greyhound 2015

The Greyhound Industry: 

don’t bet on fair treatment

The regulations 

have failed to deliver 

the improvements 

required to protect racing 

Greyhounds from 

cradle to grave.

The Greyhound Industry: don’t bet on fair treatment 

FOREWORD 

The Welfare of Racing Greyhound Regulations 

(2010) were brought in after huge pressure from 

charities, MPs, media and the public to ensure that 

the industry ‘cleaned up its act’ and that the welfare 

of the dogs involved was better protected. However, 

at the time, Dogs Trust and others, warned that the 

regulations did not go far enough to address welfare 

concerns, particularly as the regulations focused on 

self-regulation of the industry of only one aspect - the 

track. Five years on, we are now absolutely adamant 

that the regulations, the Greyhound Board of Great 

Britain and the independent tracks are failing to 

deliver the improvements that we believe need to 

happen if all Greyhounds are to be protected. 

Disappointingly the secondary legislation, introduced 

in 2010 (The Welfare of Racing Greyhounds 

Regulations), only focused on welfare measures at 

the track (where Greyhounds spend less than 10% 

of their time). These Regulations do not provide any 

legislative protection for Greyhounds during breeding, 

kennelling, transportation and for retirement. The 

Government stated in its summary of the consultation 

that it was satisfied the Animal Welfare Act provided 

sufficient protection in these areas. Yet much of the 

industry’s activity is behind closed doors and without 

regular independent inspections it is very difficult for 

the enforcement agencies (RSPCA, police and Local 

Authorities) to apply the relevant legislation. In 

contrast, the Irish Government introduced Greyhound 

welfare legislation in 2011 which specifically addressed 

the keeping, trading, transporting, rearing, breeding, 

training, housing, racing or coursing of a Greyhound 

and goes way beyond UK legislation in specifically 

protecting Greyhounds from cradle to grave. The 

enforcement of the legislation is the responsibility of 

the Irish Greyhound Board (IGB) which is a semi state 

body and the Irish Coursing Club (ICC). 

Currently the scope of the regulations only covers the 

welfare of Greyhounds when they are at a race track. 

The Regulations need to be extended to the trainers 

and breeders kennelling facilities. These out of sight 

premises, where Greyhounds spend the majority of 

their time will continue to evade scrutiny if this void 

is not filled. 

As Britain’s fifth most popular sport, with an industry 

which has a £1.3 billion off-course betting turnover, 

with £237 million gross win for bookmakers and core 

industry income of £119 million, it seems inconceivable 

that racing Greyhounds are often kept in such dire 

conditions. The Greyhound Board of Great Britain has 

made £1.2 million available to professional trainers 

(over four years) and their stipendiary stewards 

should inspect each kennel a minimum of twice a 

year, plus an inspection by a vet. It is clear that this is 

not enough. A voluntary approach hasn’t worked. If 

we are to protect and improve the welfare of racing 

Greyhounds, the regulations need to be extended and 

properly enforced. 

Our investigation reveals why. 

Adrian Burder 

CEO 

... the scope of the 

regulations only 

covers the welfare of 

Greyhounds when 

they are racing at a 

track, where they 

spend less than 

10% of their time. 

1

A Dogs Trust Report 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Dogs Trust carried out an in-depth three month 

investigation into the conditions of Greyhound training 

kennels in the UK. Our investigations can reveal that 

there is a clear need for an independently monitored 

inspection scheme and legislation to be brought in to 

cover the conditions in which Greyhounds are housed 

in ‘off track’ kennels. Nine trainers were visited at their 

kennels housing racing Greyhounds. We are using this 

report to highlight the worst conditions seen. 

The investigation sought to get footage and 

information on the state of kennelling of Greyhounds 

away from the track, their conditions, size and how 

these compare to existing regulations (The Animal 

Boarding Establishments Act 1963 and the Welfare of 

Racing Greyhound Regulations 2010), plus record how 

dogs are kept in each kennel, record or note exercise 

routines, number of staff to dogs within kennels and 

training establishments. 

Of the trainers visited, three kept Greyhounds 

in extremely poor conditions, needing urgent 

investigation. The remainder all had areas needing 

improvements. It is important to note that the 

standards they were being evaluated against were 

GBGB’s own rules and the Boarding Establishments 

Act – both of which we consider to be outdated 

and only cover very basic welfare standards. You 

will see from the examples that whilst some of the 

kennels were passable, others were extremely poor 

quality. But, we are not only concerned about the 

fabric of the kennels – more consideration must be 

given to adequate staffing levels, socialisation and 

environment enrichments for dogs that are kennelled 

for a considerable length of time. 

