Mind the GAP

In a recent announcement, Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ) have announced that they are taking over Levin kennels and will run them directly instead of providing them for Greyhounds as pets (GAP).

GRNZ say that while GAP has long been their key partner and that "we remain fully committed to supporting the GAP Trust", they are also concerned that greyhound adoption numbers have been "relatively static" through GAP. Because of this, GRNZ say they are going to "step back and look at how we can reshape our rehoming efforts to increase the adoption numbers. GAP, together with other rehoming partners such as Nightrave, have an important role to play and the industry needs to work together for the best outcomes for our greyhounds."

GRNZ's announcement is interesting and deserves a closer look.

GRNZ are totally on the money when they say that greyhound adoptions have been static over recent years. A quick check of GRNZ annual reports reveals that adoptions through GAP hovered at around the 280 mark for 2017 and this number has varied up and down by approximately 40 dogs since 2014.

Could it be that this isn't a result of poor marketing by GAP, but of the fact that NZ is a small market and can only absorb so many greyhound adoptions per year?

Either way, the total number of greyhound adoptions each year is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the huge numbers of greyhounds whelped by trainers. The only limits on the number of racing hounds that can breed at the time of writing are purely economic. Given that adoption numbers are a fraction of the total racing population, you'd think GRNZ could also choose to also look at how to limit the number of hounds bred for racing. Sadly this is not happening as GRNZ don't want to harm their cash cow (erm greyhound).

Sadly doing so needn't be all that difficult. By charging steep per race, per dog entry fees and a sizeable annual racing registration fee to trainers on a per greyhound basis (the monies could in turn be passed onto greyhound adoption agencies to fund public awareness of just how amazing greyhounds are as pets), the big benefit would be that trainers might not breed as many hounds and instead instead choose to focus on a smaller number of high calibre dogs instead. This would in turn lessen the numbers of greyhounds looking to be adopted.

The reason that adoption numbers are so crucial comes down to what a horrible euphemism referred to by many as "wastage". Hounds that cannot be rehomed owing to injuries, illness or behavioural issues are killed.

The big concern with GRNZ's move is that by shifting their focus onto the smaller greyhound adoption agencies and away from GAP, GRNZ could actually make the existing situation worse. As counter intuitive as this might sound, consider the following:

According to the 2017 GRNZ annual report, GAP accounted for over 80% of all greyhound adoptions (they adopted just under 300 dogs out of a total of 460 adoptions in New Zealand). Combined the other smaller agencies combined only accounted for 160 or so dogs being adopted.

In short, it'd be fair to assume that many of the other smaller agencies, no matter how capable and well intentioned they are could find themselves under pressure to fill the adoption vacuum left by GAP.

This isn't solely an issue of these smaller organisations finding a way to adopt more dogs out either. Gap operates a large network of marketers, administrators, organisers and kennel staff throughout New Zealand. Smaller greyhound agencies could find themselves under pressure to grow and develop a similar national presence. While GRNZ are likely to fund this to a point, it will also require know-how and an immense amount of energy from the small number of staff in these smaller agencies.

The unfortunate reality is that some may succeed, but others are likely to fail. According to an MBIE study in 2014, of New Zealand's 460,000 or so small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs), around a quarter of them fail within their first three years of operation. It is probable that if put under enough pressure, this is an outcome that some smaller agencies could be faced with.

None of these smaller agencies are geared up to deliver 80% of New Zealand's greyhound adoptions. scaling up to do so will take time and expertise. If the MBIE stats are anything to go by, some smaller agencies won't survive as they find themselves having to grow from a small operation with a handful of staff to a national footprint with multiple staff.

While some will succeed, A very real possibility could be that there will be less greyhound adoption agencies in the near future than currently exist and this could drive an increase in "wastage".

I hope I am wrong about this. There are a lot of good people who have put in a huge amount of work to rehome retired racers. Here's hoping this wont turn into a case of if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

Councils, dog attacks and muzzles!

It's been a while since I last put pinkys to keyboard, but sometimes an issue gets me so incensed that I just feel compelled to write and this one is a real doozy.

Some good friends have a beautiful black boy greyhound, he's only 4 years old but is a gentle cuddly and playful boy who we have looked after on occasion.

Recently while at an off lead area at a local beach, he was attacked and badly mauled by another dog.

100 stitches and several surgeries later he is on the mend, but his traumatic experience means he still has major fear issues being around other non-greyhound dogs. These will probably stay with him for the rest of his life.

The situation sounds incredibly unfortunate. The other dog was on a leash but unmuzzled. The leash was being held by the dog owners neighbours kid who dropped the leash, which in turn lead to the other dog attacking.

Subsequent investigations by animal control proved fruitless - they say that because the beach is an off leash area, owners enter with their dogs at their own risk and that this absolves the attacking dogs owners of any liability.

Making matters worse, the attacking dogs owners have also refused to help with vet bills which are now in excess of an eye-watering $2000 and are likely to continue to increase with further treatments. The there's training and behaviour modification needed which is also likely to be costly.

This beautiful black greyhounds owners are being left with no choice but to treat the matter as civil case and try their luck in the disputes tribunal. Even if they win, they'll most likely be left out of pocket for the time and legal advice required.

What really gets my goat about this is that this hound is just one of a growing number being attacked on a beach. Sadly this is becoming a regular thing. The really annoying is that it could be easily avoided.

All the councils need to do is make it compulsory for dogs to be muzzled and unmuzzled dogs automatically fined/liable for any damage and attacks as an incentive for dog owners to take some responsibility for their dogs.

Even if there was a fight between two dogs, damage would be minimised through the use of muzzles and dog owners would not have to resort to trying their luck at the disputes tribunal.

Sadly councils don't seem to care. It is a fair bet to say that nothing will happen - even though the number of dog attacks at off leash areas are only likely to increase.

Sigh