Greyhound racing is on the brink of extinction. Once a celebrated heritage sport, it is now legal only in England, select states in the US, and Australia. Its decline is driven by relentless pressure from animal rights extremists, who cloak their authoritarian, ideological agenda under the guise of compassion for animals, while also damaging the integrity of how we discuss public policy.
An aggressive campaign to dismantle horse racing and greyhounds, spearheaded by various organisations, has long existed in the UK. Last week, it marked its first success on the ratchet, with the Welsh government announcing plans to ban greyhound racing, aiming to implement the prohibition ‘as soon as practically possible’. Deputy First Minister Huw Irranca-Davies stated, ‘I believe that now is the right time to move to ban greyhound racing in Wales.’
The closure of greyhound racing tracks does not lead to a utopian future for these animals, as activists might claim. Thousands of well-bred, well-cared-for racing dogs are left without purpose, often overwhelming adoption networks that struggle to place them in suitable homes. The responsible breeders, trainers, and track employees who dedicate their lives to these animals, in a way the overwhelming majority of these activists do not, are driven out of their professions, their livelihoods sacrificed at the altar of ideological extremism.
The fate of greyhound racing serves as a cautionary tale of what happens when intolerant beliefs override evidence. Government Welfare Reports, such as the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs Committee Memorandum, do not use longitudinal data to capture the long-term impact of strict welfare regulations over the lifespan of a greyhound, leaving emotionally charged campaigns often based on isolated anecdotal cases to fill the void.
The act of banning is an ever-popular choice for legislators, and, rather naturally, the response from the public is usually predicated on whether that ban would affect them. If you aren’t a fan of greyhound racing, you may not care much at all. But what is deeply unnerving for the fabric of our democracy is the ability for a heritage sport to be unceremoniously expunged so rapidly based on the whim of a single Minister. Perhaps what is more concerning is that total unqualified ownership these radicals are given over the debate while still welding influence over the discourse; a petition which advocated for greyhound racing in Wales garnered over 35,000 signatures, and in further a consultation, nearly two-thirds of respondents supported a phased ban.
In 2023, track fatalities were put at around 0.03 per cent. The Greyhound Board of Great Britain demonstrates that the risks associated with the sport are minimal. Yet the response to this statistic is often a call for outright bans, without offering any real evidence that such measures would improve animal welfare or the lives of the dogs involved. Instead, the knee-jerk reaction to prohibit greyhound racing creates an atmosphere in which industries are discouraged from investing in improvements to animal welfare. Why bother investing in better practices when you know that, no matter what you do, activists will come after you with calls for complete abolition?
Some of these militants are so woefully misinformed they even believe all animals are capable of expressing human emotions, or that their human prejudices must also apply to animals; while it is true most humans would not want to run around a dirt track at a rate of knots, there is no evidence that greyhounds are capable of that level of autonomy – indeed, like most animals, their biological instinct is to run.
These activist campaign machines are becoming more sophisticated while their demands become more ridiculous. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) – a charity that receives considerable donations – have written comments on their social media that you should think before eating chicken, because they have families ‘just like you’. Before we align policy with these overblown movements, we should judge them by the comments they keep, and the consequences of their demands which they fail to consider.
Debate now so often rests on the intention of the opposing parties – whose conviction is purer to validate their evidence? Many campaigners argue those are associated with the racing industry are bought and paid for advocates, but they themselves are often backed by those who would happily see the greyhound fatality rate go from 0.03 per cent on a track to 100 per cent through artificial extinction, so long as it means they win the debate.
