Hi Dawn
Thanks for joining the topic.
Just one question for you.
Why are you criticising a rescue centre who are doing their best to clean up the unwanted greyhounds your beloved industry abandon?
Its rather like slapping the face of someone who is compassionate enough to take on the responsibility of a greyhound that is the responsibility of the trainer, who’s actions are in turn the responsibility of the NGRC.

"i never see greyhound pups for sale, why is this?"


They are culled Hectorsmum.........simple as.

Oooooooo I like this offer...........would it apply to other badly treated greys?
Would you care to go to the NGRC website and click on recent Stewards Inquiries.
On the 17/01/2008, there were 4 trainers all in breech off rule 174(xi)
which if youre not aware means the trainer

has treated any Greyhound or caused or permitted any Greyhound to be treated with cruelty or in such a manner as to cause the Greyhound unnecessary suffering.

All but one was serverly repremanded, the exception to this was the trainer who was cautioned.

Or Sled Dog Rallies!

As its information already in the public domain on the net and the findings are on public record having gone through NGRC procedures, here are a few examples :

http://www.ngrc.org.uk/rec_inquiries.asp?cat=6&page=242

National Inquiry

At their meeting on: 17/01/2008

The following inquiries were held:

Stadium/Greyhound:
Yarmouth Stadium, DUNMURRY QUEEN

Trainer: Mr M Clare

Results: Professional trainer Mr Michael Clare and greyhound owner Mr John Poll were each found in breach of rule 174(xi) in that they failed to take proper care of the greyhound DUNMURRY QUEEN following its last race at Yarmouth Stadium on 16 June 2007. Mr Clare and Mr Poll were not in attendance and having considered written explanations together with the circumstances of the case, the Stewards ordered that they each be severely reprimanded and fined the sum of £1,000.

This is the specific rule which it applies to :

174(xi)
has treated any Greyhound or caused or permitted any Greyhound to be treated with cruelty or in such a manner as to cause the Greyhound unnecessary suffering.


=====================

National Inquiry

At their meeting on: 15/01/2008

The following inquiries were held:

Stadium/Greyhound:
Mildenhall Stadium, KINGS RIDGE

Trainer: Mr R A C Gates

Results: Greyhound trainer Mr Robert Gates was found in breach of rules 152(i), 174(i)(a) and 217 in that a urine sample taken from the greyhound KINGS RIDGE at Mildenhall Stadium on 10 September 2007 was analysed by HFL as containing the drug phenylbutazone; and he allowed the administration of any substance that could affect the performance and/or well being of the greyhound. Mr Gates was not in attendance and having considered his written explanation together with the circumstances of the case, the Stewards ordered that he be reprimanded, fined the sum of £400 and cautioned as to the effective supervision of his greyhounds when being exercised.

=====================


National Inquiry

At their meeting on: 13/11/2007

The following inquiries were held:

Stadium/Greyhound: Doncaster Stadium,

Information: Greyhound owner Mr M B Hurst

Results: Professional trainer Mr Christopher Mason was found in breach of rules 18, 152(i) & (ii), 174(xi), 212 and 213 in that by his actions and neglect he allowed greyhounds to be kept in such a manner as to cause them unnecessary suffering; he boarded greyhounds at a location other than that authorised by the NGRC; and he failed to notify the NGRC of change of ownership of greyhounds. Mr Mason was not in attendance and having considered his written explanation together with the circumstances of the case, the Stewards ordered that he made a disqualified person and fined the sum of £1,500. Greyhound owner Mr Michael Hurst was found in breach of rules 18, 152(i) & (ii) and 174(xi) in that he failed to notify the NGRC of change of ownership of greyhounds and by his actions and neglect permitted greyhounds in his ownership to be treated in such a manner as to cause them unnecessary suffering. Mr Hurst was not in attendance and having considered his written explanation together with the circumstances of the case, the Stewards ordered that he be made a disqualified person and fined the sum of £1,000.

=============================

National Inquiry

At their meeting on: 14/08/2007

The following inquiries were held:

Stadium/Greyhound: Reading Stadium,

FRENCH HONDO

Trainer: Mr A Ali

Results: Greyhound trainer Mr Afzal Ali was found in breach of rules 49(iv), 152(i) & (ii), 174(i)(a), 216 and 217 in that a urine sample taken from the greyhound FRENCH HONDO at Reading Stadium on 19 April 2007, was analysed by HFL as containing the drug timolol; the administration of any substance that could affect the performance and/or well being of the greyhound; not using his best endeavours to ensure that the performance of the greyhound was to the satisfaction of the Stewards; and failing to maintain his greyhound Treatment Book to NGRC requirements. Mr Ali was in attendance and having considered his explanation together with the circumstances of the case, the Stewards ordered that he be severely reprimanded and fined the sum of £750.

======================


As for the number of dogs being given `performance enhancing` drugs, what a disgrace.

I can`t see HTM being full of drugged dogs somehow - because there`s no money it of course...

There is no mention of the Dogs owners on there Ive seen it before. You have to hit them where it hurts, NAME and shame.

I did say animals in poor condition and/or those who's owners had refused to take responsibility for them in some part (i.e financial donation) having finished their racing career, or perhaps not good enough etc..

So these people were fined for their actions, good, cant see the point here, thats exactly what I would expect and would want to happen???

Youre right about HTM, not many folk go to the circus at all now!

Erm, have you looked at the sites that advertise them? I think you are looking in the wrong place, simple as that.

Im not critisising ANY rescue, merely saying THEY can do more if they want to. Dont dismiss the fact these Dogs had owners, they are traced easily, get in touch with them, offer them a chance to help and see if you can gain help from them. That can only help the Dogs, and if these people refuse to help, name and shame.

I would imagine it's a question of resources though.. It seems that independent rescues have a hard enough time getting foster homes and transport for the dogs requiring it, and thus probably have little time to spare for liaising with tracks and trainers to trace the people responsible.

Also, could it not have adverse effects? such as the disposal of dogs via other means so owners/trainers avoid reprimand/shaming - possibly resulting in more suffering, so neither the dogs nor their bodies can be recovered?