Further memorandum from the League Against
Cruel Sports (DGB 153)
We are grateful to the chairman and members
of the committee for the opportunity to meet informally on 25
February, and we are pleased to make this supplementary submission
to expand on some of the areas discussed.
Our area of interest is the welfare of raced
animals, particularly greyhounds, where current arrangements are
less satisfactory than is the case with horse racing. There are
a number of areas where the interests of greyhound welfare and
the desire to secure the integrity of the betting product coincide.
The suggestions we make below would help to ensure that gamblers
can be better assured that greyhounds will race according to form,
and that integrity is not undermined by a failure to detect or
disclose relevant information about the health and fitness of
the racing dog.
MICROCHIPPING OF
DOGS
— It is fundamental to integrity that
the identity of the racing greyhound should be clear. There is
significant anecdotal information that, in some tracks in the
independent sector, the names of dogs being bet on can change
from race to race or from track to track.
— Currently, dogs are identified via
a tattoo. Microchip technology has developed to a level that enables
reliable, secure and verifiable identification of animals. This
would overcome the two disadvantages of tattooing: namely that
tattoos can become indistinct, and that ears can be cut off after
retirement, making it impossible to trace an abandoned dog. Therefore,
there should be a requirement for all racing dogs to be microchipped—including
those racing at independent tracks.
— A related point is that the microchipping
of all dogs would mean that their information could be kept on
a computer database, and be readily available whenever the dog
was scanned. Currently, there is a database of dogs racing on
NGRC tracks only.
— A database, if it included a medical
history, could assist the vet at the track in examining the dog
for health. Track vets have only a very small period of time to
examine any given dog, and knowledge of its previous history could
help the vet to spot more minor injuries. This would help to ensure
betting integrity as, if a dog is not on best form, there is scope
for cheating.
— Microchipping of dogs and cats is
widespread, particularly where the animals are insured and a verifiable
form of identification is needed. Because of this most vets, dog
handlers and animal care centers are already equipped with microchip
readers and most have access to identity databases. In the event
of a microchipped greyhound being found abandoned, it would be
much easier to trace the original owner if the dog were microchipped
and the database readily accessible.
ON -
AND OFF-TRACK
VETERINARY CARE
— Aside from the obvious welfare benefit
of having vets at race meetings, vets at NGRC tracks are able
to spot issues that would affect the integrity of the race, such
as heavily doped dogs or bitches in season. Vets are not generally
present at races in the independent sector, and a change in this
position would be a substantial improvement in the welfare of
racing greyhounds.
— We endorse the view of the Society
of Greyhound Vets that vets should be employed independently of
the track's racing management and given adequate training.
— That said, a vet at a track will
have only a few seconds to examine each greyhound. It is no criticism
of them to say that significant but minor injuries may well not
be detected. There is a commercial and competitive pressure on
trainers to provide dogs for races. This can and does lead to
dogs being presented for races that may be below par, albeit fit
enough to pass the pre race inspection at the track. In the hands
of the unscrupulous the information on race fitness, known to
the owner or kennel staff, but not detected at the track, could
seriously undermine the integrity of the betting product as well
as significantly increasing the risk of aggravating the injuries,
strains and general wear and tear on the racing dog. We therefore
believe that vets should be required to certify dogs as race fit
before they race, before they leave the trainers' kennels on race
days.
— Good quality veterinary facilities
at tracks could also be helpful in this.
— These points have obvious financial
implications. Neither independent tracks nor commercial greyhound
trainers make a lot of money from the industry. We do not believe
that a legislative route that put a major financial burden on
those least able to pay would be as desirable as securing broader
funding. An independent veterinary service specializing in determining
the racing fitness of greyhounds, ensuring better animal welfare
and the integrity of the betting product, could be funded from
a levy on the betting turnover, thereby ensuring that all racing
dogs received adequate care and rigorous inspection by an independent
vet.
LICENSING OF
BOOKMAKERS AS
"FIT AND
PROPER PERSONS"
— The bill currently provides for the
Gambling Commission, in awarding licences, to consider the suitability
of the applicant. We believe that an appropriate regard for the
welfare of racing animals should be an element of this consideration.
This should include providing appropriate facilities at tracks
and kennels and making an appropriate contribution to welfare
issues such as veterinary costs and retirement provision through
payment of the levy. This would tie in with the Bill's commitment
to safeguard the vulnerable—we believe that both vulnerable
people and vulnerable animals should be safeguarded in law.
February 2004
|
