Written evidence from Caged North West (GHW 66)
Caged North West is a greyhound protection group and was formed in 2012 - Our main aim is to
encourage the general public to research the plight of greyhounds used to race, to enable individuals
to make an independent and well informed decision of whether they would like to support
greyhound racing, prior to attending a greyhound track.
We submit this document in request for action to be taken by government for the following
reasons;
* Continuous failure by the racing industry to improve the standards of care for greyhounds
used to race and failure to be transparent in relation to welfare of all animals involved.
* Excessive amounts of dogs expelled by the racing industry without any system allowing
them to be traceable by any interested parties.
* The information we have provided below gives us reason to believe that greyhounds are
not protected by the AWA2006
Summary;
* Evidence of poor standard of care for greyhounds while at the track
* Concerns of failure within the Animal Welfare Act 2006, to protect greyhounds used for
racing
* Evidence of greyhounds destroyed by track vet for minor injury and retirement
(Unregulated track)
* Evidence of Poor Standards of Care for Greyhounds on GBGB inspected and licensed
greyhound trainers premises
* Concern in relation to use of the Captive bolt gun
* Evidence of attempted destruction of greyhounds by Captive bolt gun 2009
* Failure of accountability of dogs bred to race in the UK
* Contaminated feed in relation to doping of dogs
* Request for change
1) Evidence of poor standards of care for greyhounds while at a track
Caged North West were provided with images showing appalling conditions of holding kennels at an
unregulated greyhound stadium ‘namely’ Easington Greyhound Stadium’ The photographs were sent
to us anonymously. After uploading the photographs to a social media networking site where
Easington supporters responded, we were satisfied that these were genuine photographs taken at
Easington stadium.
Images of holding kennels at Easington track show signs of an unsafe Environment
encourage the general public to research the plight of greyhounds used to race, to enable individuals
to make an independent and well informed decision of whether they would like to support
greyhound racing, prior to attending a greyhound track.
We submit this document in request for action to be taken by government for the following
reasons;
* Continuous failure by the racing industry to improve the standards of care for greyhounds
used to race and failure to be transparent in relation to welfare of all animals involved.
* Excessive amounts of dogs expelled by the racing industry without any system allowing
them to be traceable by any interested parties.
* The information we have provided below gives us reason to believe that greyhounds are
not protected by the AWA2006
Summary;
* Evidence of poor standard of care for greyhounds while at the track
* Concerns of failure within the Animal Welfare Act 2006, to protect greyhounds used for
racing
* Evidence of greyhounds destroyed by track vet for minor injury and retirement
(Unregulated track)
* Evidence of Poor Standards of Care for Greyhounds on GBGB inspected and licensed
greyhound trainers premises
* Concern in relation to use of the Captive bolt gun
* Evidence of attempted destruction of greyhounds by Captive bolt gun 2009
* Failure of accountability of dogs bred to race in the UK
* Contaminated feed in relation to doping of dogs
* Request for change
1) Evidence of poor standards of care for greyhounds while at a track
Caged North West were provided with images showing appalling conditions of holding kennels at an
unregulated greyhound stadium ‘namely’ Easington Greyhound Stadium’ The photographs were sent
to us anonymously. After uploading the photographs to a social media networking site where
Easington supporters responded, we were satisfied that these were genuine photographs taken at
Easington stadium.
Images of holding kennels at Easington track show signs of an unsafe Environment
* No interior lighting of the kennel area
* No way of a carer visibly monitoring the dog from the exterior to observe for signs of
illness or distress
* Damage to interior wood of several kennels, which indicates dogs where distressed and
attempted to gnaw or dig through their surroundings
* No obvious ventilation can be seen within the kennel area
* The previous and existing licensing of this greyhound stadium by the local authority while
these conditions existed or remain to exist concern us.
Image shows; Interior and exterior of holding kennels
2) Concerns of failure within the Animal Welfare Act 2006, to protect greyhounds used for
racing
We have highlighted the below areas where we believe 2 of the 5 freedoms of the AWA2006 have
not been enforced on this occasion.
The Five Freedoms
* Need for a suitable environment
* Need for a suitable diet
* Need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns
* Need to be housed with, or apart, from other animals
* Need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
Durham Council stated that the premises complied with section 9 of the animal welfare act – as
follows;
Section 9: Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
50. Note also that when a person transfers responsibility for an animal to another temporarily, the
duty will apply in so far as he must take reasonable steps to ensure that the person to whom he
transfers responsibility will care for it appropriately. Whether he fulfils his duty will depend on
whether the steps he took to ascertain the competence of the person to whom he transferred
responsibility were “reasonable in all the circumstances” under section 9(1).
