How universities can help greyhound racing
IT is a bit confusing. GRV, in conjunction with the vet faculty at the University of Melbourne, has just finalised a study of the impact of testosterone in greyhounds. It will allow assessments of natural and artificial quantities, thereby checking if anyone is pushing the boundaries. So far, so good.
However, historically, it has been Greyhounds Australasia which has conducted these sorts of investigations and later adjusted its list of banned substances as necessary. All states use that information but sometimes add rules of their own. Apparently GRV found it necessary to follow its own route this time.
Which brings me back to a previous experience. A few years ago I had a small involvement with the vet faculty at Sydney University – the country’s biggest and oldest. On one matter I was giving a hand to a graduate student for a project and separately I had noticed that final year students each had to organise a project covering a domestic animal. Their choices included a wide range of dogs but no-one had selected the greyhound. Not one.
I wrote to GRNSW at the time, suggesting it offer a small prize for anything involving greyhounds and so promote interest in the breed. In the event, it did not bother to reply. Nor did it do anything.
Noting also that faculty boss Professor McCreevy and his team had been involved with the AJC (as it was then) in running a survey of whip use on horses, I surmised that the faculty was interested in getting involved with outside projects and made contact with him. To cut a long story short, we both thought that several greyhound subjects would be worth following up and so I passed this on to GAL for its handling and support.
It then turned out that on such matters GAL had a fixed policy of dealing only with the greyhound section of the Australian Veterinary Association and no-one else. It rejected the Sydney University option out of hand, without bothering to check it out. Now, however helpful the AVA were or are, it seemed strange that the industry would therefore ignore the potential exposure in another prominent organisation – for both technical and publicity reasons. But knock it back they did. Neither I nor Professor McCreevy was impressed.
Hence the surprise that GRV has been beavering away on its own. Not just on this matter but also on a study into hock injuries, which we hope to hear about in due course. And who knows what else is happening.
Here is yet another example of the disjointed way that the industry is run. Whatever GRV’s reasons – and they may be good ones – it is an indictment of the industry’s failure to maximise the benefits available in keeping in touch with every university’s veterinary department and to coordinate any specific efforts.
In passing, it is worth noting two points: GRV has form in that last year it conducted public surveys of attitudes to greyhound racing but refused to release the results and, second, a significant reason for Queensland and the industry getting into such a bind over live baiting was RQ’s failure to properly handle information originally provided by Animals Australia. It seems we have an inbuilt aversion to anything happening off the beaten track or to sharing valuable information.
I should add that AVA’s website is notable for its lack of information unless you are a member and can access the secret files.
The beating heart of greyhound racing
Oh dear. While it’s marvellous to see our articles encouraging some active debate (of which there is far too little these days) I have been extensively verballed by a reader to suit his arguments and underlying philosophies. Not for the first time, of course, but I wish they would either (a) stay on topic or (b) study everything I have written. In a single article it is hardly practical to outline an entire collection of my views or analyses.
They key issue in “Hugh’s” view is that greyhound racing is “an activity that has no intrinsic value” and therefore should be stopped because it cannot be conducted without causing welfare problems – ie it harms some dogs.
Using that logic, horse racing must get the chop as well. But that’s just the most obvious target. In practice, few human activities could get a pass mark, and certainly none where competition is involved (which is most things). Football, cricket, netball and tennis would all have to go. The theory also ignores the process of natural selection in the wild – ie survival of the fittest. Indeed, no animal, including humans, would be what they are without an element of competition.
It then gets back to what another reader pointed out (correctly) – that the issue is more about how humans form their attitudes to and their partnerships with animals. Circuses, for example, are now heavily circumscribed in their activities as a result of public opinion. Killing whales is banned in some countries but exploited commercially in others. Cats are encouraged because they make nice pets yet they cause untold damage to other species (although governments are currently starting to attack that problem). Perversely, you are not allowed to shoot crocodiles even though they are of no value to the ecology and are germ-laden killers.
In the greyhound case – or that of any hound type – man and dog have had a close and carefully structured relationship for millennia, often at the highest level of society. History suggests that the dogs enjoyed that association, and still do.
