Welfare of greyhounds used for racing: report

5. Outcomes of evidence gathering

Welfare of greyhounds used in racing in GB

Welfare during racing/at the Stadium

Racing greyhounds have been selectively bred for speed and the performance traits required for sprinting, with dogs able to maintain constant average running speeds of 65km/h during races.^[6] Typically, five or six greyhounds race on a purpose-built oval track with a mechanical lure system that the greyhounds chase in an anti-clockwise direction. Racing is conducted over a range of different distances including 100yd (91m), 300yd (274m), 500yd (457m) and 680yd (622m).

Injury and fatalities during racing

Published scientific literature regarding the welfare of greyhounds during races predominantly focuses on injury rate, causes and preventions of injuries. Each year GBGB publishes injury and retirement data from licensed stadia across the UK (Table 1). Currently all racing in Scotland is independent of GBGB and is not required to provide mandatory recording and classification of injuries sustained during racing. Therefore, data from the Scottish track is not included in Table 1.

(GBGB, 2022b)

GBGB figures are pooled and do not provide stadia-specific evidence for whether participating in some race meets are more hazardous than others. The data are also presented as a proportion of total dog runs and not as a proportion of dogs racing. We are therefore unable to determine accurately the individual risk to each dog of participating in racing, nor to compare these figures to the risk of injury in the companion greyhound population as there is no sensible denominator to allow comparison. However, based on the data that 18,302 dogs were eligible to race in 2021, we estimate that (with the assumption that all dogs eligible to race did race, that all dogs raced an equivalent amount, that each dog would only sustain one injury per year and all dogs are equally at risk of injury or fatality in any given race) that any greyhound taking part in GBGB-regulated racing in 2021 had a 24.1% risk of incurring an injury that year, and a 0.66% risk of dying at the track. The actual figures for some dogs may be considerably higher (if they race more frequently, or race on tracks that are inherently more dangerous). There are also no figures for the number of dogs that are injured in training. It should be noted that racing animals are known to sustain unique injuries that are seldom seen in other breeds of dog, particularly hock injuries of the right hindleg.^[7] Data from 2715 companion greyhounds collected from 626 primary care veterinary clinics in 2016 suggest that 10% of greyhounds had traumatic injuries that might be equivalent to those presented in Table 1, of which nearly a third were claw injuries^[8] (which may be those identified as other above). Whilst not directly comparable it does suggest that the risk of injury is significantly higher in the racing greyhound population.

The GBGB report^[9] highlights that although the injury rate of 1.23% in 2021 is up from 1.12% in 2020 (an increase of 23.7% when considering the increase in the number of dog runs), the number of dogs euthanased on humane grounds at tracks has reduced by 40%, from 200 in 2018 to 120 in 2021.^{Error! Bookmark not defined.} In some cases, following an injury at the track and an initial examination by the track veterinarian, a greyhound will be taken home by its owner or trainer to be examined by another veterinarian who will either advise further treatment or for the greyhound to be euthanased. The data for 2021 shows that the number of cases where euthanasia is prescribed, following a poor prognosis by an external veterinarian away from the racecourse, has fallen from 144 in 2018 to 74 in 2021.^{Error! Bookmark not defined.} It should be noted that the severity of the injuries is not included in the data. There are also some reports which describe that most injuries that occur during racing are minor injuries that may not be recorded, and continued racing with such injuries may subsequently result in major injuries.^[10] Early detection may help to identify dogs that are at risk of sustaining a racing injury,^[11] but this may require more thorough diagnostic tools to allow for detection, which are currently not commonly available at racetracks.

