I've asked someone to try and pick me up a copy of it. If it's true complaints will be made. I'll let you know.

Apparently the editor of the magazine didn't read this column by their vet before it was published and is 'shocked'.
I'm shocked that she is making excuses. The buck stops with the editor of any publication! Daft *"@!!
Marie

If you go onto the Refuge forum you will see the article in the doggie chat section.
Unfortunately I can't cut and paste it.
Basically the vet had a bad experience after a small dog came in who had been attacked by two ex-racing greyhounds and died.
Initially she seems to be asking valid questions, unfortunately she then goes on to suggest that all ex-racers should be euthanised at the end of their racing lives since they have 'murderous intentions' and are more likely to kill other dogs.
Basically she is saying, we can't get rid of racing so lets make sure all racing dogs are killed instead, ie the breed disappears.
Haven't heard that argument used about other breeds linked to attacks on people!
Here's a section verbatim "if racing greyhounds are bred solely for racing then wouldn't it be more sensible to regard them as beef cow or sheep. We (the carnivorous among us) accept that at the end of their 'working life' such animals are humanely destroyed. If we accept that animals have no fear of death or anticipation of it then humane euthanasia at any age or state of health can be acceptable".
She goes on to say "If it is true that greyhounds kill many more animals than other dogs then this fact is unacceptable".
Its an astonishing view and I am appalled.If you are going to take that approach then what about the breeds involved in attacks on humans?
Marie

Am fizzing here. We MUST make ahuge fuss over this.

Having spent 5 minutes in WH Smith today reading the article ( I certainly wasn't buying it ) I can't believe that the person who wrote it is actually a vet who is supposed to help animals. She should be struck off. If it was a practice I was taking Maddie to I would be protesting outside it. Stupid ignoramous.

The odd thing is that she hasn't mentioned the responsibilities of any dog owners to maintain proper control of their dog - just straight to blaming the breed. Very ill judged, I'd say and surprising from someone who's had a media career for a while (it's one of the former trainee vets that were filmed for years). Given her media popularity and her wholesome knowledgeable appearance, I worry that she will just be believed by the ignorant. A balancing response from a Greyhound awareness organisation is called for, I'd say.
D

I'm past anger and into despair! How could anyone in that profession write such a thing? Why did she become a Vet in the first place? I dread to think the damage she's done - some people will believe anything, particularly from some sort of "TV Personality" (not that I ever recall seeing programme/her). Hopefully, many people will desert her practice. Think "Dogs Today" would be mad not to sack her if they want to maintain any sort of credibility!

Denise

This girl has got above herself and put her own thoughts nad opinions in a meduim where they are able to influemce people. She was the posh stuck up one in Vets in Practice a while back

When searching for article came across info. that she is divorced and worked at Vets on the Park in Cheltenham, but that could very well be out-of-date stuff.

Denise

This has to be addressed, it can't be left to lie. It undoes all the hard wotk GAL and other rescues have been doing to promote greys as pets, this is very popular magazine, it WILL cost greys homes, make no mistake. It is a vicious attack after a very bad day made on very public forum, both her and that editor are equally to blame.

She was married to some guy that was on vets in practice thing with her, they divorced and is married to one of the main vets in york and works in the main practice there, as I said before who deal with and get paid for all the greys and lurchers that go through the RSPCA. Iknow where she works and urge that you write to her practice. And to Dogs Today urging them to rectify the damage they have done to these dogs. The magazine may very well do this on a big scale.

if you haven't read it properly do so, as she is bleating on about backlash when people haven't read the article, it is worse than I thought. To stop breeding greys is fine as I am sure we would all agree with but to eauthanise tham at the end of their careers due to their "murderous instinct" is unbelievable and to say how many more squirrels, rabbits cats and dogs will be killed by greyhounds as she is wrapping up is nasty in the extreme. She has no facts she is talking about 2 cases which even just highighting them in her article would've done enough damage but to go further as she does is disgusting. Do not let them get away with this, make them make amends for their actions both these women. They can fix this

Marie on my rant on Greyhound Pals, or the Scottish Greyhound Sanctuary now, I mentioned going to the press, and it was pointed out to me that this may cause more damage than it's worth as it may bring to the attention of even more of the general public, the "attack" side of the issue, and if the press agree with her it would look very bad. Also we can't trust the press not to make us look like a bunch of animal rights nutters as they do to so many others. I am writing to her and the editor, if you want her works address pm me, I think you should send it to them as even if she doesn't read it both her and boss and colleagues will see the amount of trouble she has caused. I am extremely outraged at her so called apology, she is only sorry about the trouble she is in and the fall out of that is her book sales etc. WE must write it's our only weapon.

Totally agree. Think the only time to do that would be if story gets there anyway and so a need to try to counter any resulting bad publicity for the dogs.

Denise

grahamrobinson wrote:

---

Please, everyone, do NOT contact the press. However sympathetic the story is, half the people reading it will take away the message that "vet says greyhounds are dangerous and must be destroyed". We do not need that kind of publicity.

Cheers,
Graham

---

Fair points, its just frustrating that this is an independent magazine and therefore there is no larger authority to complain too.

It is always the case when it comes to dogs killing another dog that someone of "some authority" makes a blanket statement that that breed should no longer be around. (I have seen cases of vets trying to extinct rottweilers, staffies and even boxers!) It is so wrong but as mentioned above - sometimes ranting back can actually make it worse for the charties.

The committee has discussed about sending a letter stating our views on the article in a professional manner. Not actually very intense but at least we will have done our part showing we are a valid charity that thinks all dogs deserve to live - regardless of what one dog may have done. If this was a case of a person - do we destroy every person that matches that description.

I will update everyone once we sort out a letter and see what else happens in the next few weeks! It's just so sad to see how negative comments can cause such a stir when positive reports go unnoticed!