GRSA release euthanasia figures ahead of Parliamentary vote

ALMOST 500 greyhounds were euthanised in South Australia throughout 2015, according to figures released by Greyhound Racing SA (GRSA) on Wednesday.

The statistics were released as the SA Upper House prepares to vote on a motion put forward by Greens MLC Tammy Franks which would see the establishment of an inquiry into greyhound racing within the state.

According to the figures, 482 greyhounds were put down in 2015-2016, while 639 were re-homed through adoption programs. The authority body expects a total of 775 to be re-homed this year.

Of those 482 euthanised, GRSA CEO Matt Corby said some cases were due to medical or behavioural issues which prevent GRSA from responsibly re-homing them.

However, he re-iterated eradicating the unnecessary euthanasia of healthy dogs remains the primary concern of the industry.

“What we have to eliminate is avoidable death because someone says it’s convenient,” Corby told News Corp.

“Based on our current trajectory, we’ll be the first to get to a point by the middle of 2018 that we can say we’ve eliminated unnecessary euthanasia.”

Corby said no racing code in any other state spends a higher percentage of its annual revenue than GRSA on its animal welfare and re-homing projects and outlined the controlling body is committed to continuing to do so into the future.

“We will invest more than $1 million annually in support of our Greyhound Adoption Program, with our target of 450 greyhound adoptions in the current year being supported by eight permanent staff, two prison foster care programs and a small army of dedicated volunteer foster carers behind the scenes.”

“In the coming six months, all registered participants will undergo Certificate II training as a condition of ongoing licensing.”

The figures also indicated a predicted reduction in the amount of greyhounds being euthanised in 2017-2018, with the number expected to be around 310.

It is currently compulsory for all registered participants to submit a retirement notification to GRSA when a greyhound finishes its career, while GRSA also require any euthanasia to be conducted by a qualified vet using a humane injection.

Corby said the SA industry would be happy to co-operate with an inquiry if the motion is passed.

Past Discussion

  1. Another greenie stirring up a hornet’s nest. I bet the SA pollies are delighted to start the debate over there given how well it is going here in NSW lol

    SA has rehomed more than were put down that is certainly a  serious step in the right direction.

  2. I’d still like to see the SA Government publish stats of horses that have been put down in their State.  Peterborough Meat Works, which is said to process about 200 thoroughbreds per month is domiciled within that State. 

  3. BJoe  Could not agree more  BJoe and perhaps the RSPCA could publish how many unwanted dogs and cats they put down as well say once a month just to prove how transparent they are and how many they rehomed.

  4. BJoe  I grew up in the City and I went to stay with a friend in Dubbo (when I was young)  and everyone was going to a horse sale. I naively thought it would be some posh affair with champagne and well dressed people. God what a shock I was in for. Ex racehorses and trotters run into the ring. I could see some big fat bloke in a blue shirt  buying them all and I thought this bloke doesn’t look like a horse trainer and I asked who he was some-one said ” the dogger” I was horrified. Finally some poor bloody blind terrified horse came in and I had to go. That horse has haunted me to this day. When I hear those wealthy hypocrites telling us to clean up our own demons I am truly disgusted.

  5. Deborah555 BJoe RSPCA takes unwanted animals and does everything to try and rehome them.  They don’t create the problem of unwanted animals.  Puppy/kitten mills create excess animals, irresponsible pet owners create excess animals, greyhound racing creates unwanted animals.  The alternative to the RSPCA’s efforts is stray animals running around in the street.

    Make whatever criticisms you like of the RSPCA, but comparing their euthanasia rates to the rates of an industry that is actively breeding animals is not a valid comparison.

    Besides, they DO publish their euthanasia rates, google “RSPCA euthanasia rates” and click on the first couple of links.

  6. Deborah555 BJoe Yep, horse racing is abhorrent.  That, however, is not a justification for other industries to be abhorrent.

    I completely understand greyhound people being upset that they feel they are singled out, they are.  But the fact is the hypocrisy when it comes to animal welfare goes far beyond greyhound racing vs horse racing.  Pets vs livestock is the biggest animal welfare scandal that no one talks about.  That’s why people who want better animal welfare take victories wherever they can find them, and hope that we can finally get good animal welfare law one tiny step at a time.