As injuries and fatalities associated with racing in Scotland are not captured in these data, we have only limited evidence of the situation here, and our understanding of this issue is based on verbal reports and several assumptions. Whilst at Thornton Stadium, and confirmed by letter later, we were told that two serious injuries had occurred in that previous year, with one fatality. With 20-30 dogs running per race meet at Thornton (based on 4-6 dogs per race, five races per meet – as observed by SAWC and confirmed in correspondence from Thornton) and one night of racing typically per week, this suggests a broadly comparable figure to those presented in Table 1 (from Thornton's own figures shared with SAWC: 569 dog runs, two serious injuries, one fatality: 0.35% injury risk per dog per run; 0.176% fatality risk per dog per run. Note with such a small sample size, these percentage figures should be interpreted with care). In discussions with owners of dogs at the race meeting it was apparent that at least one dog was recovering from injury and not able to race, but the severity of this injury (believed to musculoskeletal) was not clear.

Numerous factors influence the risk of injuries during racing and include dog genetics, weight, age, sex, speed, weather, month of the year, track design and surface, race distance and starting position.^[12]Among the most widely studied risks associated with greyhound racing injuries are those related to running on the bends of an oval track. This is due to a number of reasons including:

• - Asymmetric training and racing: as the dogs usually only run in an anti-clockwise direction around bends, they experience greatest force on their left forelimb and right hindlimb, which can cause long-term anatomical adaptations, creating imbalance and weakening of the bone^[13] and leading to increased injuries.^[14]
• - Centrifugal force: which tends to pull greyhounds to the outside of the track, therefore if a greyhound falls. it can easily slam into the outside fence.^[15]
• - Congestion: greyhounds slow down entering the bends, which can result in collisions and falls. An Australian report calculated that approximately 80% of all catastrophic and major injuries were caused by congestion and incidents such as check, collision and galloping.^{Error! Bookmark not defined.}
• - As sighthounds, greyhounds attempt to keep the lure in view as they enter a bend. This leads to bunching together in the corners (as the lure moves out of sight around the bend), increasing the risk of physical contact between dogs. Dogs then spreads out again on the straight as the lure can be seen by all dogs at this point in the race.

It is clear that track design has a significant impact on injury rate,^[16] but only by racing on straight tracks would the risks and injuries associated with greyhounds running around bends be eliminated. We are aware that there is at least one commercial straight track in Spain (e.g. video on YouTube), but none of the tracks in Scotland or the rest of the UK is straight, and inspection of overhead images of racetracks suggest that the degree of curvature of racetracks varies between stadia (Figure 1).

Other injuries/diseases reported to be linked to greyhound racing include exercise-induced trauma to the iliopsoas muscle, causing bleeding into the abdomen and retroperitoneal space and leading to sudden death,^[17] reports of loose sand from the track being thrown into eyes of following dogs,^[14] and exertional rhabdomyopathy ('acidosis' or 'tying up').^[18]

Mental state of greyhounds when racing

Anecdotal evidence from owners of greyhounds (also expressed to us at Thornton Stadium), veterinarians and the scientific literature^[19] depict the greyhounds' love of running. As sighthounds, greyhounds have been bred to specialise in pursuing prey following visual cues (rather than scent) and being able to overcome prey animals through their speed and agility. Modern greyhound racing exploits these adaptations by using a mechanical lure to attract greyhounds to run around the track in pursuit of this simulated prey. It is reasonable to assume that the pursuit phase of the race is associated with positive emotional states in dogs, and many dogs engage in chase and pursuit of moving objects suggesting it is a highly motivated behaviour for dogs. Greyhounds have been observed showing signs of anticipation prior to chasing a lure.^[20] Anticipation is normally associated with positive events, suggesting that greyhounds do enjoy running and chasing 'prey' (the lure).^[21] Some evidence from physiological data collected in greyhounds before and after a high intensity sprint suggested significant elevations in salivary cortisol and heart rate in dogs, when compared to their pre-exercise values.^[22] Salivary cortisol is a measure of the activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, sometimes called a stress axis. Although this is sometimes interpreted as being indicative of a stress response and poor welfare, both measures are typically also elevated in animals following exercise and conditions associated with positive anticipation. Therefore, we consider this cannot provide any useful information regarding the emotional state of the greyhound involved in racing.