Mechanical hare racing is a very recent phenomenon but it has served one special purpose: it has almost certainly sustained the continuation of the breed, as well as its general purity (contrary arguments notwithstanding). Its arrival also saw the elimination of live hare coursing, again as a function of changing community standards.
In total, as with any other aspect of society, greyhound racing is not perfect but a great many measures are in train in an effort to achieve that perfection.
As for the comments about breeding – I have never promoted any “increase”, as claimed, but have simply evaluated what is happening on that scene. However, I have frequently encouraged administrators to be more imaginative about providing opportunities for aging or less competitive dogs. Perhaps the increased interest in veteran’s races is an example.
The so-called “wastage” is certainly a problematic issue, as it is with any other animal known to mankind, from cats to elephants to lions and tigers, most of which have some sort of commercial value in one way or another. There is nothing special about greyhounds, except that they are generally far better cared for than the vast majority of animals, all because humans place a high value on them. That worth is by far the major reason for their survival.
Finally, there is one other general theme in the articles I have written. My view is that on a number of counts greyhound racing can be better run than it is today, and I try to suggest how. Every move from governments, authorities, participants and fans should be directed to that end. And hopefully from readers like “Hugh” as well.
Music to the ears
It turns out that there is actually some value in the ABC after all. A Catalyst program run the other day tested the reaction of a variety of dogs to different sorts of music.
Rock causes them to make a big noise. Heavy metal sends them off the planet. But slow classical music sees them all squat down and listen quietly. I recall that Henry in the Pie in the Sky TV series had similar good results with his laying hens.
There is a lesson here for kennels everywhere, including at racetracks. It might work wonders for the odd dog, especially the yelper drawn in a late race.
20 years ago it was found that Jazz music was the music that the dogs seemed to like best.
Jees Bruce keep up with the times ha
20 years ago it was found that Jazz music was the music that the dogs seemed to like best.
Jees Bruce keep up with the times ha
I’m
interested in the term you like to place in inverted commas and
describe as problematic: – ‘wastage’, ie, what to do with the hundreds
of dogs that are no longer economically useful to the greyhound
racing industry, and can’t, due to numbers, all be adopted as pets.
Many
animal species are killed in the prime of their lives simply because
its deemed useful in some way by the human species to do so. Double
standards are rife. Some animals are generally seen as more
expendable than others, for example, those used in food production
such as chickens, sheep, cattle, and those that are seen as pests
such as rats and mice, and those that are seen as surplus to
requirements in the pet industry.
The
acceptability of the killing of animals for entertainment, profit,
consumables or food has changed drastically over the centuries and
will continue to do so. What was acceptable even 50 years ago is seen
as morally wrong today. In particular condoning wastage simply as a
by-product of human entertainment or ‘sport’ is increasingly seen as immoral and unacceptable.
Over
the last 20 years, much public sentiment has turned against greyhound
racing globally and this will continue to gather momentum into the
future. Simply put, the writing is on the wall.
I’minterested in the term you like to place in inverted commas anddescribe as problematic: – ‘wastage’, ie, what to do with the hundredsof dogs that are no longer economically useful to the greyhoundracing industry, and can’t, due to numbers, all be adopted as pets.
Manyanimal species are killed in the prime of their lives simply becauseits deemed useful in some way by the human species to do so. Doublestandards are rife. Some animals are generally seen as moreexpendable than others, for example, those used in food productionsuch as chickens, sheep, cattle, and those that are seen as pestssuch as rats and mice, and those that are seen as surplus torequirements in the pet industry.
Theacceptability of the killing of animals for entertainment, profit,consumables or food has changed drastically over the centuries andwill continue to do so. What was acceptable even 50 years ago is seenas morally wrong today. In particular condoning wastage simply as aby-product of human entertainment or ‘sport’ is increasingly seen as immoral and unacceptable.
Overthe last 20 years, much public sentiment has turned against greyhoundracing globally and this will continue to gather momentum into thefuture. Simply put, the writing is on the wall.
