Usually Government budgets are not something that should be written about on a sporting website. Like watching Mike Atherton score a ton, they are dour and boring affairs.
This year though, there’s a lot of pressure from the three codes of racing for NSW to alter their tax take to be the equivalent of Victoria.
The truth is that, historically, raising Government revenue has been hugely influential on all three codes of racing. The Government always takes their cut, first by owning the TAB as a monopoly and then by extracting profits when they sold it. If you ask the question who profits most from racing in NSW, the Government and by extension the people of NSW, are pretty high up on the list.
There’s also been a parallel and heated, yet disconnected discussion about animal welfare in racing. It’s been easy for some politicians and sections of the media to argue that the community in general have higher expectations then previously for animal welfare from the three codes in racing.
Yet asking the community to forego some of these profits to meet these expectations has been just too hard for these very same people. It’s been crocodile tears and self-interest all the way, and “animal welfare” has become a byword for reinforcing prejudices about people rather than helping people to make the greyhound or horse happy.
The truth is that the best way to improve animal welfare is to invest money and resources on the animal itself.
Let’s take greyhound racing, since it’s been most heavily discussed in the media. Right now, with the intercode agreement and the tax treatment for NSW, there is something in the vicinity of $35 million annually that could be available.
That’s not pocket money, the amount of prizemoney paid in NSW is only $23 million annually at this time, and it’s a wad of money with truly transformative potential if properly spent, more than a few schmackos and a chicken nugget.
Let’s look at an example of how other jurisdictions have dealt with these issues. In Great Britain, the retired greyhound trust of Great Britain rehomes over 4,000 greyhounds each year.
Around $8 million annually is spent in total, with around $3 million from the racing funds, and a lot of volunteer hours are needed to make this work. But with time, money, some vision and purpose there’s a huge amount that can be done with plenty to spare for prizemoney increases.
But here in NSW, successive Governments have always acted like that annoying friend who doesn’t shout a round all evening, then insists on splitting the cab in four equal amounts. All this while his three mates have gone from the city to Lewisham and he’s continued all the way to Lithgow.
Right now, if a greyhound is retired and rehomed through one of the greyhound adoption programs, they are put on a queue and the costs of keeping the greyhound are borne by the owner. It’s really not that difficult to subsidise food and veterinary bills for these greyhounds while they’re on the queue out of these funds. It sends the right signal from the Government that they are prepared to invest in animal welfare.
I could continue, but surely you get the picture. If you want better animal welfare outcomes, spend the damn money on the dog; it’s not rocket science.
The money is available through what is punted through the TAB and siphoned off by the Government. It should instead go into a fund that is administered by people who genuinely care about the racing animals and as an incentive to change the culture within the sport for the better.
You will find people who will gladly volunteer time and effort. But we as a society, via the Government as a proxy, do little to nothing to support them.
Right now, we need vision and leadership from the top brass of racing. The clean slate at the top of the greyhounds (GRNSW) has presented a unique opportunity for the Government to be given the direction it needs. Articulate how the funds will be used to overcome a challenge that others still baulk at, and increase the prizemoney to levels where the owners and trainers cease to bleed money.
John Tracey
Guest
Hi Derek, If you profile some of the comments through face book etc you will see some people who have lodged posts on the animal welfare and a range of many other protests as well. The current judicial inquiry requires submitters to put their names and addresses and sign their submissions then they could be called in as witnesses to justify their views under "oath". The above will sort the wheat from the chaff. The animal welfare lobby crosses political lines, it contains a lot of right wing people as well. The attendance of the public generally at the hearings of the Upper house inquiry is interesting. At the hearing at Newcastle only one member of the public supporting the adoption groups turned up. The lady wanted to speak but was worried about being there on her own. I told her that the participants would give her a fair go for attending and she was referred to the Green member on the committee who thought under the circumstances that the fact that she turned up would be sufficient to register her concerns. She spoke to some of the participants on a one to one basis. At the hearing at the State Library several groups of the welfare adoption and others turned up to the hearing after holding public street meetings at Martin Place and outside the State Library. The meetings were attended by the members of the group and were heavily into theatre. I did not attend the Martin Place meeting but was advised it did not attract any significant numbers of the public. The street meeting at the State Library at which I observed did not draw in the public but it was graphic with news photographers and I assume the overseas adoption teams who were producing the event. The various group representatives stayed for their own segment and stayed for 10 minutes into a presentation from a welfare group which was mildly critical of adoption schemes. The walk out was a deliberate gesture. They were not concerned about the greyhound participants even overlooking mild scuffle, their approach was focussed on the main game. The representative of the RSPCA was the only welfare organisation I recognised that stayed for the full meeting. My point is much the same as yours that is that people concerns sometimes do not go further than tapping out a quick text . I have attended quite a few inquiries on related matters and usually I am the only independent member of the public there. Cheers John..