Our observation of dogs prior to racing at Thornton did not suggest a high degree of anticipation and motivation to race during the parade phase, although the weather was cold and damp and this may have led to the dogs' subdued demeanour. However, we observed that all dogs were willing to enter the start boxes, requiring little or no persuasion, and no dogs refused to take part in racing. At the end of the race all dogs were able to access the lure and this was associated with the greatest enthusiasm observed in the dogs. It has been suggested^[23] that an inability to access the lure at the end of the race can lead to frustration, a negative emotional state, in racing greyhounds, but this was not observed at Thornton. We also observed that a small number of dogs left the lure and ran back to greet their owners/trainers with enthusiasm after the race, indicative of a positive human-animal relationship.

In general, we did not observe any negative contacts between handlers and greyhounds at the racetrack, and some positive or affiliative interactions as described above. We also saw no aggression between dogs or other outcomes indicative of poor welfare. Some dogs spent time in the stadium area with their owners before or after a race, and others were kept in vehicles before and after racing. We did not observe the dogs in these conditions, although research in Australia suggests that time spent in the kennels at the racetrack can contribute to stress at race meets.^{Error! Bookmark not defined.}

Other observations of dogs at Thornton Stadium

Dogs appeared fit and in good body condition (although many wore coats so it was not always easy to tell), most seemed quiet and subdued, with low tail posture (which might reflect the damp and cold weather), although none appeared reluctant to race or to enter the boxes ahead of the races. All dogs wore wire-basket muzzles for racing, but only a few during the parading phase. A small number of dogs pawed at the muzzle, but most did not appear to show altered behaviour when the muzzle was applied. Approximately 4-5 dogs had visible areas of coat loss, on the haunches and tail, which in some cases looked possibly consistent with rubbing on wire mesh either in kennels or during transport (evenly spaced stripes of hair loss). On GBGB-regulated tracks, random tests for banned substances take place. We did not see this activity at Thornton, and as there is no requirement for publication of data from this track we cannot comment on the incidence of these events or whether any checking takes place. We also did not see any evidence that the fitness to race of the dogs was assessed and instead apparently the owners of the dogs made this decision.

The racetrack at Thornton, like most others, is run anticlockwise around an oval track with the first bend occurring about 100 m into the race. Research into the race and speed profiles of greyhounds suggests that dogs take 80-100 m to accelerate to their maximum speed.^[24] This means that dogs have achieved their top speed before being subjected to the centrifugal forces of the bend, which is considered to be protective of greyhound welfare as they are only subjected to centrifugal force and not the additional force associated with forward acceleration. However, it does mean that dogs are at maximum speed when they may sustain any collisions. Eager et al (2022)^{Error! Bookmark not defined.} advised siting impact pads at the curves to minimise the impact of collision with racetrack fixtures, but these were not observed at Thornton. Racetrack surface is an important contributor to the risk of injury in greyhounds, affecting the impact forces a running dog will experience and its ability to provide traction, while uneven surfaces affect the likelihood of falls.^[25] In common with all greyhound stadia in the UK, Thornton has a sand track, which is known to provide a better running surface than grass, and we observed that the track was maintained between all the races by dragging a mat over the surface in an attempt to disperse standing water. We were told that salt is sometimes used in winter to prevent the track freezing, which can affect greyhound footpads, but also that the track closed during the worst of the winter weather as the owners could not afford to salt the track. Our observations of the track suggested frequent activity to maintain the track surface when racing was going on, although we are unable to judge whether these effectively mitigated risks for the dogs.

Section summary

In summary, our main concerns for the welfare of greyhounds, when racing, is the risk of serious injury, which in some cases results in euthanasia. This is particularly exacerbated by the way racing is undertaken, around a curved track, which increases the risk of collision and stress damage particularly at the first bend in the track. We have no robust data on injuries from racing in Scotland, but equally have no reason to believe that the risks are any different/lesser in Scotland from elsewhere in the UK. Other aspects of dog welfare, such as condition, general fitness and behaviour, appeared good on observation of dogs at the racetrack. This would be consistent with racing dogs being at their peak in terms of physical health, so as to be able to compete effectively.

