GRSA release euthanasia figures ahead of Parliamentary vote

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating

More greyhound news

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
33 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

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.

BJoe
BJoe
4 years ago

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. 

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

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.

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

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… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
4 years ago

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.

Hugh_
Hugh_
4 years ago

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.

Hugh_
Hugh_
4 years ago

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.

BJoe
BJoe
4 years ago

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.  

BJoe
BJoe
4 years ago

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.

Hugh_
Hugh_
4 years ago

BJoe Hugh_ Deborah555 Try not to lose too much sleep wondering about that.

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

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.

Hugh_
Hugh_
4 years ago

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… Read more »

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

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.

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

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.

Hugh_
Hugh_
4 years ago

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,… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
4 years ago

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.

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

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.

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

Hugh_ Deborah555 BJoe  Banning an entire industry and destroying all the associated industries is not one step at a time.

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

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.

Hugh_
Hugh_
4 years ago

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… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
4 years ago

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.

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

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… Read more »

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

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… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
4 years ago

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… Read more »

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

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… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
4 years ago

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?

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

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

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

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.

Hugh_
Hugh_
4 years ago

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… Read more »

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

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.

Hugh_
Hugh_
4 years ago

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… Read more »

Deborah555
Deborah555
4 years ago

Hugh_ Deborah555 BJoe  I qualified my statement with further information after you questioned me.

Hugh_
Hugh_
4 years ago

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… Read more »