Editor's Chair - An emotional decision based on ignorance

Flaws in the Welsh Senedd judgement 

Who supports animal cruelty? 

Who wants to see greyhound racing banned? 

If you can make the argument that the two are connected, you end up with the type of decision that the Welsh Government made on Tuesday. 

A ban on greyhound racing. 

But how flawed is that judgement? 

For a start, let’s look at the figures. 

The official statement claims that there were “more than 1,100 responses” to a consultation on the subject of which “almost two thirds” were in favour of a ban. 

Short of a definitive figure, let’s have a guesstimate that the actual figure was 1,150. So roughly 726 people were for a ban – assuming the ‘almost two thirds’ was precisely, two thirds. 

A 50:50 vote would have been 575 for each side.  

So the views of 151 people swung it, out of a population of 3.1 million. 

We are also told that 35,000 signed a petition calling for a ban. 

We are not told how many of those signatories are based in Wales or even Britain. 

35,000 signatories but how much practical knowledge?

Given there is only one track in Wales, how many of those 35,000 signatories have ever been to a greyhound track? 

How many could give a decent estimate on the number of greyhounds who are born? Or race? Or get injured? Or are retired due to injury? Or the percentage who are re-homed? 

How many of those signatories have the slightest clue about the actual daily routine of a racing greyhound? How it is fed? How often it is checked by a vet?  

How many people who quick to sign up something that they assumed to be bad, actually know how greyhound pups are reared? 

A clue to the last question, the answer is very different from the Welsh puppy farms where pups are removed from their mums at around four weeks or less. 

The bottom line is – the Welsh Assembly debate had nothing to do with fact – it was an emotional decision based on ignorance of the subject. 

It would be interesting to know how many people would have also favoured banning horse racing, sheep dog trials or pony clubs. 

No doubt the PETA supporters would have voted equally fervently for the banning of guide dogs, police dogs and even household pets. 

Eccles a cat person as she clearly doesn't understand dogs

Now, I have no doubt that most people who contributed to the debate felt like they were doing the right thing. 

I understand that there are dozens of confirmation biases and subsets of those biases. 

How many people assumed that because the people who bet on the greyhounds might not have been primarily concerned about their welfare, then the people who own and train the dogs have similar beliefs? 

Or that those beliefs actually lead to a lack of care for the dogs themselves? 

I believe that the psychologists would label this type of connection as ‘illusory correlation’. 

So what would you say about the following comment? 

“Wales has just banned greyhound racing and it's time for the rest of the UK to follow suit. This is a cruel, outdated 'sport' that belongs in the confines of history. In 2023 there were 109 deaths trackside and 4238 injuries, with hundreds of dogs cast aside and either euthanised or left for shelters to find new homes.  Racing at high speeds puts huge strain on a greyhound's body and there are concerns about poor welfare where greyhounds are often kept in dirty, damp conditions, with reports of some dogs being doped to improve performance. The popularity of greyhound racing has dwindled in recent years so let's end it once and for all. I'll be campaigning with animal charities and organisations to ban greyhound racing.” 

This is from the Instagram of Cat Eccles, the MP for Stourbridge in the West Midlands. 

This is the heart of the Black Country and just 11 miles from Wolverhampton, home of Monmore Green and soon to be a new track on the Wolverhampton Racecourse. 

So if any of our readers happen to live in Ms Eccles’ constituency, you might fancy booking into one of her surgeries and asking her to explain her position. 

This is her email address: [email protected] or phone 01384 881 095 

Disappointing response from the BHA

 No doubt the management of Wolverhampton Racecourse will be emboldened by the statement from the British Horseracing Authority. https://www.britishhorseracing.com/press_releases/bha-statement-on-greyhound-racing-in-wales/ 

You can read the thing in full, but basically it says ‘We don’t have to worry about horseracing because the Welsh Government assured them that horse racing is “amongst the world’s best regulated animal activities”. 

Now I don’t want to burst anyone’s bubble here – and I won’t be going into detail on this occasion – but I would stand squarely behind the evidence on greyhound racing welfare compared to horse racing. 

I suggest that in the week that a jockey died from injuries, both the Welsh Government and the BHA might want to reconsider their stance. 

Indeed, I would suggest a ban on greyhound racing set against horse racing could be legally challenged as unsound. 

But I don’t want to go down this route. 

The fundamental principles is that animals engaged in sport, or work, will suffer injuries. 

We should all be on the same side. 

Indeed, this should be the time when the greyhound tracks, media providers, regulators and those of us trying to promote greyhound racing should join and work together. 

Because if or when greyhound racing ends in Wales, who will be next in the sights of the animal extremists?  

And then who?