Welfare during training

We were unable to find any scientific literature that looked specifically at welfare issues associated with training greyhounds. The main welfare risks for dogs during this phase of their life is likely to be their living conditions, opportunities for exercise and positive welfare, and methods used in training. However, racing greyhounds reportedly spend as much as 95% of their lives at kennels,^[26] thus this aspect of their welfare is clearly very important. There are no empirical data on any of these aspects of the life of a greyhound in Scotland, although a single paper has investigated impacts of kennelling in racing greyhounds in Australia.^[27] Studies in other dog breeds also exist and together suggest that the biggest impact on the welfare of kennelled dogs is lack of social contact, rather than kennel space/exercise, although these aspects are often confounded.

Training for racing greyhounds usually begins at 12 months of age, and typically dogs may race until 48 months old, with some anecdotal evidence that this can be shorter for bitches compared to dogs. Average race performance declines from around 36 months old, suggesting that trainers replace these dogs with younger faster animals. GBGB-regulated tracks typically require dogs eligible for racing to be held in kennels, with 573 licensed residential kennels in the UK in 2022.^[28] Although there are no active GBGB-licensed racetracks in Scotland, there are a small number of licensed trainers who race their dogs in England. This is also supported by evidence from the Greyhound Awareness League (GAL), which rehomes dogs that are usually given up voluntarily by trainers at or after retirement from racing. They report around 120 Scottish ex-racing greyhounds are rehomed each year, which appears well in excess of the number of dogs in Scottish racing annually.

Anecdotal evidence of the living conditions of Scottish greyhounds was presented to us verbally and by photographs of greyhounds away from the track. For several trainers this represented owning a small number of dogs (generally <5), which were presented to us largely as family pets, which also happened to race, i.e., a dog serving an apparently dual function of companion animal and racing greyhound. Other evidence showed a larger number of dogs (>10) living in kennels, in some cases housed in pairs, although these dogs were also shown interacting positively with family members outside the kennels. In these images the kennels appeared clean, although barren (containing only shavings as a bedding, and no evidence of toys or other enrichments), and dogs appeared relaxed, clean and in good body condition.

Evidence from Scottish SPCA suggests that complaints are received from the public about conditions in some racing greyhound kennels from time to time. Over a five-year period, 21 complaints have been received relating to kennels and nine other complaints in relation to racing greyhounds (some of which refer to Shawfield, which is no longer in operation). To date these complaints have not been upheld, as the conditions, whilst not ideal, have met the minimum standards of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act, 2006. However, this may suggest that, although kennels in some cases might be providing adequate care, they do not appear compatible with giving dogs a good quality of life.

Welfare at birth and rearing

Racing greyhounds in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK are increasingly sourced from Ireland, with 86.7% of the population being Irish bred in 2021.^[29] In our conversations with owners/trainers at Thornton all those we spoke to had dogs that had been bred and purchased from Ireland. The greyhound racing industry in Ireland is supported by the Government and there is a perception that the fastest dogs are those produced in Ireland. The registration of greyhound puppies in Ireland is through self-report via the Irish Coursing Club (ICC), when an ear mark and microchip are allocated to each puppy. There is no independent verification of the number of live births and the number of puppies in each litter. Although the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2019 require anyone breeding three or more litters of puppies in Scotland to be registered, these do not apply to breeders in Ireland, and thus there is no regulation of the age at which a breeding bitch is bred, the number of litters per year or in a lifetime, or other constraints on breeding a dog to protect her welfare (Sch 2, para 8(3).

