Greyhound racing industry breeder disposes of puppies that wont chase! Controversial

Yes it was, excellent in highlighting there are mass producers and sellers of pedigree dogs, hundreds, you seemed to think that wasnt the case, and it is.

You know damn well the industry has problems I have never ever said it doesnt, I just dont see your huge issue with putting dogs to sleep and using their organs to further medical research, thats what the thread is about! You may not agree with it, but given the alternative given to some dogs, it IS a lucky escape, stop being so simplistic and find me one post where I said the industry is "whiter than white" or has NO problems within it.

Everybody knows there is a darker side to anything that involves money, always will be. Im perfectly happy with my participation with Greyhound racing, I love it.

Yet you disagree with protesting against these establishments in any way?

No I asked you to show me some reputable breeders that had 200 plus puppies on there premises which you seemed to think was perfectly acceptable you certainly didn’t condemn them but it seemed like you recommended them!

You didn’t see an issue with Mr Smith practises or those that used him either.

What was the alternatives for these dogs then Dawn? They were puppies, surely the alternative was to try and find them homes, placed in rescue (RGT or independent) or are you implying that these actual dogs would have found a fate worse than death at this mans hands?

So long as your happy participating in it and don’t complain or do anything about the darker side then you are in fact supporting unconditionally that darker side and perpetuating the problems within it. Or have you ever done anything about the problems?

I disagree with the way in which some people protest! Aggressively and totally out of order by way of verbal and sometimes physical abuse.

Nope, you said:

What would you feel about someone breeding over 200 border terriers on one premises?

No, I have no problem with a humane killer being used on dogs, its a method used on hundreds of animal species and is used by societies like the RSPCA who have indeed used it on Dogs too, so no, I have no problem with that. The same comments apply about those Dogs too, worse fate could await them in spain or elsewhere, better humanely killed than continually abused.

Then so be it, I support it Spot.

No you said you disagreed with anyone protesting outside any establishment - does that not include Harrods or puppy farms or are you just saying that people should not protest outside greyhound tracks?

See I find that weird in that in the first instance you defended this man for going to peoples homes and putting dogs to sleep but didnt realise that actually people were taking the dogs to him and handing them over not knowing what method he used (which has still not been established).

You said you actually cared about dogs and cruelty but are quite prepared to stand by and watch that cruelty in this industry and turn a blind eye by doing nothing about what you know about the darker side of it - seems to me that you dont actually care about the dogs then which is actually more than I can say about a lot of people, including Galty!, involved in said industry.

Just a quick reply - have loads to post but just picking out the points I want to make quickly....

Agility? Oops. I took my lurcher to agility. In all my years involved in the AR scene, not once have I ever seen 'agility as cruelty'. Completely different altogether. For one, there is NO money involved. For two - its sod all like greyhound racing because its a fun activtiy which you and the dog have to participate. It a form of obediance training and exercise. Now where does that sound like greyhound racing?

Mine is puppy farms. I think in the current state of the dumped dog culture country, there is no such thing as an 'ethical breeder'.

Not at all Galty - the opposite. Personally I think its callous that we don't pts people too when they are terminally ill but thats another debate. I don't think anyone would agree that keeping a terminally ill animal in pain is the right way to do things

That was my point, that the media only cover what they deem cruel, and leave the rest, when it's all just as bad. The media should be covering all kinds of cruelty not just pick and choose

Which principals ?

;-) I think what you find is that the press go through phases where specific things are highlighted in the press. It has a snowball effect. One story by the Sunday Times has led to this journalist being inundated with various issues relating to greyhounds.

I also have to say that this isn't new practices. Its just being exposed by those who either knew and tried publicity and no one was interested OR those who realised what was going on was very wrong and jumped on the publicity bandwagon. Not taking anythig away from Daniel Foggo but this info circulated for a long time prior to him being the journalist that realised it WAS of public interest - a lot of journalists stated categorically that it was of no interest to them BEFORE Seaham. After Seaham, we were inundated with journalists from all over seeing if we had any info we wanted to share with them...

I'm certainly happy these things are being brought to light now and don't grudge any space being given to greyhounds. The sad part being that after Seaham (which wasn't covered in Scotland even though many Scottish dogs run in the North East), no other media has dealt with the story and the only reason most people are aware of it is because they've read it online. I'm counting me in this because I never bought the Sunday Times pre-Seaham.

But puppy farming is very much still in the media - it certainly is in Scotland at the moment with one puppy farm having their license removed last week

Very good point! But Paul McCartney was pretty much led by Linda's beliefs and I assume he stil has them even if he has gone quiet in recent years.

