot]

The reaction to my posts is pretty much what I expected but I can, if I try really hard, follow club protocol. Going back many months I wrote (on MySpace) the text below and it could apply to most clubs (the text was actually directed at a local classic bike club). You would rightly, of course, say it does not apply to the Gery Club and I am not saying it does, so no reply is necessary.

I know of a club with 40+ people registering interest but only a handful of active members. The very clicky and straight-laced core group speak with one voice and expect all newcomers to follow suit. The protocol adopted has inevitably stifled club growth but this I am sure will not trouble the few meeting regularly who are clearly fearful of free thinking individuals.

[Johnny]

As moderator on this board, and Chairman of this club, I have banned the user "Merlot" from this forum.

This is the first time I have ever banned a board member, and I hope I do not have to repeat this again.

I have been accused of not supporting freedom of speech, which for those who know me personally will know is complete rubbish! That is why I have left the postings made by Merlot intact.
I have copied the last post and I will answer each point. If there are any members that feel I have been wrong to ban Merlot from this board, then please let me know.

merlot said:

The reaction to my posts is pretty much what I expected but I can, if I try really hard, follow club protocol.

If the "reaction" was predictable - why did you continue dragging the debate on so far? All the main points had been made. As dog owners, surely all the board members have a pretty good idea what the arguments for and against are?

merlot said:

Going back many months I wrote (on MySpace) the text below and it could apply to most clubs (the text was actually directed at a local classic bike club). You would rightly, of course, say it does not apply to the Gery Club and I am not saying it does, so no reply is necessary.

I'm sorry, but what an ambiguous statement - "you would rightly say it does not apply to the Gery Club, and I am not saying it does"? OF COURSE you think it applies to us, otherwise you wouldn't have made the point of specifically raising it.
I'm sorry, but I wasn't born yesterday, so I'm not falling for that dishonest trick!

merlot said:

I know of a club with 40+ people registering interest but only a handful of active members. The very clicky and straight-laced core group speak with one voice and expect all newcomers to follow suit. The protocol adopted has inevitably stifled club growth but this I am sure will not trouble the few meeting regularly who are clearly fearful of free thinking individuals.

So, when you boil it all down, and you scrape away all the ambiguity of the previous statements - this is what you really think of the Broadland Greyhound & Whippet Club?
"Very clicky and straight-laced"?
I'm sorry, but I couldn't help having a good laugh at that statement!
You couldn't wish to find a bunch of more laid-back, friendly people than us.

And as for the taunt of being "clearly fearful of free thinking individuals" - what a complete lot of nonsense. If that was so, you'd have been banned weeks ago. We always welcome freedom of speech, and we have moderators there to keep things on track. I made the decision to ban Merlot, not because of what he said - but because of the fact that he could not accept the moderator's suggestions of letting this matter just quieten down - he has to respond to suggest that this club is some sort of "clicky" organisation which he is in obvious disapproval of.
AND - that was after I had been couteous enough to explain my reasoning behind my actions to him through a PM and an email. This club is a friendly pet-owners club. We are not here as a campaigning platform against the greyhound racing industry. We also do not wish to see words like "blind" and "ignorant" being used against other members, as that is deliberately provocative.
Of course we allow debates on the issue, but members of this board should also accept the moderators suggestions when threads have run their course, and the argument has ended up just going around in circles. Surely the correct procedure is to "agree to differ", not to just endlessly keep arguing a point?

merlot said:

The laugh-out-loud smilie at the bottom annoyed me, as it was just taunting the members of this club, and the authority of my fair moderation.
It seems that Merlot was not satisfied to accept what a moderator had to say - He always has to have the last word. It seemed to be turning into some kind of crusade, whereby carefully guarded accusations were made as to how the core members of this club were unfair, "clicky", and obviously not the type of people that Merlot cared to mix with.

Well, fine - that's YOUR opinion.
Kindly allow others to form their own opinions. They will find out for themsleves what the members of our club are like - without the need for false allegations!

[Johnny]

Just as an addition to the above, I set out below a transcript from the Club's membership rules. I will place the rules in their entirety in one of the opening sections of the message board.
Specific points, relevant to the above mentioned post are shown in orange lettering:


3. MEMBERSHIP TO CLUB:
............
ii. Membership to Club (People) – Members of the club will acknowledge that the club’s authority lays with the Committee, and that they will at all times observe the rules of the club, and directions given by Committee members................
iii. Responsibility of Members – Members will act in a responsible manner, and not bring the club into disrepute, both from within the club membership, or with outside people or organisations.................
.
.v. Zero Tolerance on Intimidation & Discrimination: The club is a friendly, non-political organisation. It fully supports freedom of speech and will allow for the fact that we are all individuals, who have varying viewpoints, and who can equally be affected by the stresses and strains of everyday life.
However, the club will not tolerate bad language, insulting words...............

[tanya1]

sorry it had to come to this, very sad.

[Stuart]

As the Admin on this message board I would firstly like to apologize for not being present and Moderating as well as I should have been.

I thank Johnny for his intervention in this matter and I fully supported his decision to ban Merlot from this message board.

I would like to point out that Merlot was actually breaking the Proboards rules too and had he continued without Johnny's intervention may have led to this message board to be closed down by Proboards themselves.

Stuart.