Calculations based on ICC and GBGB figures suggest that about 10-20% of greyhound puppies bred in Ireland and transferred to the UK (calculated to be about 1894 dogs in 2021) are not licensed with GBGB^[30], and so are not eligible to race at GBGB racetracks. These dogs may be those then racing on independent tracks, dogs that have not engaged in racing and are being kept as companion animals, and dogs that have been 'lost' in other ways (death, euthanasia, breeding, rehoming, etc.). The lack of any data preclude us from reaching any firm conclusions about the welfare of dogs in early life before they embark on a racing career, or their parents. However, lack of data should not be taken to imply there are no welfare concerns, only that we have insufficient evidence to reach a decision one way or another.

Welfare of dogs after their racing careers are over

As with most aspects of greyhound welfare, except for racing, there is no scientific evidence of the welfare of these dogs that we could find. The Greyhound Awareness League (GAL, the oldest greyhound rehoming charity in Scotland) report that, alongside the other registered charities in Scotland which rehome retired greyhounds, approximately 150 ex-racing dogs are presented for rehoming each year, of which approximately 120 are currently living in Scotland (according to those relinquishing dogs, not independently verified). Dogs may be retired voluntarily from racing (a voluntary decision by a trainer that the dog is no longer running sufficiently competitively), or involuntarily (if a dog receives a career-ending injury). Some dogs, particularly those that (as described above) may be one of only a small number of racing dogs in a home setting, may continue to live as a pet with their owners, once their racing careers are over. However, other dogs are relinquished for rehoming by trainers either immediately when their racing careers end, or after a period of time either as a pet or a non-racing member of a kennel. Evidence from GAL suggests a minority of dogs is rehomed from 'hobby' trainers, with the majority coming from more 'professional' kennels with larger numbers of dogs, which supports this view. GAL commented that dogs commonly arrive for rehoming in poor condition (underweight), with poor dentition, poor coat condition and with high worm and flea burdens. In their opinion, dogs that have been maintained as a 'pet' for a period of time, and those arriving for rehoming from independent rather than regulated tracks, tended to be in poorer condition. In addition, GAL reported that dogs relinquished due to injuries often do not have veterinary records for treatment of injury, which could suggest inadequate or non-treatment. Some injuries are not disclosed and are found upon examination after rescue, again suggesting inadequate veterinary care for injuries.

This evidence suggests that, at least for some professional kennels, once a dog's racing career has ended there is little attention paid to nutrition, health and general care.

Section summary

Overall, and particularly for dogs in Scotland, there are very few data on the welfare of racing greyhounds outside their time at a racetrack. There are significant concerns about the welfare risks to dogs from excessive breeding, which is largely 'invisible' to regulation in the UK as it occurs in Ireland, and in the provision of end-of-racing care. Whilst hobby trainers may provide a good standard of care to their dogs throughout their lives, at least 120 Scottish ex-racing dogs require rehoming each year and may undergo a period of poor welfare before relinquishment.

Are there specific welfare risks for dogs running on independent tracks?

The only active greyhound stadium in Scotland is independent and is not subjected to any regulatory procedures for the welfare of greyhounds other than the laws that apply to all owners/keepers of sentient animals in Scotland. In this section we considered whether this presented specific welfare risks, was neutral or beneficial for the welfare of greyhounds, compared to regulated racing.

In our evidence gathering racing at the independent track in Scotland was represented to us as 'grassroots' racing, or a hobby that allowed owners to have the pleasure of seeing their dogs run, and thus not subjected to the same pressures and welfare issues that have been identified above in more competitive racing. There was, for example, no prize money paid to the winners of races, and the main 'reward' was the satisfaction of having the fastest dog in the field. Whilst we accept that, for some greyhounds racing at independent races, they did have a dual existence as a companion animal and may have a better quality of life at home compared to dogs kept in professional kennels, it was also evident that some dogs had come from larger kennels. Other aspects of the racing environment also argued against this being solely a 'hobby' track; for example, the presence of a bookmaker at the track (and indeed that a race day was cancelled when the on-site bookmaker was ill and unable to attend), handicapping of dogs to increase competitiveness, and the fact that a number of trainers had travelled considerable distances to race their dogs. We are also aware that the owners of Thornton Stadium had applied to GBGB to become regulated, and this had been refused. Therefore, it is of necessity that the track is running as an independent track rather than as a desire to provide opportunity for grassroots racing for the local community. In addition, all dogs engaged in racing were running anti-clockwise on oval tracks with an inherent risk of injury or fatality, regardless of whether this was independent or regulated.