54. Subsection (4) clarifies that the killing of an animal is not in itself inconsistent with the duty to
ensure its welfare, if done in an appropriate and humane manner
We believe AWA2006 section 9- no50 – deems all proprietors of greyhound tracks free from
responsibility of ensuring safety of dogs while at their premises – The responsibility falls on the
dog owner.
We believe that AWA2006 no.54 Subsection (4) - fails all dogs injured at tracks across the UK, by
permitting them to be destroyed for minor injury or retirement, etc.
3) Evidence of Greyhounds Destroyed at Tracks for Minor Injuries, retirement, etc.
Extracts from ‘Easington Stadium’ website
“On a number of occasions in recent months the goodwill of the stadium and vet has been abused
by the expectation that any injured dog, however mildly will be put to sleep at no expense, and on
request”
“The vet will continue to euthanize severely injured dogs at his own discretion, but will ask for a £20
donation to be made to a charity of his choice … All other dogs put to sleep at owner’s request for
minor injuries, retirement etc, will incur a charge of £30”
Extract - Disclaimer from ‘Easington Stadium’ website;
“The management do not accept any responsibility whatever for injury in person or persons and
dogs”
Enquiry to Durham council
On 24th September 2014 Caged North West contacted Durham council in reference to licensing of
the stadium and the poor condition of the kennels. Durham county council advised us that the
kennels were inspected on 23rd June 2014 as part of a new license and that they ‘particularly’
inspected the holding kennel area and the veterinary records.
4) Evidence of Poor Standards of Care for Greyhounds on GBGB inspected and licensed
greyhound trainers premises
18th May 2014 – Caged North West visited the kennels of a trainer while accompanied by a
member of Tameside branch of the RSPCA and had visited to collect a greyhound for re-homing.
Conditions of kennel and dog on my visit to the premises;
* Lots of faecal waste matter on entrance to the kennel block
* Kennels were dirty and dogs were lying in their own excrement
* There was a strong odour of faeces and urine
* The kennels were damp with staining on walls with visibly poor roofing (corrugated
sheets) that were leaking
* There was no sign of any heating appliances
* The dog that was collected was flea infested and had to be treated immediately, a perfect
candidate for tick infestation due to the environment (kennels situated nearby open fields
and some woodland) and not being flea treated.
* The dog was handed over without all relevant paperwork i.e. proof of vaccination
* The trainer did not ask to see any formal identification prior to handing the dog over. The
trainer had made earlier arrangement via telephone, for the dog to be collected. The
trainer explained that he often had a problem with his dogs getting tick infested
therefore could not let his dogs out of the kennels for more than 10 minutes a day due to
the risk of ticks and lack of space while he had so many dogs.
The trainer had around 40 dogs housed in this one particular run of kennels at this time –
There were other kennel blocks but the trainer advised us that we was not allowed inside them
as we was not permitted to enter without a ‘special license’ We declined to enter these other
kennels without his permission.
A young member of kennel staff allowed access to this particular kennel block in order to take a
photograph of a few dogs, after being asked if any others needed re-homing.
* No way of a carer visibly monitoring the dog from the exterior to observe for signs of
illness or distress
* Damage to interior wood of several kennels, which indicates dogs where distressed and
attempted to gnaw or dig through their surroundings
* No obvious ventilation can be seen within the kennel area
* The previous and existing licensing of this greyhound stadium by the local authority while
these conditions existed or remain to exist concern us.
Image shows; Interior and exterior of holding kennels
2) Concerns of failure within the Animal Welfare Act 2006, to protect greyhounds used for
racing
We have highlighted the below areas where we believe 2 of the 5 freedoms of the AWA2006 have
not been enforced on this occasion.
The Five Freedoms
* Need for a suitable environment
* Need for a suitable diet
* Need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns
* Need to be housed with, or apart, from other animals
* Need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
Durham Council stated that the premises complied with section 9 of the animal welfare act – as
follows;
Section 9: Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
50. Note also that when a person transfers responsibility for an animal to another temporarily, the
duty will apply in so far as he must take reasonable steps to ensure that the person to whom he
transfers responsibility will care for it appropriately. Whether he fulfils his duty will depend on
whether the steps he took to ascertain the competence of the person to whom he transferred
responsibility were “reasonable in all the circumstances” under section 9(1).