Derek
Guest
Hi John, I'm at work so my comments may be a tad inarticulate. I should not have said BIG POINT. I'll come back to the history as my comments were more about how man, given the chance will exploit anything. My point about the "Greenies"was not specificly about left wing groups. I follow a lot blogs and some Industry types on the blogs are coming out and assuming that those commenting against racing or bad behaviour must be greenies, lefties or have an agenda. Whereas these days it is more likely to be average Joe Public who is voicing distaste due to better access to info.
John Tracey
Guest
Hi Derek, Nothing has changed greyhounds are highly valued as hunters (racers) and are good companions and are under the protection of the ruling class. The only difference is that the masses now have ownership rights. So what is the big point that is being made by people who are interpreting what Cynthia is making.?. The book is a good read and reference but it is difficult to get substantial hard copy to verify some of the details. The point on visibility is made in the prompt I gave in my post and I would e glad to discuss it with you. If you go to the prompt and scroll to the table of contents and click onto each item you will be able to read what the writer/researcher is saying. Just on the Greenies and Do-gooders, I am not sure why they are receiving the blame. in my opinion it is giving them too much credit . The visibility of the blooding of greyhounds was stumbled onto by the animal group in Qld and the trail led to a leading trainer in Victoria who gave up (I assume unintentionally) an establishment in NSW. The Greens etc had a motion on an agenda in the NSW upper house which required a trigger to get on the agenda to form a committee. It looked likely that they could get an item up at the all purpose committees but together with the minority parties they succeeded in getting up a select Committee which was something that the greyhounds had been trying to do for decades. If the select committee had not been formed and in power then the upcoming judicial inquiry would have run without the advantage of the select committee input. While the Greens rep on the NSW upper house select committee voted in minority on the committees welfare recommendations he was generally popular with the participants who attended the hearings. The Greens rep was more critical of the control body generally as well.
Derek
Guest
Thanks John, I am reading the The Reign of the Greyhound by Cynthia A. Branigan and she makes a big point about them highly valued as hunters and great companions and being under protection of the ruling classes. You mention the point about visibility. I note that a lot of "old school" industry types blaming "Greenies and "Do-gooders". These days with average Joe public plugged into social media, the recent unpleasantness has brought welfare smack bang into living rooms. As pointed out by Nathan, the Governments have plenty of money to spend on real welfare and oversight without putting it back on the owners.
John Tracey
Guest
Thanks Nathan and Derek for entering the debate. Te following article may be of interest http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Animals_Equality_and_Democracy.html?id=HXUYY0hM5dIC The greyhounds are at an exiting position as both restricted subjects relating to animal welfare have been brought out into the open for discussion and at a high judicial level too boot. The discussion also puts the blow torch on all animal issues and in particular the growing animal adoption schemes. In the introduction of Animal Equality and democracy the writer likens the public interest in animals and drains, They are both very useful but not particularly interesting overall. There is a passionate interest amongst lovers of animals both as racing participants and as people passionately interested outside . Governments spend a fortune on human welfare but little on animal welfare overall. Animal Equality and Democracy contends that the same animal obtains welfare treatment in accord to its visibility with the public. A companion animal in racing is very visible but the same animal used in the laboratory is not. I agree with the above and I think that you will find overall that the welfare of the racing animal is far better administrated in racing than any where else. This point has not been advanced as there has been practically no credit given to welfare by control boards who see matters in the broad rather than in particulars. The animal rights supporters go back to the days of old where they see the greyhounds being protected by being under the care and protection of the Upper Classes and times when the majority of people did not have ownership rights. The use of greyhounds in hunting had some horrific problems for the dogs and the upper classes were also actively involved in animal baiting usually a mastiff against a bear. The public entry to coursing (greyhound racing) involved the upper class passing greyhounds down the line to the general public who ran coursing events themselves on a small scale. The system in NSW was for greyhounds not up to metropolitan and regional class to be sent to country areas where they were more competitive and received less prize money. This system broke down to some degree by the obsessions to close down country racing. ( I must declare that I was the County Clubs representative on two of the greyhound commercial boards and saw the welfare issues in the particular as not being addressed at the central level.
Derek
Guest
Well reasoned Nathan, To get the numbers up perhaps offer some funding to the non-racing re-homing groups to assist GAP. GAP could be the face of the initiative. The public relations alone would be incentive enough for the cynics. They deal with the Industry face to face at owner level every day and understand that they cannot all afford to keep paying for them. I got mine from one of the non-industry groups and at the end of the day they just want to see the dogs re-homed as quickly as possible.