Because you started the thread which promotes anything else than a data base which would provide clarity in the number of greyhounds destroyed - quite the opposite the data base you are promoting would add further confusion to the vague figures the industry are at present prepared to publish. If you are truly concerned for greyhound welfare - you would pressure the industry to publish the accurate figures they already have in their possession - in order that something is done about the unnecessary destruction of thousands of greyhounds on an annual basis.
I think I have read somewhere, on another thread about this, that: over 100 dogs that were missing or dead according to the anti brigade yet we now know were rehomed or kept by their owner and/or trainer Can someone tell me where I can find this 'missing or dead' information please? I would like to check off the names of all of the 100 plus to be sure that this is a factual piece of information. Thanks
The 'anti brigade' actually managed to account for all the dogs following Walthamstow's closure. The GBGB with the backing of a multi billion pound gambling industry couldn't even do that - yet one man on his desktop computer managed it quite successfully. http://www.desboroughtown.co.uk/greyhounds/closures/Walthamstow analysis - graphic.pdf
Yes thanks for pointing out to me that I started the thread. I don't agree it adds confusion. What it is showing is that some of the previously unaccounted for racing greyhounds have ended up in homes and have not just simply disappeared as is often portrayed. As an interim measure I think it helps to know the whereabouts of as many of these dogs as possible. I also hope there will come a time when the figures you speak of will become accessable. I believe transparency is very important. You shouldn't assume I do nothing unless you absolutely know that to be the case. Which clearly you don't!
The industry already claim and quote in their approximate figures that about 2,000 greyhounds are kept by their owners or trainers. How will you know if the greyhounds included in this '2,000' figure excludes those greyhounds on your data base? To my knowledge - I have not assumed anything. Regardless- please explain..............what do you do to improve greyhound welfare?
I think it adds to confusion where the word 'unaccounted' is substituted with the words 'missing or dead'. My understanding is that one of the people who is managing the information on this particular database is actually stating that these dogs are being alleged missing or dead for example, this quote has been taken directly from one of his posts on another forum: These are dogs that will likely be described as missing or dead by certain groups and used against greyhound racing as a sport so it is really important that as many dogs privately rehomed are added to the list. Quite clearly the word 'unaccounted' is not used.
Yes indeed and its the 'antis' who get accused of using emotive words and propagating untruths. What goes around comes around -
Approximate figures,there's that word again! That's why I think this data base helps rather than hinders. As stated that figure is an estimation and it's not my data base it forms a part of Greyhound Data. Regardless of what you might think I don't need to justify what I do to you or anyone else.
As we already know for your own personal reasons you do not like one of the people responsible for setting up this database on which I can't comment on as I don't know him or the circumstances of what has gone on and nor do I want to know. However that said 'unaccounted' for can be interpreted in various ways but it often interpreted by people who don't know that the greyhounds are infact missing or dead as this is the way that the anti greyhound groups often portray it.
I wasnt asking you to 'justify' your actions - I was asking what you did to improve welfare for greyhounds. Strange you should consider the answer to that question as justifcation for anything else you do. And you still didn't clarify how the retired greyhounds on the data base you are promoting will not be replicated in the approximate '2,000' the industry quote as being kept or re-homed privately.
Interpretation will always be placed on information unless it is presented as factual and unequivacol. There are far too many ambiguous entries on the databases that are publicly available. The relevant and appropriate information that is held by the GBGB is not pubicly available. One of the reasons for this is that they fully aware of the numbers of greyhounds that are injured and PTS or healthy and PTS without being responsibly homed. The same person who has started this database has himself stated (again on another forum) that he, "can name 10 owners who have put down all their dogs when they retire" Having the ability to start a database detailing the names of those greyhounds privately homed it would certainly provide greater clarification for all involved in greyhound welfare if there was also a section devoted to those who are known to have been PTS. The database could detail similar information to that being requested already on the homing scheme databases: Race name or Sire and Dam details. Pet Name. Birthdate. Date of Homing (i.e Month & Year) Location But of course - Date of Homing would need to be replaced with Date of Death and perhaps an additional heading of 'Reason' could be added so that the information could not be misinterpreted or misrepresented by anyone? I don't feel that starting this particular database is going to be an option for the person or people managing the homing information. But as a starting point the names of the destroyed dogs from the 10 owners he has already quoted as a number elsewhere could be used. It would not matter how many dogs names appear on a database detailing dogs PTS for reason of injury at a track or on the grounds that if it is necessary for the Greyhound to be euthanased because it can't be kept as a pet, boarded in kennels, found a home through the RGT, sold or found a home responsibly - it would ALWAYS be one too many. And of course as the same co-originator of the Privately Rehomed Greyhounds database has already stated, this database is "about trying to show the sport in a positive light" and: "...could prove incredibly useful in disproving some of the anti racing lies if people use it" But not all of them. That is a fact.
