Setting the Standard – Michael Watts MRCVS

They never told us about the paperwork when we were at Uni back in the day. We used to call it College in our day.. For years we immersed ourselves in the mysteries of anatomy and physiology, the intricacies of surgery and medicine and a dozen other disciplines besides, in the hope that in the fullness of time we would emerge to be James Herriot, the Supervet not having been invented at that stage.

They never mentioned the mountains of paperwork that would accumulate on every level surface in your clinic begging for your attention. This is probably just as well, as if we knew then what we know now we might have packed our studies in and gone for a cushy number in financial services instead.

Thus it was that Draft PAS 251:2017 – Specification for greyhound trainers’ residential kennels lay neglected until a quiet Sunday morning when in a mood of bonhomie engendered by a rare decent night’s kip and fortified by large volumes of coffee, I turned the first page and got stuck in.

This PAS, I learned, was sponsored by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, and developed in conjunction with the British Standards Institution to cover the requirements for the residential kennelling of racing greyhounds in Great Britain. .It was drawn up following a recommendation in September 2016 from the Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs, which had earlier carried out a review of the secondary legislation that applied to greyhound racing. So far, so good.

The PAS is not, seemingly, to be regarded as a British Standard. Indeed, once its content has been published in, or as, a British Standard it will be withdrawn. Fair enough. Compliance with a PAS, we are advised, cannot confer immunity from legal obligations. That is good to know, because to the uninitiated it reads a lot like a legal document although it is, if I understand it right, only a sighting shot, a work in progress. Having missed the bit that explained what a PAS is, I retraced my steps but met with no joy. Reference to my favourite internet search engine – others are available – reveals that the initials stand for Publicly Available Specification. Now we are whistling Dixie. . All good men and true, not forgetting all good women, should cast an eye over said document, which is available on line at http://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/Details/59714 and send their ten cents worth back to the British Standards Institution by Wednesday 19^th July 2017. No problemo.

The opening pages of PAS 251/2017 are devoted to setting out its stall. We are reminded, for instance, that the Specification is intended to apply to both G.B.G.B licensed trainers and those in the independent sector. This is a welcome step, countering as it does the institutionalised division of the industry into local authority licensed tracks and UKAS accredited tracks. The point is well made also that this PAS does not override the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 or Council Regulation EC No.1/2005, which deals with the transport of animals, or any additional requirements set out by a licensing authority. The object of the exercise is to draw upon the collective collaborative experience of animal welfare organisations, veterinarians, government and industry specialists to generate a specification for residential racing greyhound kennels based upon good practice. The specification has quite a narrow focus and does not concern itself with track kennels, with kennels housing only retired or rescue greyhounds, with greyhound breeders’ premises, with rearing kennels where all the greyhounds are fifteen months of age or less or with whippets that are kept for racing.

There then follows several pages of pretty anoraky definitions of the terms used in the PAS. Now I know why I would never have made a good lawyer. Clean, for example, means the “absence of surface contamination on visual inspection”. Likewise exercise is defined as “physical activity to sustain or improve the health of the greyhound”. It is easy to criticise such apparent geekiness but I suppose that somebody has to spell these definitions out so that there can no longer be any ambiguity and so that all parties are on the same page. For example Paragraph 2.9.2 defines a “single unit” as an “enclosed sleeping area for a single greyhound” and a “double unit” as an “enclosed sleeping area for two greyhounds”.

Maybe I am missing something but Paragraph 3.2.1 states that each single unit should be “provided with a removable bench to give a single bedding area of at least 1m²” whereas a double unit should be “provided with a removable bench to give a single bedding area of at least 1m²”, exactly the same area as for a single dog kennel. I find it hard to picture these things in my head, and maths was never my strong suit, but a certain amount of mucking about with a tape measure on my kitchen floor suggested that an area of 1m² was probably comfortably sufficient for your average race dog but that it looked decidedly cosy if not downright restrictive for a pair of greyhounds. Like I said, maybe I am missing something.

Given the recent heatwave I was struck by one notable absence from the Specification. Paragraph 3.10 deals with environmental temperature and lays down that “there shall be a means of measuring, monitoring and recording temperature (minimum and maximum) in the bedding area of the unit”. That is all well and good, as far as it goes, but there is no mention of measuring or recoding the relative humidity of the kennel environment. It goes without saying that when the air temperature is high, dogs lose heat by panting and evaporating water from their respiratory tracts.

The degree to which they can successfully achieve this depends on the relative humidity of the atmosphere, evaporative cooling working the very best when relative humidity is low but less well when the air is already saturated with water vapour. Monitoring relative humidity alongside temperature allows an assessment to be made of the greyhounds’ ability to cope with increased temperatures and is a most worthwhile exercise. Our track was recently able to source humidity meters on line for less than ten quid apiece, so the exercise need not be a costly one.

Other parts of the Specification I must admit puzzle me. Paragraph 5.1.2 states that “clean fresh drinking water shall be available at all times”. That is a bit of a no-brainer but worth emphasising none the less.   The very next line however bears the legend “Note: This may be provided as required by a member of staff”. What is “as required” supposed to mean in this context when it has already been made crystal clear that water should be available at all times? Maybe I am missing something.

That said, I find a lot to like in the Specification. Paragraph 3.5.3 includes the comment that “it is preferable that natural light is sufficient during daylight hours and is only supplemented by artificial light when required” . That works for me every time. Let us design kennels so that the sun shines into at least part of them for at least part of the day, and keep the fluorescent tubes for late night and dark winter days.

Likewise Paragraph 4.3.2 states that “exercise can consist of free running in a paddock area, walking, galloping, swimming or racing” No mention here of walking machines. Call me auld fashioned if you wish, but there a few things better for the health of greyhound and trainer than a mile walk in the fresh air, although I appreciate that this may not be very feasible for the guy with an army of BAGS dogs to exercise.

Paragraph 5.2 of the Specification includes the comment that “an active environmental programme is important to support the sensory and social needs of greyhounds kept in residential kennels”. You never said a truer word.

Section 5.5 which is entitled “Handling and Training” ends with the stipulation that “electric shock devices, choke/check chains, pinch collars, spray collars, anti-bark muzzles shall not be used when handling or training dogs” Amen to all that.

Please try to excuse me if I get up on my soapbox for a moment. “Each greyhound trainer” Section 6.3 states “shall be registered with a veterinary practice that provides 24-hour emergency care”. This may become less and less easy in the future, with the proliferation of corporate and franchise practices many of which outsource their out-of-hours emergency cover to specialist providers who in some cases may not be particularly conveniently located and may at times be reluctant to make home visits. My practice still has farm clients and so is committed to providing them with a twenty-four hour service. With increasing frequency we find ourselves being asked to turn out at nights and weekends to see pets belonging to clients of other practices because their owners do not want to travel to the dedicated out-of-hours provider or baulk at their estimated consultation fee. We see them because we were brought up that way. Others may not. Sermon over!

There is a great big grey elephant in the room however, about which there is not a whisper in the Specification. Building and maintaining kennels to a high standard takes money, a commodity with which the greyhound game is not exactly awash these days. That is not to say that lower welfare standards should be accepted just because the trainers are boracic. Nothing excuses poor welfare, but by the same token the current parlous financial state of the industry has to be recognised.

Now I have had my say and it is over to you. Here is a chance to make your views known where they may do some good, rather than inveighing bitterly into a pint glass at the track after the last. “There is a tide in the affairs of men” and all that jazz.

            Twitter @GSUnderTheRadar