In the opinion of SAWC, any activity that involves commercial use of animals, carries a risk of exploitation or where the welfare of the animal involved is not the foremost consideration. Therefore, we are strongly of the view that independent regulation or oversight of these activities is required to safeguard the welfare of the animals. For racing greyhounds in Scotland, we have been hampered in making an evaluation of the welfare of dogs through a lack of good quality data, or indeed any data in some areas. In particular, evidence is poor or lacking for the numbers of dogs engaged in racing, their living and training conditions, the circumstances in which they were bred and reared, and their end-of-racing care. Independent regulation of this activity could provide greater transparency and allow a more considered evaluation of greyhound welfare, and whether racing does provide a good quality of care for dogs.

The one area of greyhound welfare where there is some minimal evidence, is the incidence of injury during racing. There is no requirement for independent tracks to collect or publish these data, but we were provided with some, unverified, information about this from the independent track. We are unable to determine with any accuracy if this is greater or lesser than the GBGB figures, and whether this is increasing or decreasing during independent racing. However, the fact that dogs do incur serious injuries, sometimes resulting in euthanasia, at both regulated and independent tracks argues for consideration of track design and whether dogs at an independent track, with no requirement for a veterinarian present, are at risk of unnecessary suffering when injured as prompt veterinary care is not available. We were told that dogs could be taken to a veterinary surgery within five minutes of the track, and there are a number of veterinary surgeries within 5-10 minutes' drive of the stadium, but this could require movement and transport of a seriously injured dog, which would be avoided if a veterinarian were present. In addition, if races typically take place in the evening, all veterinary practices would be closed and the owner of an injured dog would be reliant on the availability of the on-call duty vet to attend the dog, which would inevitably result in a further delay to treatment. It is possible that the increased cost of veterinary call-out charges might also prevent or delay veterinary treatment.

In our discussions with veterinarians, both proponents of greyhound racing and those opposed to it, the overwhelming consensus supported the presence of an experienced, independent veterinarian at trackside during racing. In addition to their ability to provide immediate veterinary care, if required, other important functions were described, including ensuring good biosecurity when dogs from diverse areas come together at the track, ensuring an independent inspection of fitness of dogs to race and empowerment to prevent a dog racing if it was deemed unfit, and oversight of the use of any banned or other substances detrimental to dog welfare. The detail and complexity of the veterinarian role is outlined in the literature, including weight inspection, fitness to race and fit of muzzles and jackets, examination of all injuries and assessments of up-to-date inoculations.^[31] We did not see any evidence that any of these functions took place by any personnel during our visit to Thornton Stadium, although we were told that the fitness to race was determined by the owners.

Can welfare of racing greyhounds be safeguarded by improved regulation?

In this section we consider more broadly whether greyhound racing can provide good welfare for dogs, and whether, in the future, Scotland might consider having other racetracks, regulated or independent. In this section we particularly reviewed the GBGB Welfare Strategy and Greyhound Commitment as the main evidence for the potential that regulated greyhound racing may occur. However, we do note that the main function of GBGB is to promote the continued existence of greyhound racing, and our preference, as stated above, would be for independent oversight and regulation of all activities involved in the commercial use of animals. We also met with GBGB directors, and Dogs Trust and RSPCA as part of our evidence gathering.