  7. Deborah555 Agreed, the SA industry has until this point in time been a little secretive, but at least they have a zero wastage target they are aiming to reach in just a few years.  They have realised this is the standard that is expected instead of defiantly stamping their feet and telling people to mind their own business and let them carry on as they always have.

  8. Hugh_ Deborah555 BJoe

    Hughie’s back trawling and trolling.Hasn’t he got anything else to do?  I sometimes wonder if he is in employment and not just one of those dole bludgers.  

  9. For my part, I’d like to see the other 2 Codes of racing publish their ‘euthanasia’ figures.  At least the Greyhound Industry’s figures could be compared to theirs.

  10. BJoe  Absolutely they should- if it is good enough for the dogs why not the horses. A couple have just been done for cruelty lately I bet the ABC doesn’t do some expose of that.

  11. Deborah555 BJoe Transparency should be maximised in all industries that profit from animals.  Animals are not inanimate objects, their treatment is the business of all people in society.  Whether it’s live export, horse racing, pig farming, or anything else, transparency should be paramount.

    You can’t accuse the animal activists (though I suppose it depends on which group) of being inconsistent on this one, whether you agree with them or not their stance is consistent.  It’s those that profit from the use of animals that resist attempts to pierce the veil of secrecy over how their business operates, and it’s the major political parties that support their attempts to maintain that secrecy thanks to donations and misguided ideas that the general public being informed about the treatment of animals will damage the economy.  Just look at the atrocious ag-gag laws that the coalition would like to push through if it could.

    I certainly hope there is a four corners expose on horse racing coming down the pipeline at some point in the future.  Though I doubt anything in horse racing will match the sensationalism of live baiting.  Horses being trucked off to an abattoir won’t have people leaping out of their seats in the same fashion.  The ABC has done a good job of exposing live export atrocities though.

  12. Hugh_ Deborah555 BJoe  I will let you think that is the worst thing that goes on in the horse industry Hugh. I have no issue with all

    codes doing more for welfare have a problem when the process is dictated by wack jobs like Animals Australia.

  13. Hugh_ BJoe  PS I would like to see the ABC do an expose of some of the charities claiming tax free status when some like AA  are a political organisation pushing an agenda. I think their financial records would make interesting reading as well.

  14. Deborah555 Hugh_ BJoe Fair point, I am sure there is worse, but that’s what was being discussed, the euthanasia figures.

    If the worse practices to which you refer but have refrained from describing get exposed, it will no doubt be due to “whack jobs” like Animals Australia.  You’ve already advocated previously for a “mind your own business and rely on the authorities” attitude with regards to these things, so this attitude your displaying seems a little inconsistent with your previous comments.  You’ve also previously said that mistreatment of animals is actually well known by the general public and they just don’t care, and that therefore activism is a waste of time.  However now you refer to practices in the horse racing industry that you imply are not common knowledge.

    So it’s rather hard to figure out where you stand on anything.

    Welfare reform is often driving by exposing hidden practices.  But you don’t like people that expose hidden practices, so what’s your suggestion for driving this reform?

  15. Deborah555 Hugh_ BJoe Perhaps they can start with the churches, which also operate tax free and push a political agenda.

    Since when did advocating politically invalidate charity status?  Everything is political.  In fact donations to political parties are tax deductible.

  16. Hugh_ Deborah555 BJoe  The churches do real charity work- soup kitchens, drug rehabilitation programmes, providing accommodation for the homeless. The work done by the Salvation Army is outstanding. I have known a few people who have told me they saved them from desperation and not once did they try to push their religious views while they got them out of abusive situations, found them housing and a job and continued support.

    PS I meant you may not be aware the wastage in the horse industry is common knowledge.

  17. Hugh_ Deborah555 BJoe  The fact I was upset  at what happens to old horses and in particular one, does not mean I believe an entire industry should be destroyed just improved.

  18. Deborah555 Hugh_ BJoe That doesn’t answer the question.  You suggested that because AA have a political agenda they should be investigated, implying this invalidates their charitable status.  I don’t think you understand what it means to be a charitable organisation.  It means you are not-for-profit.  Having a political agenda in no way invalidates this status under tax law.  And many advocacy groups have political agendas, they exist for just about any topic you can think of where people feel that society needs adjusting, the elderly, disabled, the poverty stricken, farmers, etc, etc.  It would be incredibly authoritarian if the government decided which charities are ok and which aren’t based on the opinions they hold and voice.  We don’t get to decide which charities are virtuous and which aren’t.  People decide that by either giving money to them or not.  That’s free democracy.

