Post by SALFORD GIRL on Jul 3, 2020 8:57:49 GMT
TAKEN FROM THE GREYHOUND STAR WEBSITE
READERS LETTERS...
“Czeching on Ambrose” letter
(Printed in Greyhound Star 25/06/2020)
There is no intention on my part to engage in a slanging match, so no need to line me up as the next candidate to be told to “bugger off”. It would be water off a duck’s back anyway, as I am sure it was to Clarissa Baldwin. However, to sink to such a low level does show a distinct lack of well-bred manners amongst the human members of the greyhound industry and a lack of valid or constructive argument. It also indicates that Clarissa Baldwin’s concerns touched a nerve: nothing hurts like the truth.
It will not be possible for her to join the “anti-racing lunatics” as you advised. There are no such persons. People opposed to greyhound racing are completely sane and are just people with valid concerns about the industry’s welfare failings. My two recent letters which Greyhound Star was fair enough to print made clear that those concerns are not unfounded
It remains up to the industry to right its wrongs in the form of reality, not just on paper. Sadly for the dogs it will be hard put to do so given the extent of its abusive practices and the true and unmanageable extent of its fall-out, which does include its supporting cast of surplus pups, non-chasers and slow movers who never become registered but are none-the-less involved in the industry’s production line. I see no evidence of provision being made for them by the industry. It can’t even guarantee adequate provision for its registered dogs without its massive and unfair loophole of “unsuitable for homing” to swallow the surplus dogs.
The industry’s future, or no future, does rest in its own hands. In reality it continues to fail and time is running out.
Thank you for any kind consideration of the facts
Ann Shannon
Homesafe Greyhound Rescue, Isle of Mann
For a lady who doesn’t intend to engage in a slanging match. . . . . I will endeavour to overcome my lack of well bred manners. I would argue that suggesting someone ‘bugger off’ following such an ill-advised comment, was a credit to my up-bringing. My first reaction following a life as a kennel lad, police officer and journalist, was to reach for something much closer to the more widely used Anglo-Saxon imperative. Also water off a duck’s back. If you dish it out. . . .
I stand by the reasoning for criticising Clarissa’s statement which appeared to appease (not necessarily endorse) the views of some narrow minded xenophones. While it would be technically incorrect to describe the slur on the Czech people as racially motivated (since the Czechs are not a race), I think the undertones are clear. I am not aware of any issue relating to animal abuse in that country. However if we wanted to go down that route, is it not akin to describing the Isle Of Man as a refuge for child abuse? Clearly absurd. Maybe Ann has a list of which nations can be trusted to care for animals. What is your view on Canadians, Ann?
What I do find insulting is that Ann has the neck to align herself with Clarissa Baldwin, a lady who is I lady I continue to hold in great esteem. Clarissa is a reformer and a welfarist in its truest sense. She is not anti greyhound racing (my criticism was that she took their claims at face value), but someone who intends to hold the industry to account. Quite right too.
Ann Shannon has shown herself to be a true anti. The first indication was in a previous letter suggesting that there was no need for greyhound racing at all. It could be run as a computer game. So could golf or football, or little coloured blobs going across a screen to a predetermined result designed by algorithm.
In other words, no matter what the industry does, if no greyhound was ever to be injured, and every dog re-homed, she would, by her own admission, still be against it. I wonder would she demand a ban on sheepdog trials, show jumping, pigeon racing, fishing?
Since Ann’s entirely honourable entry into greyhound re-homing the industry has changed as to be unrecognisable. Back in 1960s, the majority of ex-racers were destroyed. Others found their way into vivisection, or onto the flapping tracks, were exported to Spain or were stolen by travelers for hare coursing (and then abandoned). British bred pups didn’t have so much as an earmark, let alone a microchip indexed to a computer identification programme.
The entire greyhound re-homing budget was derisory – it was still only £80K by the early 1980s. It is now several million. The Greyhound Trust alone is given £1.4m, plus other significant donations by companies such as Ladbrokes Coral.
In the 1960s, there was no legislation written into statute, or accountability to DEFRA. As for the ‘surplus’ greyhounds, in 1971 there were just over 3,500 Irish bred litters born every year (later to rise to 4,800), and 787 British litters. In 2019, there were 2,334 Irish litters (which includes coursing greyhounds) and 197 British litters.
Due to changes in breeding, there are now very few non-chasers, and those that don’t choose to take part (you can’t make them chase) are even more highly prized than retired dogs for re-homing. As for ‘slow movers’, I defy Ann to find a half fit lurcher that couldn’t find a race running off a 15 metre handicap start for a sprint at Sunderland. There is no such thing as a greyhound which is too slow to race!
While UK law allows any owner to have his pet destroyed. GBGB does not, and bars owners or trainers for excessive euthanasias. All injuries are monitored after financial assistance is available for veterinary costs.
We now re-home in excess of 90% of all ex-racers (I would argue that it is more, since you cannot re-home a dog who was lost to sudden death or non-racing attributable illness.). I agree there is work to be done on the ‘not suitable for re-homing’ and the so called, ‘economic euthanasias’ – both of which are in significant decline.