I think if you are going to quote this person you should at least have the decency to do so in full so the quote can be seen in context of the way it was meant. Insider2 - I don't dispute what has happened to you, but I can name 10 owners who have put down all their dogs when they retire, does that mean all owners do that? There are many homing centres who turn no-one away!! Now I can't dispute he does say that but in no way is he agreeing with it or saying it's ok? I believe it was a conversation whereby they were discussing re homing centres. As said you dislike this person on a personal level so I think anything said person does would be wrong. I've already stated I think the figures should be publicly available and there will come a time I'm sure they will, so why you continue to be so defensive toward me I'm at a loss. As said I think the database is a good idea for reasons stated and the saying 'don't shoot the messenger' springs to mind. Your last comment is interesting do you agree then the anti greyhound groups do tell some lies or have I misinterpreted it?
So we agree then, the fact remains. Whether quoted contextually or not, he can name 10 owners who put all of their dogs down when they retire. As for my last comment, you have mistinterpreted it. Those who are 'pro' greyhound racing including the originator of this particular database, regularly refer to the lies told by those who are anti greyhound racing. My point is that although he feels that the database will help disprove 'some' of the lies it won't help to disprove what he considers to be ALL of the lies. And for someone who professes not even to know the originator of the database, you make a very good messenger. Not forgetting of course the origin of the phrase 'don't shoot the messenger'. Sometimes in a war the messenger was sent from the enemy camp. The person receiving the message could more easily retaliate on the deliverer of the unpopular message than on its author, thus literally shooting the messenger. If you feel 'shot at', it may be better to let the authors convey their own messages on to other forums and you won't have to be a messenger anymore.
I agree as you actually know this person and which forums they frequent perhaps you should take up your grievances directly with them or at least let them know you are discussing them on here to give them the opportunity to reply. I have stated my reasons much earlier on this thread as to why I started this thread, it has nothing to do with the originators of the database. Now as for these 10 owners that can be named I'm off to try and find out who they are as one thing we can agree on there is no room for these type of people in greyhound racing. What have you done with this information?
Perhaps you feel I should take up my grievances personally, but experience of previous contact would lead me to believe that for me, that would not be an appropriate course of action and in fact would be very ill advised, so thank you for the suggestion but I will refrain from following your advice. And if we are in the business of giving others advice on what course of action they could follow, might I suggest the following for you? If you are trying to track down those 10 owners, a good starting point may be for you to contact the same person and ask him the names of the owners? I'm sure he will tell you them. And of course you could then share that information with those concerned with greyhound welfare and the unecessary destruction of greyhounds at the end of their racing life. I think Jodie may welcome the info should it be forthcoming. But hey, you like me don't have to take advice freely offered either. What have I done with that information? I've logged it and of course, treating it a greyhoung racing industry 'truth' from someone reputable ;-) within the industry, I will spend time searching for those destroyed animals. Although since they are dead, it won't help them much will it?
What would you like me to do with it? Email Declan Donnelly and congratulate him 10 owners are complying with the industry's Rules of Racing? Approach the person who made the statement and ask very nicely if he could arrange for us to have the greyhounds due to be destroyed because there are hundreds of empty kennels and endless amounts of money to rescue/rehabilitate and re-home these greyhounds? YOU TELL ME BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I AM SICK TO DEATH OF HEARING ABOUT DOGS - YES DOGS - NOT JUST GREYHOUNDS BEING DESTROYED BECAUSE THE COUNTRY IS PACKED TO CAPACITY WITH THE INDUSTRY'S WASTE PRODUCT, LEAVING NO ROOM FOR OTHER BREEDS -NEEDING TO RE-HOMED - FROM THE POUNDS.
I like a lot of owners take my dogs home when finished racing. In the past the owners who dont use the RGT and independent rescuesto rehome their dogs are presumed to kill them The anties take these figures of RGT rehomed dogs and then state that all the rest are killed ignoring the fact that a lot of owners take their dogs home.
I have been in greyhound racing for a very long time and this sweeping statement: "A lot of owners take their dog's home" doesent really hold water. The drawback for the greyhound is the "attached trainer" status practiced by many stadiums. It is obviously to the stadiums advantage but it does the greyhound no favours. The registered owners only real contact with his hound is on a Sunday where he or she is normally condescendingly allowed to walk their hound, with only designated tit-bits allowed. With only such scant contact with their canine responsibility, the affinity needed to create a bond between man and beast barely exists. If the statement had said: "Owners of greyhounds at permit tracks often took their hounds home,"I would feel more comfortable. However, with the NGRC killing the permit system, the greyhounds welfare was again put at the bottom of their concern.