Bruce I contacted the NSW representative on Greyhounds Australasia when the regulatory board was combined with greyhounds and harness and asked him why GA was using a special interest group of the AVA as a regulatory authority when NSW had previously removed a regulatory board on the grounds that practicing greyhound vets had a potential conflict of interest in dealing with regulatory matters. The answer was that the regulatory board of the greyhounds/harness believed that the vets association was also the regulatory vet registration board.(which is not correct) I rang delegates from the other states and they were also of the mistaken belief.
GRNSW has returned to a position to avoid potential conflicts by appointing the Working Dog Alliance which contains university professions not necessarily commercially connected with greyhound enterprises and expert in data science. Hugh is his response to other threads has also mentioned research from a similar national science body to the working dog alliance AAAS science.
My only comment on the use of working dog alliance is that it use should be expanded from the assessment of data science to include practical experimentation as well. This would bring the working dog alliance into the arena once held by the previous Sydney University Scientific Group that used to be funded by greyhound charity meetings in previous times.
I am not saying that the Vet Association does not do valuable work and they do have a code of conduct and practice which requires them to progress vet science but possible conflicts of interest an occur and delegates of regulatory organisations need to factor this in.
Here is a cut and paste of one of my items to the special commission of inquiry.
1.There is a special interest group
for the greyhounds in the Australian Veterinary Association. The greyhound
group involve vets with a commercial interest in greyhounds and gives advice on
regulatory matters. There is a concern that the vets have conflicts of interests
at certain times. This concern has been brought up at the current joint NSW
Parliament Select Committee into Companion Animal Breeding Practices in NSW – see
submission 17 Veterinary Practitioners Board of NSW
Bruce I contacted the NSW representative on Greyhounds Australasia when the regulatory board was combined with greyhounds and harness and asked him why GA was using a special interest group of the AVA as a regulatory authority when NSW had previously removed a regulatory board on the grounds that practicing greyhound vets had a potential conflict of interest in dealing with regulatory matters. The answer was that the regulatory board of the greyhounds/harness believed that the vets association was also the regulatory vet registration board.(which is not correct) I rang delegates from the other states and they were also of the mistaken belief.
GRNSW has returned to a position to avoid potential conflicts by appointing the Working Dog Alliance which contains university professions not necessarily commercially connected with greyhound enterprises and expert in data science. Hugh is his response to other threads has also mentioned research from a similar national science body to the working dog alliance AAAS science.
My only comment on the use of working dog alliance is that it use should be expanded from the assessment of data science to include practical experimentation as well. This would bring the working dog alliance into the arena once held by the previous Sydney University Scientific Group that used to be funded by greyhound charity meetings in previous times.
I am not saying that the Vet Association does not do valuable work and they do have a code of conduct and practice which requires them to progress vet science but possible conflicts of interest an occur and delegates of regulatory organisations need to factor this in.
Here is a cut and paste of one of my items to the special commission of inquiry.
1.There is a special interest groupfor the greyhounds in the Australian Veterinary Association. The greyhoundgroup involve vets with a commercial interest in greyhounds and gives advice onregulatory matters. There is a concern that the vets have conflicts of interestsat certain times. This concern has been brought up at the current joint NSWParliament Select Committee into Companion Animal Breeding Practices in NSW – seesubmission 17 Veterinary Practitioners Board of NSW
Working Dog Alliance report now available. (good read)
and Assessment of Best Practice.pdf
Working Dog Alliance report now available. (good read)
I’m heartened to see that you actually consider contrary opinions and respond to them. I still disagree with some of what you say though. Obviously I am against horse racing circuses and other industries that exploit animals for entertainment. But I already addressed the analogy to humans competing in sport as that was raised by another reader. The key difference is choice. Greyhounds don’t get the choice to opt out, they perform, or they die, or if they’re lucky they get adopted. It’s not the same. It’s not even remotely the same. Who’s forcing someone to play football? Who? Come on, tell me. And who gets killed as a matter of routine if they aren’t good enough at football to make it to the NRL? Who?? No one, it’s an absolutely ridiculous argument to make.
