Welfare of greyhounds used for racing: report

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

From the available evidence we consider that the welfare of greyhounds bred for racing is likely to be similar to greyhounds elsewhere in the UK, particularly where greyhounds trained in Scotland actually race in England. The data suggest there are several causes of welfare concern, particularly the risk of injury or death at the track, the oversupply of puppies and the conditions under which they are reared, a significant part of a dog's life that may be spent in kennels with restricted social contacts, and risks of neglect and poor veterinary care once their racing careers are over. This is balanced against the evidence that dogs enjoy the opportunity to run and find the act of chasing a lure rewarding. Although the negative welfare aspects of racing are not insurmountable and could be mitigated through changes in the design of tracks, and greater independent regulation, when dogs are used for commercial gain and gambling, it seems likely that there are some inherent risks where there is the opportunity to make money. We also did not find any evidence that the industry was prepared to make the radical changes that would be required to achieve improved dog welfare.

It is moot whether the current single active greyhound stadium in Scotland could be considered as a commercial endeavour, although some of the conditions described above argue for this, whether it in fact makes an income or not. We accept that some of the dogs running at this track with 'hobby' trainers may have a good quality of life in terms of their normal management and the opportunity to run, although other dogs are likely to have a more restricted home life in kennels and are vulnerable to welfare harms at the end of their racing careers. We also consider that there are still significant risks of unnecessary suffering from injuries sustained whilst racing regardless of other considerations. As a minimum requirement, we suggest that an experienced, independent veterinarian should be present when dogs are racing to assess fitness to race (and empowered with the ability to stop a dog racing if necessary), provide immediate care if that should be needed and to provide independent oversight of dog welfare. We would also suggest that this would allow verifiable metrics to be collected on the numbers of dogs racing, the injury risks and the welfare of those dogs.

If Thornton were to close, Scotland would be in the position of having no organised greyhound racing taking place, which on balance we consider desirable. Although we are unclear if this is likely in the near future, should a phased end to greyhound racing be imposed in England and Wales, it has been argued that this might cause an increased interest in developing new racetracks in Scotland. We strongly recommend against any such future development. There is no evidence that there is popular interest in this occurring in Scotland, and any such move would lead to a reduction in the overall quality of life for dogs in Scotland.

In summary we make the following recommendations:

• 1) Although there are some positive welfare aspects of racing for dogs, where gambling and other commercial activities are present, the risks of poor welfare outweigh the likely positive aspects. Thus, on average, a dog bred for racing in Scotland currently has poorer welfare than the average of other dogs in the population.
• 2) Independent tracks, although they may provide some social benefit, do impose some specific risks on dog welfare through the lack of immediate veterinary care to injured dogs and general veterinary oversight of dog welfare. We consider that a veterinarian must always be present when dogs are racing to minimise unnecessary suffering in the event of an injury and should have the power to prevent a dog racing if deemed unfit. The presence of a veterinarian also ensures that there is independent oversight of dog welfare, and we further recommend that this function includes the collection of independent data on injuries and fatalities at stadia. We suggest reviewing these metrics, and whether racing should continue, within the next 3-5 years, to provide the independent evidence that is currently lacking on the impact of racing on dog welfare.
• 3) We recommend that no further new greyhound tracks are permitted in Scotland. We are not convinced that any of the current proposed measures can safeguard greyhound welfare appropriately and believe that this will help to reduce suffering in Scotland.
• 4) Even if there were no racing opportunities available in Scotland, it would remain possible to own, breed, train, and kennel racing greyhounds in the country, notwithstanding that the dogs would have to be taken elsewhere to race. As greyhounds may spend a large amount of their racing lives in kennels, and consistent with our view that independent oversight and regulation is required when there is potential commercial gain, we consider that a scheme independent of GBGB is required to ensure the welfare of these animals, possibly through Local Authority regulation or under the auspices of the new Scottish Veterinary Service.