54. Subsection (4) clarifies that the killing of an animal is not in itself inconsistent with the duty to
ensure its welfare, if done in an appropriate and humane manner
We believe AWA2006 section 9- no50 – deems all proprietors of greyhound tracks free from
responsibility of ensuring safety of dogs while at their premises – The responsibility falls on the
dog owner.
We believe that AWA2006 no.54 Subsection (4) - fails all dogs injured at tracks across the UK, by
permitting them to be destroyed for minor injury or retirement, etc.
3) Evidence of Greyhounds Destroyed at Tracks for Minor Injuries, retirement, etc.
Extracts from ‘Easington Stadium’ website
“On a number of occasions in recent months the goodwill of the stadium and vet has been abused
by the expectation that any injured dog, however mildly will be put to sleep at no expense, and on
request”
“The vet will continue to euthanize severely injured dogs at his own discretion, but will ask for a £20
donation to be made to a charity of his choice … All other dogs put to sleep at owner’s request for
minor injuries, retirement etc, will incur a charge of £30”
Extract - Disclaimer from ‘Easington Stadium’ website;
“The management do not accept any responsibility whatever for injury in person or persons and
dogs”
Enquiry to Durham council
On 24th September 2014 Caged North West contacted Durham council in reference to licensing of
the stadium and the poor condition of the kennels. Durham county council advised us that the
kennels were inspected on 23rd June 2014 as part of a new license and that they ‘particularly’
inspected the holding kennel area and the veterinary records.
4) Evidence of Poor Standards of Care for Greyhounds on GBGB inspected and licensed
greyhound trainers premises
18th May 2014 – Caged North West visited the kennels of a trainer while accompanied by a
member of Tameside branch of the RSPCA and had visited to collect a greyhound for re-homing.
Conditions of kennel and dog on my visit to the premises;
* Lots of faecal waste matter on entrance to the kennel block
* Kennels were dirty and dogs were lying in their own excrement
* There was a strong odour of faeces and urine
* The kennels were damp with staining on walls with visibly poor roofing (corrugated
sheets) that were leaking
* There was no sign of any heating appliances
* The dog that was collected was flea infested and had to be treated immediately, a perfect
candidate for tick infestation due to the environment (kennels situated nearby open fields
and some woodland) and not being flea treated.
* The dog was handed over without all relevant paperwork i.e. proof of vaccination
* The trainer did not ask to see any formal identification prior to handing the dog over. The
trainer had made earlier arrangement via telephone, for the dog to be collected. The
trainer explained that he often had a problem with his dogs getting tick infested
therefore could not let his dogs out of the kennels for more than 10 minutes a day due to
the risk of ticks and lack of space while he had so many dogs.
The trainer had around 40 dogs housed in this one particular run of kennels at this time –
There were other kennel blocks but the trainer advised us that we was not allowed inside them
as we was not permitted to enter without a ‘special license’ We declined to enter these other
kennels without his permission.
A young member of kennel staff allowed access to this particular kennel block in order to take a
photograph of a few dogs, after being asked if any others needed re-homing.
2014 Photo taken inside the kennel block
The same Kennels were branded disgusting in an article in the Express newspaper earlier in 2012;
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/297147/Dog-kennels-branded-disgusting
In our opinion these kennels were the same as described in the 2012 article when investigations
were held by Greyhound protection group ‘Greytexploitations’
We believe these kennels should not have been licensed after inspections by the GBGB
5) Concerns in relation to use of the Captive Bolt Gun for the destruction of dogs
There is at present;
a) No traceability of greyhounds from cradle to grave
b) No necessary monitoring legally required for greyhounds destroyed in abattoirs/knackers
yards.
c) No legal requirement for abattoirs licensed to destroy dogs by bolt to forward any records
to any authority.
d) No legal requirement for any individual person to be trained, licensed or monitored when
using a captive bolt gun to destroy a dog.
6) Evidence of attempted destruction of greyhounds by Captive bolt gun 2009- In 2009 a
greyhound was found to have a serious injury to his skull at the time of being placed in
rescue. Staff at the rescue centre did seek early veterinary attention for the dog which
resulted in successful veterinary treatment, this also consisted of an x-ray to diagnose the
problem, followed by a written report. Both the written report and X-ray fell into our hands.
We believed this was another case of a botched up attempt to destroy a dog by use of a
Captive bolt gun.