I meant it as a real question, but great answer anyway

I just meant which principals of Paul's was she following that she didn't really support ?

I don't think Heather Mill's is someone who is very compassionate towards animals as Paul and Linda McCartney were both renowned for. The McCartneys 'bought out' a load of Beagles from a lab about ten years ago and were always involved in some campaign or another but Linda was the one who devoted her time to it

I disagree. I have no doubt that Heather Mills is a money grabbing so 'n' so, but she was renowned in previous years for animal charity work, she just never shouted about it, and I think she also used Paul as a Media stunt to heighten the work she did for charities.

She managed to lobby parliament sucessfully and get the law changed for the use of pig rails for sows amongst other things,.... I don't remember Linda Mac getting any laws changed ....I could be wrong.

I think Heather has done some good, and used Paul as a lever, and used his money to help it, I don't like the woman, but I admire her for the animal charity work she has been doing for the last 20 years (pre Paul) including attacking Harrods about their fur trade etc.

Actually a quick google search shows she was slammed for wearing fur in the past although she claims this was the fur her mother left her when she died 18 years ago and she wore it then - she then launches into an attack against Naomi Campbell saying she's never slated fur then wore it. Fair point.

Landmine appeals prior to meeting Paul McCartney was her thing. But I can't find any reference to AR prior to this. If she did then good on her.

Linda McCartney raised the public profile of animal issues and I don't think that can be taken away from her. However to credit any one individual with changing laws, IMO, is wrong.

AND to my knowledge neither she nor the McCartneys have ever condemned greyhound racing. Although PMc was asked to comment and didn't a few years back.

And the main point is - celebs are actually a liability when it comes to any campaign...

Dont think this is about Linda McCartney is it? Nor Heather Mills.

Why does it matter? Thousands of HEALTHY dogs and cats are PTS every day, nobody says a word. They are still bred, still abused and still PTS, and like I said nobody says a word!! If they have been humanely PTS I cant see the huge issue with them having their organs used to further veterinary science.

Whats with this 'no one says a word'? Of course they do! I was even briefly involved in a 8000 bowls campaign to signify 8000 dead dogs each year. This is an active campaign.

But the difference is that they're not bred for "sport", raced (or not raced as the case in point is) then culled for profit.

Consider 8000 dogs (which may not be an accurate figure but its a lot more accurate than the APGAW report) are pts each year because there are no homes available for them.

Then consider that this includes a high proportion of these dogs are from Northern Ireland. I recall its something horrendous like 3000 in NI alone.

Northern Ireland greyhounds weren't included in the APGAW figures because no one governs NI as far as dog racing goes.

What does that give you?

The approx number of pts stray dogs in the UK mainland each year is less than the numbers of greyhounds who 'disappear'.

These stray (or whatever) dogs that are pts each year may have been bred for profit. But they weren't denied a puppyhood (IMO thats a huge cruelty issue in itself), then raced until they were too old, injured, whatever (aka exploited for money) then handed over to the highest bidder as healthy dogs to beculled in that last little bit of exploitation.

Frankly to sell hounds off like that stinks.

And I think anyone 'within' who defends that position should be booted out of an industry thats already crippled by scandal relating to the mass destruction of healthy dogs.

I find your justification a tad odd to say the least...

A puppyhood? I read they were yearlings? But young I agree.

Whether you think my feelings are odd or not, I dont see the use of dead dogs' organs in the same way you do, this is what this thread is about, nothing else. After something is dead, to me, be it animal or human (organ donation) the use of their organs is a good thing to further research, everyone fights for organ donation in humans, yet a lot see dog organ donation as wrong, I just cant get my head round why that is. I agree that in an ideal world these dogs shouldnt be dead, but neither should the thousands of others PTS each day either. I also appreciate your feelings on the Greyhound racing industry, and despite what Spot says, I have never said its ideal in any way and have always said the responsibility of owners for their dogs past racing should be far stricter, and would welcome any legislation that enforces that, however we are not discussing that are we in this thread?
Dawn.

Agree re Stones but thats about it!

Back to topic...

In theory I have no issues with dead dogs organs being used either. I daresay many pet owners would donate their pets body at the end of their natural lives in order to help other pets if asked. Thats if it is really necessary - see my point how doctors dont' need masses of dead bodies to learn their 'trade'.

I DO have a huge issue for those dogs to be dead due to an unnecessary "sport" which selects dogs on speed and ability to chase.