by Tara (Victoria)
I am writing to share an anecdote with you about my greyhound Pippi. We rescued her from the Victorian racing industry last year.
Like many new rescue owners, I googled a lot at the start trying to find anything at all about her old life.
Do you have a story of how the industry has failed to meet its responsibility for greyhound rehoming. Please click here to contact us.
Accountability seems optional
Pippi came from a trainer who seems to have moderate success here and there (by their measure of success, that is). Having never raced, she didn’t have pictures or records of prize-winnings online like her parents.
What I did find, however, was a racing tribunal document that outlined some charges and fines that the trainer had received over several years. These included not reporting the deaths of greyhounds or disposing of those dogs as per the rules, as well as kennel overcrowding and poor hygiene standards. This is probably not an uncommon find and I’m sure there are so many similar cases to this.
Accountability and adhering to regulations seem optional and the fines issued to these trainers are meagre compared to their prize winnings.
Listed as dead
The strange thing was that as I read the names and ear brands of the deceased dogs in the document, I was surprised to see the same five letters that happen to be tattooed inside my beautiful girl’s ear. I must have read and reread our adoption paperwork a hundred times but it was definitely there – the same brand, but on a document that said she was dead.
To a fault, I tend to be a ‘benefit of the doubt’ gal. I naively wanted to believe the ‘not all trainers’ and the ‘retired, not rescued’ narratives we so often hear. But I can’t help but read the words in the document that I found, referencing neglectful, appalling conditions (overcrowded, dirty drinking water, kennels filled with waste), then look at my sweet girl covered in scars with worn down teeth and think, you are a product of an industry that consistently fails you and mistakenly thinks you’re dead!
An industry indifferent to greyhound welfare
I presume the incorrect ear brand being listed was due to an administrative or reporting error, one that is unsurprising if the facility where the dogs were kept was overcrowded. The tribunal document even alluded to potentially not being particularly thorough when it comes to action once something is reported to them. Another stunning example of an industry not putting the welfare of these dogs first from the very top down to the trainer.
Anyway, thanks for reading if you made it this far!
I’d mentioned the scenario to another awesome greyhound owner who suggested I share my story as an example of the sheer inability of the industry and its organisations to track and keep records accurately of these dogs.
As an owner, it’s so important to keep learning and shaping your understanding about the realities of where the industry is at and what it truly stands for so that we can keep fighting for greyhounds that deserve to live freely.