So no Ann – we are not perfect. But we will never placate people with your beliefs, and quite frankly, I don’t know why we would even try.
Ed
READERS LETTERS...
“Czeching on Ambrose” letter
(Printed in Greyhound Star 25/06/2020)
There is no intention on my part to engage in a slanging match, so no need to line me up as the next candidate to be told to “bugger off”. It would be water off a duck’s back anyway, as I am sure it was to Clarissa Baldwin. However, to sink to such a low level does show a distinct lack of well-bred manners amongst the human members of the greyhound industry and a lack of valid or constructive argument. It also indicates that Clarissa Baldwin’s concerns touched a nerve: nothing hurts like the truth.
It will not be possible for her to join the “anti-racing lunatics” as you advised. There are no such persons. People opposed to greyhound racing are completely sane and are just people with valid concerns about the industry’s welfare failings. My two recent letters which Greyhound Star was fair enough to print made clear that those concerns are not unfounded
It remains up to the industry to right its wrongs in the form of reality, not just on paper. Sadly for the dogs it will be hard put to do so given the extent of its abusive practices and the true and unmanageable extent of its fall-out, which does include its supporting cast of surplus pups, non-chasers and slow movers who never become registered but are none-the-less involved in the industry’s production line. I see no evidence of provision being made for them by the industry. It can’t even guarantee adequate provision for its registered dogs without its massive and unfair loophole of “unsuitable for homing” to swallow the surplus dogs.
The industry’s future, or no future, does rest in its own hands. In reality it continues to fail and time is running out.
Thank you for any kind consideration of the facts
Ann Shannon
Homesafe Greyhound Rescue, Isle of Mann
For a lady who doesn’t intend to engage in a slanging match. . . . . I will endeavour to overcome my lack of well bred manners. I would argue that suggesting someone ‘bugger off’ following such an ill-advised comment, was a credit to my up-bringing. My first reaction following a life as a kennel lad, police officer and journalist, was to reach for something much closer to the more widely used Anglo-Saxon imperative. Also water off a duck’s back. If you dish it out. . . .
I stand by the reasoning for criticising Clarissa’s statement which appeared to appease (not necessarily endorse) the views of some narrow minded xenophones. While it would be technically incorrect to describe the slur on the Czech people as racially motivated (since the Czechs are not a race), I think the undertones are clear. I am not aware of any issue relating to animal abuse in that country. However if we wanted to go down that route, is it not akin to describing the Isle Of Man as a refuge for child abuse? Clearly absurd. Maybe Ann has a list of which nations can be trusted to care for animals. What is your view on Canadians, Ann?
What I do find insulting is that Ann has the neck to align herself with Clarissa Baldwin, a lady who is I lady I continue to hold in great esteem. Clarissa is a reformer and a welfarist in its truest sense. She is not anti greyhound racing (my criticism was that she took their claims at face value), but someone who intends to hold the industry to account. Quite right too.
Ann Shannon has shown herself to be a true anti. The first indication was in a previous letter suggesting that there was no need for greyhound racing at all. It could be run as a computer game. So could golf or football, or little coloured blobs going across a screen to a predetermined result designed by algorithm.
In other words, no matter what the industry does, if no greyhound was ever to be injured, and every dog re-homed, she would, by her own admission, still be against it. I wonder would she demand a ban on sheepdog trials, show jumping, pigeon racing, fishing?
Since Ann’s entirely honourable entry into greyhound re-homing the industry has changed as to be unrecognisable. Back in 1960s, the majority of ex-racers were destroyed. Others found their way into vivisection, or onto the flapping tracks, were exported to Spain or were stolen by travelers for hare coursing (and then abandoned). British bred pups didn’t have so much as an earmark, let alone a microchip indexed to a computer identification programme.
The entire greyhound re-homing budget was derisory – it was still only £80K by the early 1980s. It is now several million. The Greyhound Trust alone is given £1.4m, plus other significant donations by companies such as Ladbrokes Coral.
In the 1960s, there was no legislation written into statute, or accountability to DEFRA. As for the ‘surplus’ greyhounds, in 1971 there were just over 3,500 Irish bred litters born every year (later to rise to 4,800), and 787 British litters. In 2019, there were 2,334 Irish litters (which includes coursing greyhounds) and 197 British litters.
Due to changes in breeding, there are now very few non-chasers, and those that don’t choose to take part (you can’t make them chase) are even more highly prized than retired dogs for re-homing. As for ‘slow movers’, I defy Ann to find a half fit lurcher that couldn’t find a race running off a 15 metre handicap start for a sprint at Sunderland. There is no such thing as a greyhound which is too slow to race!
While UK law allows any owner to have his pet destroyed. GBGB does not, and bars owners or trainers for excessive euthanasias. All injuries are monitored after financial assistance is available for veterinary costs.
We now re-home in excess of 90% of all ex-racers (I would argue that it is more, since you cannot re-home a dog who was lost to sudden death or non-racing attributable illness.). I agree there is work to be done on the ‘not suitable for re-homing’ and the so called, ‘economic euthanasias’ – both of which are in significant decline.
So no Ann – we are not perfect. But we will never placate people with your beliefs, and quite frankly, I don’t know why we would even try.
Ed