    By all means audit AA if you think that’s a good use of tax payers money, like any other organisation they have to submit to audits by the tax department anyway, but the idea that they somehow violate the tax rules for charitable organisations because they have a political agenda shows a grave misunderstanding of this category.

    But as you’ve indicated many times before, you don’t believe in free speech.  So I get where you’re coming from.

  19. Deborah555 Hugh_ BJoe How do you expect this improvement will come about?  It requires exposing practices to the public which leads to the public putting pressure on the industry and the government to increase regulation.

    I’m not sure how you expect the first step to happen without the actions of the groups that you hate so much.

    When no one sees, nothing changes.

  20. Hugh_ Deborah555 BJoe  You are given not for profit status because you are doing charity work or or there is absolutely no chance you would make a profit. You just cannot say to the taxation department I would like to set  up an organisation and I don’t want to pay any tax otherwise everyone would do that ( I might even consider it myself). This not for profit assumes you are doing good work helping people with cancer or even running a junior sporting club for example.  The people who benefit from this also, probably are, have been or will be paying tax.

    The taxation department has removed some organisations from this status when they discovered the funds collected were not going to the intended recipients or even not enough was going to the people supposedly meant to benefit. I do not believe AA are doing charitable work, I think their intention is purely political and a money making exercise  and they do make a profit none of which goes to the intended recipients ( animals).  I don’t really believe they are benefitting any people either just stirring up emotions to get more donations. The animal welfare groups on the other hand if they directly benefit animals or the people who own them indirectly I do not have a problem with.

    I don’t have a problem with people taking a reasonable wage and administrative costs from donations but when it is half and they advertise one of the great features of their organisation is a small administrative team (AA web page)  you have to wonder if they are shonky or have poor financial skills. When only 1% gets to recipients why bother which is why many people have become cynical about some of these not for profit shows. I think if everyone knew that almost every cent went to a starving child in Africa many people would donate but when you find out that very little gets there you wonder if you should bother. I think all these organisations should have to show detailed financial statements that should be put in the public domain and then people could donate to the charities that are benefitting the intended recipients and I believe more people would donate to charity. Transparency just like they are demanding- everyone should know when a greyhound is put down at  the track- ghoulish really I would have thought but if that’s how you want to spend your spare time so be it, counting dead greyhounds.

    I know you think AA are a great organisation but you will never convince me in a million years.

  21. Hugh_ Deborah555 BJoe  If practices need improving I would like it done without the demonising of people in the industry, less emotive language and some facts would be nice as well. This screaming that every greyhound trainer is a cruel,, inhumane, money grabbing scumbag ( as we have been referred to by many people on social media) is not the way to do it- for a start it just gets people defensive not co-operative and it allows people without a shred of evidence to just hurl abuse based on a sense of moral outrage or their generalized hatred of everyone.  If some of the disgusting comments hurled at greyhound trainers by keyboard warriors indicates a love of animals well I will be amazed. Now that some of the welfare claims and “facts” have been seriously discredited and there is talk about money and compensation we now have people questioning whether or not we are tax cheats as well. Some of whom do not work or pay any tax-  welfare bludgers who reuse to work but now want to question our tax arrangements which the taxation department has well under control they never miss an ordinary person when it comes to their share.

    I cannot believe some of the misinformation that people post. Recently some fool demanded that all the stewards report not just  welfare issues but DRUGS and they be available to everyone. They are and they have been published on racing sites for as long as the internet has been around. This morning’s beauty was “every greyhound owned by every greyhound trainer is killed as soon as it cannot make money”. This sort of rubbish does nothing to support their cause. Anyone genuinely concerned about animal welfare would not want to associate with these types of stupid people. Even if you loved animals you would run a mile from this type of person.

    “Everyone is guilty because they knew”- rubbish. We have animal welfare laws lets use them and we have and those found guilty after due process  were punished some with jail time. To claim an entire industry is committing a serious criminal offence because they may have heard some gossip is not a good legal precedent it is mob justice.

