| The social
consequence of the lack of organised arrangements for greyhound care in
retirement - abandonment and cruelty - are an indictment of an
animal-loving society. Costs are borne unnecessarily by local authority
dog warden services and animal charities because of the failure of the
greyhound industry to take responsibility. Dog warden services are funded
by the council tax payer. Police involvement is funded by local and
national taxation. Significant costs are entailed through the failures of
the greyhound industry. |
The greyhound industry is a
wealthy enterprise, happy to pocket profits and to ignore the needs of the
animals that make them money. In the 1920's races and dogs were fewer and
legislation was directed at protecting the punter. The industry is much
bigger now and should no longer be allowed to ignore the costs to society.
We favour an independently managed 'pension scheme' for ex-racing
greyhounds whose finances could not then be creamed off by the industry.
The direction of funding and responsibilities to local authorities could
achieve that aim by another route. |
'Sufficient resources
should be made available by the industry to ensure the welfare of all dogs
generated by the industry, whatever their commercial value and throughout
their life.'
A Guide to Best practice- Greyhound Welfare, produced by a forum of animal
welfare agencies and the industry |
Greyhound
tracks should pay a levy to local authorities to finance new and existing
health services for greyhounds. Local authorities should then make
grants to greyhound sanctuaries |