Greyhound Welfare Strategy

In response to concerns about the welfare of greyhounds GBGB have made significant changes to attempt to address these issues. In this regard the Welfare Strategy, published in 2022, is the most substantial evidence of the approaches they wish to take in protecting greyhound welfare. This document used the Five Welfare Domains^[32] Model as the framework for assessing welfare, and set out short-, medium- and longer-term goals for improving greyhound welfare. A number of these activities and potential improvements are very welcome, particularly the desire to increase education and training for those involved in racing, to improve traceability and to improve and increase data collection and the evidence base around greyhound welfare. As we have repeatedly described in this document, there is very limited scientific evidence around greyhound welfare. Any actions to improve this would be very welcome to help ensure that decisions around greyhound welfare are evidence-based.

In terms of the specific areas of greyhound welfare we have reviewed above, it is less clear in our view whether the Welfare Strategy, however well intentioned, is able to achieve significant impact. In terms of the risks of injury received at the track, the Welfare Strategy prioritises increased inspections and veterinary decision-making and will commission new research to address the incidence of injuries. However, as we describe above, one of the key factors in greyhound injury risk is the design of tracks, especially the curvature of tracks where dogs only run in one direction. There is no consideration of whether it is acceptable to continue to expose dogs to this known risk, as acknowledged in the Welfare Strategy, or any evidence that track design might be modified to reduce risk.

In addressing the risks to greyhound welfare of unregulated and indiscriminate overbreeding of greyhound puppies and the unknown conditions under which greyhound puppies are bred and transported to the UK, the Welfare Strategy cites work with the Kennel Club to produce an 'Assured Breeders Scheme' for greyhounds (although this scheme covers all breeds and predates the Welfare Strategy), and that UK greyhound breeding and transport is regulated under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 and Welfare of Animals (Transport) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (or their English, Welfare and Northern Ireland equivalents). However, as we describe above, the vast majority of dogs arrive in the UK from Irish breeders where none of these measures will have an impact. Although the strategy does express a desire to work with the ICC on this matter, whether this will achieve an impact is yet to be seen. In our discussions with dog owners there appeared to be no incentive to buy British-bred dogs and it was considered routine to import greyhounds for racing from Ireland, even for those who might identify as 'hobby' breeders.

The Welfare Strategy does take seriously the issue of retirement and post-racing-life care of greyhounds and makes a series of welcome recommendations around data collection, rehabilitation and support for owners rehoming greyhounds, as well as provisions for greyhounds that do not engage in racing. However, this commitment was rather undermined by the report from Dogs Trust that GBGB have, since Dogs Trust called for a phased end of greyhound racing in September 2022, stopped providing £400 per rehomed dog to the charity to partially defray the expenses associated with rehabilitation of ex-racing greyhounds. If the welfare of ex-racing dogs at the end of their careers was truly important to GBGB, we would have expected that this commitment to support dogs would continue regardless of where dogs were going to be rehomed.

The Welfare Strategy has a major focus on veterinary care, stakeholder education and nutrition of dogs. However, there is rather less attention given to behavioural issues and the mental state of dogs, even though these are equally important domains in the Five Domains model of welfare. There is a commitment to develop a dog Animal Welfare Assessment Grid (AWAG) that would allow some data to be collected, which includes the psychological health of the dog. It will be useful to see whether this can indicate an improvement in dog welfare over time, although we note that a common feature of this tool is that data are usually collected by the animal keeper and there is a risk of bias unless this is only to be used by independent assessors of dog welfare. The Welfare Strategy (Chapter 2, pp 29) suggests that the AWAG will be used by owners, breeders and trainers, as well as veterinarians and stewards. Although we agree this can help with welfare engagement when used by owners or trainers, it does also risk unconscious or deliberate bias in the assessment of welfare improvements (for example, if a change is made, a trainer might expect to see an improvement and will be biased towards assessing this as improving welfare).