    All this emotive demonising is just going to make greyhound trainers defensive and it has fuelled fears for everyone who works with animals- this is why the National Party are worried because every one in the country is worried they may be next for this hateful campaign. If this was just the greyhound people concerned it would not have fuelled this much press or this much political division. This will set animal welfare back for years people will be defending and hurling abuse and well the animals will be forgotten and I think this type of chaos is exactly what some of the animal activist want anarchy. That is why a number of them have been declared domestic terrorist threats in the USA.

    Today another person wrote some terrible things about his neighbour. He didn’t name his neighbour but he printed his full and unusual  name it is only a matter of time before some one does and then the lawyers will be out- more chaos. The way our defamation laws work even if what some one says is true you can still be sued if you have damaged some-one’s reputation by exposing it in the public domain before this matter has been determined by a court .

    We have people who have little intelligence, few facts believing they can make any statement whatsoever while a group of even sillier people “like this”  All this will put back genuine animal welfare for years.

  22. Deborah555 Hugh_ BJoe Your argument hinges on this statement:

    “I do not believe AA are doing charitable work, I think their intention is purely political and a money making exercise  and they do make a profit none of which goes to the intended recipients ( animals).”

    This opinion is entirely because you hold the view that raising awareness is a futile exercise and that undercover investigations that expose cruelty are a futile exercise, and that neither of these things benefit animals.  That’s an opinion, and it’s a very difficult opinion to justify in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  There are numerous examples of welfare reform in various industries (live export, greyhound racing, pig farming etc, etc.)  that have come about as the direct result of undercover investigations by activist/advocacy groups, and the dissemination of that information by those groups and mainstream media.

    Hold whatever view of AA you want, make whatever unsubstantiated claims about how their money is spent, that’s fine.  But the idea that pure advocacy doesn’t benefit the intended beneficiaries, whether it be animals or humans, is a ludicrous position.

    When it comes to animal welfare (and in many cases human welfare), one of the biggest influence is legislation.  Legislation is set by politicians.  Politicians are voted for by the public.  The opinions of the public affects the decisions politicians make.  Thus informing the public and changing the views of the public has tangible benefits for victim groups.  I don’t even understand how any reasonable person can deny that this is true.  It’s the entire premise of our democratic system.  It’s the entire premise of free speech.  If speech alone was powerless, we would not protect it so vehemently.  We protect it because history has taught us that information is the most precious commodity when it comes to democracy, which is why undemocratic states restrict information, because it is the most powerful force for change.

    Even in the absence of legislation, information is the most powerful force for positive change.  The defeat of racism and sexism occurs via the war of ideas.  The phasing out of cage eggs from supermarkets isn’t occurring due to legislation, it’s occurring because of ideas, because of awareness racing and advocacy.  Even you are against caged eggs, do you think this phase of would be occurring if not for groups that have run campaigns to raise awareness about them?

    Side note:  claiming that you can never be convinced of something is an inherently closed minded position.  Even I wouldn’t claim you could never convince me there is a god, despite the fact that I rate the probability of that being true so low that I don’t waste any time entertaining the idea.  Even I wouldn’t claim that I couldn’t be convinced that it’s morally justifiable to farm animals are use them for entertainment.  There’s no point in ever discussing anything if people have decided to never change their view no matter what.

  23. Hugh_ BJoe  I have alerted some moderators in newspapers that scumbags, fu—-ing ars—-, who cares if they commit suicide are perhaps not quite meeting community standards and they have agreed and deleted these comments. As soon as some-one is stupid enough to actually name anyone and make outrageous claims we might get a lawyer on the job although most do not have names ” some person told them” or “these people don’t give names” or even” it was years ago” when I challenged them. Yes hearsay counts for nothing. I have also pointed out to a few of the more outrageous ones that if they have this knowledge that  you now have 24 hours  to report it  otherwise they will face charges and they have posted their knowledge in the public domain for everyone in the world to see so they may be in trouble if they don’t plenty of evidence they knew.

  24. Deborah555 Hugh_ BJoe Show me one piece of Animals Australia media that demonises people and uses the kind of language you describe.

    You’re now talking about the attitudes and words of individuals, and that goes equally both ways.  I come on here and make reasonable arguments and people ignore my arguments and abuse the crap out of me.  Vegans and animal welfare activists cop huge abuse from many angles.  So what?  None of this has anything to do with what we are discussing.  Are you really suggesting this abuse only goes one way?

