Welfare of greyhounds used for racing: report

6. Ethical Analysis and Critical Issues

The summary of our evidence gathering on greyhound welfare suggests there are significant risks of welfare harms to dogs engaging in racing. The most evidence is provided for the risks to injury when racing on the types of tracks that are present in the UK, whilst other risks relate to breeding, life in kennels and retirement/rehoming. Administration of banned substances, whilst also a risk for welfare, is already governed by legislation and we have not considered it here. We also consider that there are opportunities for racing greyhounds to have a good quality of life and agree that dogs can have pleasure from taking part in racing. We consider that all these issues could be improved by significantly better independent regulation, traceability and joined-up approaches across countries, as well as radical changes in track design. However, we do not see that there is a strong desire in the industry to make the types of very significant changes that would be needed to mitigate most of the welfare risks and allow for the opportunities for good welfare to be maximised. Therefore, an ethical analysis of dog welfare would conclude that a greyhound would have at least equivalent opportunities for good welfare by not engaging in racing, and fewer risks of poor welfare, so on balance welfare for dogs would be improved, if they were not involved in racing.

A utilitarian ethical approach does allow for welfare harms to occur to animals if the benefits achieved in so doing are sufficiently large to offset the impacts. As a sporting endeavour it is not clear that the benefits of allowing racing to continue do in fact offset the welfare risks. A number of correspondents, who wrote to us, cited improvements in their own mental health in attending greyhound racing at Thornton Stadium, and some mentioned the reduction in other forms of recreation available. Whilst we are sympathetic to this argument, we could not clearly separate if the benefits accrued from having an opportunity to meet with and engage with others with similar interests, rather than deriving directly from seeing dogs racing, or being able to bet on the outcomes. This is also beyond our remit, which is to focus only on the welfare of the dogs, but we mention it here as something worth considering.

An important consideration also in this discussion is whether there is a public desire for greyhound racing to continue in Scotland. Almost everyone present during our visit to Thornton Stadium was either running a dog, and/or had been a trainer/raced dogs or were family members of people racing dogs. There did not appear to be anyone attending without a direct connection to dog racing. A letter received from a supporter of the stadium also cited the decline in public interest and the increasing age of those still attending, suggesting that the industry was already undergoing a sort of voluntary phased end to racing. A survey commissioned by Grey2K, conducted by an independent polling organisation, PanelBase, surveyed members of the general public in Scotland on their views on greyhound racing. The evidence suggests that 63% of Scots have an unfavourable view of greyhound racing and 58% believe greyhounds bred for racing have a poor quality of life. In addition, more than twice as many people said they would vote in favour of ending greyhound racing than opposed it, if a referendum on the matter were to be held (in favour=53%, against=20%, don't know=26%). The evidence suggests that, although greyhound racing is highly valued by a small segment of the population (e.g., 7% of respondents were very positive about greyhound racing), there is little wider public appeal.