The same Kennels were branded disgusting in an article in the Express newspaper earlier in 2012;
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/297147/Dog-kennels-branded-disgusting
In our opinion these kennels were the same as described in the 2012 article when investigations
were held by Greyhound protection group ‘Greytexploitations’
We believe these kennels should not have been licensed after inspections by the GBGB
5) Concerns in relation to use of the Captive Bolt Gun for the destruction of dogs
There is at present;
a) No traceability of greyhounds from cradle to grave
b) No necessary monitoring legally required for greyhounds destroyed in abattoirs/knackers
yards.
c) No legal requirement for abattoirs licensed to destroy dogs by bolt to forward any records
to any authority.
d) No legal requirement for any individual person to be trained, licensed or monitored when
using a captive bolt gun to destroy a dog.
6) Evidence of attempted destruction of greyhounds by Captive bolt gun 2009- In 2009 a
greyhound was found to have a serious injury to his skull at the time of being placed in
rescue. Staff at the rescue centre did seek early veterinary attention for the dog which
resulted in successful veterinary treatment, this also consisted of an x-ray to diagnose the
problem, followed by a written report. Both the written report and X-ray fell into our hands.
We believed this was another case of a botched up attempt to destroy a dog by use of a
Captive bolt gun.
|
|
Photo of Milton GRWE Milton’s X-ray Dogs Trust
Vet report.
Vet report.
Caged North West sent a copy of the X-ray and the vet report to an independent veterinary
surgeon who had previous experience in a case involving a similar injury to a greyhound a few
years earlier and which was also caused by attempted destruction using a captive bolt gun. We
asked his professional opinion.
Vet reply- "From what I can see, this does look consistent with an injury caused by a captive bolt
pistol particularly as there is a skull fracture but no evidence of shot in the wound"
Testimonial
“I'm happy for you to give my opinion on the use of captive bolt pistols in general. Personally I
think they are generally a very unsuitable method for euthanasia in dogs, especially when used by
lay people. Dogs may not be rendered unconscious if the dog moves as the weapon is discharged,
or if the weapon is positioned incorrectly. Also, even if the dog is rendered unconscious it may
regain consciousness unless further action i.e pithing – destruction of the brain with a rod, or
exsanguination – bleeding the animal is instigated.
The case I witnessed involved a dog that may well have been transiently stunned and regained
consciousness, or never lost consciousness. That dog suffered unnecessarily for a very prolonged
period. I have no doubt that this method of euthanasia by lay people should be banned
immediately. Also I am not persuaded that anyone should be using this method to euthanase dogs
unless there is absolutely no other method available and an animal is suffering unnecessarily”
Caged North West have created a petition where more than 200 staff at veterinary surgery’s
throughout the UK have agreed that the use of captive bolt guns for the destruction of dogs is
inappropriate. We have received over 130,000 signatures on an online petition and in excess of
10,000 on a paper petition for people in favour of an outright ban of Captive bolt guns being used for
the destruction of dogs, included are several signatures from members of parliament.
7) Failure of accountability of dogs bred to race in the UK
Defra have claimed that the Captive bolt gun is not used widespread – We believe this claim is
illegible while greyhounds are not traceable from cradle to grave.
8) ABP1 and ABP2 meat used as feed in relation to doping of greyhounds
We have viewed cases where greyhound trainers/owners are not being appropriately disciplined
after traces of drugs are found in the urine samples of dogs under their care.
It is impossible to define whether the drugs have entered the dogs system through contaminated
meat or actual administration of drugs, therefore while it is legal to give the greyhounds high risk
meat, there can never be truly effective disciplinary hearings in relation to doping of dogs
We are able to substantiate all evidence given.
Request for Action by the Government;
Caged North West would like the following requests to be considered for introduction of new
regulations while greyhound racing continues to exist-
* To outlaw the use of the captive bolt guns for the destruction of dogs unless a system is
provided whereas all dogs bred for racing in the UK are traceable from cradle to grave and
fully accounted for, additionally access of section D of all completed retirement forms to
be made available to any interested party via the Freedom of Information Act 2000
* Any destruction of dogs to be carried out by a qualified vet only and to amend section D of
the GBGB retirement form to comply.
* To employ an independent body to govern the greyhound racing industry – One which has
no vested interest.
* For local authorities to employ a warranted animal welfare officer to inspect and license
all greyhound tracks as necessary, in order to help prevent unnecessary suffering and
injury
* To make responsible the owner of each track for conditions of holding kennels, traps and
other facilities, to help prevent injury stress and suffering of a dog while at their premises.