  25. Hugh_ Deborah555 BJoe  I did not say AA and I have never abused you or suggested you are anything other than highly intelligent I have also read numerous posts you have placed in many papers and their is nothing abusive  or demonising in any of them

  26. Hugh_ BJoe  PS no now it is going both ways and this will not help animals-  one big mess created because an arrogant politician did not bother consulting people from both sides before face booking his decision. Did not even consult members of his own party and now using them to clean up the mess and cop abuse and happy to let their political careers go down the tube while he sits in his safe blue ribbon liberal seat. (given the polls though it will be on the opposition benches but still well paid.

  27. Deborah555 Hugh_ BJoe Well I don’t understand why you’re bringing this up then, you replied to my comment that said:

    How do you expect this improvement will come about?  It requires exposing practices to the public which leads to the public putting pressure on the industry and the government to increase regulation.

    I’m not sure how you expect the first step to happen without the actions of the groups that you hate so much.

    When no one sees, nothing changes.”

    What’s the relevance of replying to that by talking about the fact that individuals have gotten nasty?  I’m not saying it’s not relevant somehow, I’m just not seeing the connection you’re trying to draw.

    You don’t need to convince me that we shouldn’t demonise individuals.  Did you hear me baying for Tom Noble’s blood?  I don’t even believe in free will, I don’t hold anyone responsible for who they are.  I don’t demonise people, and I don’t see major animal welfare advocacy groups demonising people either.

  28. Hugh_ Deborah555 BJoe  No you are an asset to their side but my God some of them have not got a clue about how to win.  We do not improve animal welfare using this model is what I am saying. How about you have two years to meet the following criteria might have been a better way. No the major WELFARE groups do not but they have a team of unruly disgusting supporters who are not helping their cause.

  29. Deborah555 Hugh_ BJoe Yes, it’s a mess.  But the entire situation for animals in society is a mess.  Industries that profit from animals aren’t interested in properly engaging in serious evidence based discussion around animal welfare, the government isn’t interested in serious evidence based regulation of animal welfare.  They resist anything that might reduce profitability irrespective of how much suffering animals endure.  We live in a society where if you cut off your dog’s tail you can be charged with cruelty but you can cut off the tails of a whole paddock of sheep, along with their balls, along with the skin on the back of their legs, all without anaesthetic, and it’s not in any way illegal.

    The situation for animals in society is a travesty.  And since we can’t even get people (on all sides) to sit at a table and have proper scientific discussion about animal pain and suffering and because we can’t even have a serious philosophical debate about the morality of animal exploitation and legal protection without people flying off the handle the second someone makes a legitimate point but utters the word “bestiality”, these debates degenerate into things that, as you correctly point out, are mostly based on emotion and facts take a back seat.

    Such is the nature of human beings, we are emotional creatures prone to emotional, irrational reasoning and argumentation.

  30. Deborah555 Hugh_ BJoe This is true, but again there is an unruly and disgusting group of supporters on each side of every debate that are not constructive.

    Unfortunately I’m not sure there is one strategy when it comes to winning.  One of the very sad truths that psychological research has demonstrated (as has been explained to me by a colleague – haven’t looked at the literature myself) is that if two people get up to debate a point the one that is calm, respectful and relies on facts and reason has less chance of winning over the average audience than the one that is loud, emotive, and prepared to bend the truth.  Obviously the politicians understand this, which is why we get simplistic, factually questionable slogans instead of nuanced evidence based arguments in political campaigns.  Most topics are complex, and require a lot of detailed information to form an accurate opinion.  Few forums provide an opportunity to convey that kind of information to a wider audience, and most people switch off as soon as things get complex.

    I can’t put up a billboard explaining comparative neurobiology and the arguments for animals sentience.  I can put up a billboard of a miserable, featherless chicken in a small cage.  The latter becomes important in the long run, for those that dig deeper, but in the short term the imagery is so much more effective.  And I think both are important and legitimate.  It was disturbing imagery that got my attention, and then deeper research, discussion and contemplation that ultimately formed my views on these things.  So my view is that you need to grab people’s attention by showing them the uncomfortable truths, and then engage in a deeper discussion.  But getting everyone from point A to B without them erupting in emotional outbursts is just not possible for a lot of people.  The fact that there are many religious people demonstrates that people simply don’t rely on evidence to form strong beliefs.  They rely on emotion.  So how you avoid the mess that develops around these issues I’m really not sure.  I think you just have to try anyway.