A significant area of the Welfare Strategy deals with dog resilience, both physical and psychological, and this appears to be the main approach considered for dog behavioural welfare. Although there is a brief mention of working with external experts on providing training in ensuring positive experiences for greyhounds (p.38), much of the planned work in this section focuses on opportunities for genetic selection and using genomic breeding approaches for improved resilience (mostly physical resilience to injuries). A PhD thesis has addressed the issue of genetic selection for race performance in greyhounds, as an approach to reduce the over-supply of greyhound puppies to the racing industry.^[33] This work focused mostly on race performance, which shows high and moderate heritabilities^[34] for race time and speed, but low for race rank (relative performance relative to other dogs in a race). This suggests that genetic selection can increase running speed in dogs, but the study specifically warns that this may also increase injury rates for dogs, particularly stress fractures. Although the study went on to conduct some preliminary investigations of genomic associations of specific gene regions (SNPs) with the risk of stress fractures, this was a small and underpowered study (as acknowledged by the author) and further work is required to understand if these genomic markers are really associated with the risk of injury or not. Therefore, we have three concerns with this main approach to improving injury rates and resilience in racing greyhounds: 1) the thrust of this work attempts to modify the dog to meet human demands and the environmental stressors placed upon them rather than to address the environmental factors that lead to high levels of stress and injury. In animal welfare science the driver is always the opposite, i.e., to improve the environment to improve animal welfare; 2) the existing data are over-interpreted in the Welfare Strategy, which takes very preliminary data and extrapolates these to suggest that genomic selection is imminently able to make significant impacts on the breeding of racing greyhounds, when the strongest genetic associations are with racing speed, which is likely to have detrimental impacts on welfare and injury rates; and 3) the structure of the breeding of racing greyhounds, and the time taken to bring about genetic changes suggest that this is, at best, a very long-term strategy and unlikely to have a significant impact on injury rates in dogs in the foreseeable future.

Implementation and enforcement of the Welfare Strategy

Our concerns about some aspects of the Welfare Strategy notwithstanding, the value of this document is only achieved if the actions can be realised. We are aware from our discussions with GBGB that funding for more than half of the actions is not in place, and that this is to be sourced from voluntary contributions from bookmakers. GBGB was clear that, if this source of funding was not forthcoming, then the Welfare Strategy could not be implemented. GBGB has since confirmed that the involvement of some bookmakers has been agreed, with discussions still ongoing.

We also have some concerns about the ability of GBGB to enforce changes in the industry. Although it is the regulator, representations from RSPCA suggested that it had only limited powers to compel greyhound stadia to make changes.^[35] Its jurisdiction is also limited to the time that greyhounds spend at the racetrack, and does not cover the bulk of the life of the greyhound before it arrives at the track, during racing activities away from the track, and at the end of its racing career. Although the Welfare Strategy does have aspirational goals to improve the whole life of the greyhound, we are concerned that there is little power to enforce changes and this will rely on voluntary contributions from stakeholders.

A considerable part of the planned actions to improve greyhound welfare presented by GBGB relies on education and other activities from external collaborators, which are chiefly the charities involved in the Greyhound Forum, Dogs Trust and RSPCA. Representatives from these organisations told us that their involvement in the Welfare Strategy was limited to an initial consultation, and they were not consulted about their educational inputs to deliver the strategy before it was published.^{Error! Bookmark not defined.} Whether these will now go ahead, given the change in policy at these organisations, was not clear to us from our conversations with all parties involved.

Section summary

In summary, whilst we were clear that the GBGB directors and the Welfare Strategy were motivated by a desire to improve greyhound welfare, albeit to allow continued racing, we are not convinced that this is sufficient to ensure a good quality of life for greyhounds. We were pleased to see a desire to improve education of those involved, to support future research, data collection and traceability. However, there are some significant gaps, both in funding and support as well as approaches, that we consider have left open the opportunity for greyhound racing to continue much as it does now with no material improvement in greyhound welfare. In particular, there is no mention of track design and how this could improve greyhound safety and reduce injury risk, and the behavioural and psychological health of dogs is given considerably less weight than veterinary matters and physical health.