I also don’t really understand this argument about “how humans form their attitudes and their partnerships with animals”. I’m not really sure what that means. You suggest there is inconsistency between banning whaling and not allowing crocodiles to be shot. That’s not inconsistent. The issue here is animal welfare and environmental protection. Did you just say that crocodiles are of no value to “the ecology” (a sentence that actually makes no sense, but we’ll ignore that)? How do you make that judgement? Do you know what the effect of removing crocs from the environment is on the food web? How did you arrive at the point of view that they have no value? Because they are in the way of the never ending human expansion?
Clearly you are someone that thinks animals are here to serve human whims. I don’t know why you think that, perhaps you are religious, perhaps you think that humans have souls and all the other animals are mindless beasts. I dunno. But that’s not a point of view supported by science. I argue for animal welfare, because I believe that sentient, intelligent animals should not have their lives thrown away without justification. At the very least, we need to have a discussion about it first, we need to look at whether the cost is worth the benefit.
Want to hear the stupidest argument ever to justify an activity that wastes the lives of an intelligent animal? Here it is: “Mechanical hare racing is a very recent phenomenon but it has served one special purpose: it has almost certainly sustained the continuation of the breed, as well as its general purity”
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. All breeds of dogs were bred from wolves via artificial selection by humans. Where is the intrinsic value in a given breed of dog? The dog doesn’t care about it’s breed, it’ll happily mate with other breeds and dilute it’s gene pool. Dog breeds and any perceived value they have is a completely arbitrary and artificial human construct. It only has value to those that have a bizarre obsession with dog breeding, and to those that can make a buck out of it. And yes, I support people’s right to make a living, but not at an unacceptable cost of animal welfare. And not when the best argument you have for the value of the sport is some weird breed worship.
I’m heartened to see that you actually consider contrary opinions and respond to them. I still disagree with some of what you say though. Obviously I am against horse racing circuses and other industries that exploit animals for entertainment. But I already addressed the analogy to humans competing in sport as that was raised by another reader. The key difference is choice. Greyhounds don’t get the choice to opt out, they perform, or they die, or if they’re lucky they get adopted. It’s not the same. It’s not even remotely the same. Who’s forcing someone to play football? Who? Come on, tell me. And who gets killed as a matter of routine if they aren’t good enough at football to make it to the NRL? Who?? No one, it’s an absolutely ridiculous argument to make.
I also don’t really understand this argument about “how humans form their attitudes and their partnerships with animals”. I’m not really sure what that means. You suggest there is inconsistency between banning whaling and not allowing crocodiles to be shot. That’s not inconsistent. The issue here is animal welfare and environmental protection. Did you just say that crocodiles are of no value to “the ecology” (a sentence that actually makes no sense, but we’ll ignore that)? How do you make that judgement? Do you know what the effect of removing crocs from the environment is on the food web? How did you arrive at the point of view that they have no value? Because they are in the way of the never ending human expansion?
Clearly you are someone that thinks animals are here to serve human whims. I don’t know why you think that, perhaps you are religious, perhaps you think that humans have souls and all the other animals are mindless beasts. I dunno. But that’s not a point of view supported by science. I argue for animal welfare, because I believe that sentient, intelligent animals should not have their lives thrown away without justification. At the very least, we need to have a discussion about it first, we need to look at whether the cost is worth the benefit.
Want to hear the stupidest argument ever to justify an activity that wastes the lives of an intelligent animal? Here it is: “Mechanical hare racing is a very recent phenomenon but it has served one special purpose: it has almost certainly sustained the continuation of the breed, as well as its general purity”
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. All breeds of dogs were bred from wolves via artificial selection by humans. Where is the intrinsic value in a given breed of dog? The dog doesn’t care about it’s breed, it’ll happily mate with other breeds and dilute it’s gene pool. Dog breeds and any perceived value they have is a completely arbitrary and artificial human construct. It only has value to those that have a bizarre obsession with dog breeding, and to those that can make a buck out of it. And yes, I support people’s right to make a living, but not at an unacceptable cost of animal welfare. And not when the best argument you have for the value of the sport is some weird breed worship.