* To release all injury data
* To release all data from retirement forms other than any details that infringe on the data
protection act 1998
* All dogs bred for racing - Full details to be held on a database and to be traceable from
birth to death and accessed by any interested party under the Freedom of Information act
2000
* Ban the use of ABP1 and ABP2 meat by any licensed greyhound trainer
* For the BGRF to contribute funds to greyhound rescue to secure the future of dogs
expelled by the racing industry
* All greyhound trainers who commit more than one offence where dogs are found to have
drugs in their urine, should have their license revoked for a minimum of 12mths.
* To phase out greyhound racing over the next 5 years in which time a ban will be imposed.
surgeon who had previous experience in a case involving a similar injury to a greyhound a few
years earlier and which was also caused by attempted destruction using a captive bolt gun. We
asked his professional opinion.
Vet reply- "From what I can see, this does look consistent with an injury caused by a captive bolt
pistol particularly as there is a skull fracture but no evidence of shot in the wound"
Testimonial
“I'm happy for you to give my opinion on the use of captive bolt pistols in general. Personally I
think they are generally a very unsuitable method for euthanasia in dogs, especially when used by
lay people. Dogs may not be rendered unconscious if the dog moves as the weapon is discharged,
or if the weapon is positioned incorrectly. Also, even if the dog is rendered unconscious it may
regain consciousness unless further action i.e pithing – destruction of the brain with a rod, or
exsanguination – bleeding the animal is instigated.
The case I witnessed involved a dog that may well have been transiently stunned and regained
consciousness, or never lost consciousness. That dog suffered unnecessarily for a very prolonged
period. I have no doubt that this method of euthanasia by lay people should be banned
immediately. Also I am not persuaded that anyone should be using this method to euthanase dogs
unless there is absolutely no other method available and an animal is suffering unnecessarily”
Caged North West have created a petition where more than 200 staff at veterinary surgery’s
throughout the UK have agreed that the use of captive bolt guns for the destruction of dogs is
inappropriate. We have received over 130,000 signatures on an online petition and in excess of
10,000 on a paper petition for people in favour of an outright ban of Captive bolt guns being used for
the destruction of dogs, included are several signatures from members of parliament.
7) Failure of accountability of dogs bred to race in the UK
Defra have claimed that the Captive bolt gun is not used widespread – We believe this claim is
illegible while greyhounds are not traceable from cradle to grave.
8) ABP1 and ABP2 meat used as feed in relation to doping of greyhounds
We have viewed cases where greyhound trainers/owners are not being appropriately disciplined
after traces of drugs are found in the urine samples of dogs under their care.
It is impossible to define whether the drugs have entered the dogs system through contaminated
meat or actual administration of drugs, therefore while it is legal to give the greyhounds high risk
meat, there can never be truly effective disciplinary hearings in relation to doping of dogs
We are able to substantiate all evidence given.
Request for Action by the Government;
Caged North West would like the following requests to be considered for introduction of new
regulations while greyhound racing continues to exist-
* To outlaw the use of the captive bolt guns for the destruction of dogs unless a system is
provided whereas all dogs bred for racing in the UK are traceable from cradle to grave and
fully accounted for, additionally access of section D of all completed retirement forms to
be made available to any interested party via the Freedom of Information Act 2000
* Any destruction of dogs to be carried out by a qualified vet only and to amend section D of
the GBGB retirement form to comply.
* To employ an independent body to govern the greyhound racing industry – One which has
no vested interest.
* For local authorities to employ a warranted animal welfare officer to inspect and license
all greyhound tracks as necessary, in order to help prevent unnecessary suffering and
injury
* To make responsible the owner of each track for conditions of holding kennels, traps and
other facilities, to help prevent injury stress and suffering of a dog while at their premises.
* To release all injury data
* To release all data from retirement forms other than any details that infringe on the data
protection act 1998
* All dogs bred for racing - Full details to be held on a database and to be traceable from
birth to death and accessed by any interested party under the Freedom of Information act
2000
* Ban the use of ABP1 and ABP2 meat by any licensed greyhound trainer
* For the BGRF to contribute funds to greyhound rescue to secure the future of dogs
expelled by the racing industry
* All greyhound trainers who commit more than one offence where dogs are found to have
drugs in their urine, should have their license revoked for a minimum of 12mths.
* To phase out greyhound racing over the next 5 years in which time a ban will be imposed.