This report is not designed to name and shame 

individuals, many of whom are often operating at a 

financial loss. It is to highlight the poor kennelling 

conditions which still exist in an industry making an 

annual income of over £237 million for bookmakers 

(Deloitte Report: Economic Impact of British Greyhound 

Racing Industry 2014). The same report also states that 

on aggregate it appears highly likely that trainers make 

a loss from their Greyhound operations estimated as 

£3 million per annum i.e. trainers are net contributors 

to the financing of the industry. With the average age 

of a GBGB licenced trainer being 59, and approaching 

retirement, it may mean there is little incentive for 

them to invest in kennel improvements. 

It is clear that in order to bring many kennelling facilities 

up to standard, more money needs to be invested and 

clear guidelines need to be laid down in the form of 

regulation. Breeding and boarding establishments 

have legislation and regulations to cover them with 

independent inspections taking place; we see no 

reason why Greyhound kennels should continue to 

evade legislative scrutiny. 

... there is a clear 

need for an 

independently 

monitored inspection scheme 

and legislation to be brought 

in to cover the conditions 

in which Greyhounds are 

housed in ‘off 

track’ kennels... 

2


MAIN FINDINGS OF THE 

INVESTIGATION 

Welfare Concerns at Greyhound Kennels 

Conditions in at least three of the trainers’ kennels 

would, in the opinion of the investigators, severely 

breach both GBGB minimum standards Rule 212 and 

CIEH Guidance on Animal Boarding Establishments 

Act 1963. 

Conditions at many other of the trainers’ kennels 

would, in the opinion of the investigators, breach 

some GBGB minimum standards and the Animal 

Boarding Establishments Act 1963. 

Potential Breaches included; 

• Kennels which were in filthy conditions that 

were soaked in urine and excreta that appeared 

not to have been cleared for days. 

• No signs of disinfectant or cleaning materials on 

the premises and no evidence of kennels being 

cleaned and disinfected for a considerable time 

due to thick layers of dust and cobwebs. 

Other Welfare Concerns for Greyhounds 

• Many trainers reported numerous injuries to 

Greyhounds within the kennels. 

• Some trainers admitted to significantly 

minimising the use of veterinarians and self 

medicating their Greyhounds. 

• Some trainers reported poor transport 

conditions for Greyhounds travelling from 

Ireland to be sold in the UK. 

• Some trainers only fed animals once a day due 

to their Greyhounds running in Bookmakers 

Afternoon Greyhound Races (BAGS). Trainers 

were also under pressure to buy low graded 

dogs from Ireland to supply the demand for 

BAGS races. 

• Several trainers did not appear to have adequate 

heating facilities. 

• Kennels showing signs of neglect with 

dangerous sharp pieces of metal and wood that 

could cause injuries to dogs. 

• Significant rot and water damage to roofs – 

some had collapsed posing a real danger to 

dogs. 

• Kennels were dark and dank with inadequate 

light. 

• Food preparation areas that were extremely 

dirty and chemicals directly above food 

containers. 

• No firefighting equipment on the premises. 

3


FIELD INVESTIGATION 

APPROACH AND 

INVESTIGATION 

METHODOLOGY 

In order to observe and evaluate conditions in kennels 

housing racing Greyhounds, our investigators posed 

as potential buyers of Greyhounds on behalf of a 

gambling syndicate. 

Greyhounds and also CIEH guidance on the Animal 

Boarding Establishments Act 1963. This template 

enabled them to give an opinion on specific suspected 

breaches of guidelines. In addition any other relevant 

points relating to the welfare of Greyhounds which 

came up in conversation with the trainers were also 

noted. 

After each visit a video log was completed. This log 

highlighted the footage which potentially breached 

GBGB guidelines and noted any ‘interesting’ pieces of 

conversation which arose. 

This approach enabled us to question trainers 

regarding potential welfare issues as well as to carry 

out a visual inspection of the kennels to see if they 

abided by GBGB’s own voluntary minimum standards 

for kennelling of racing Greyhounds. 

Initial research was undertaken to gain a full 

understanding of the Greyhound industry which 

included monitoring Greyhound media such as 

newspapers, websites and forums and speaking to 

people who had worked in the industry. 

Further approaches were made to GBGB, retired 

Greyhound establishments and Greyhound trainers to 

get a further understanding on the logistics of buying 

a racing Greyhound. 

Greyhound trainers that housed over 30 Greyhounds 

were then contacted over the phone to arrange 

meetings at their kennels. It should be noted that a 

number of trainers were wary of strangers visiting 

kennels and recommended visiting them initially at 

race meetings. 

After each visit with the trainers our investigators 

completed a standardised template for conditions 

observed at the kennels which highlighted whether 

the conditions witnessed complied with GBGB’s 

own minimum standards (rule 212) for keeping of 

This log 

highlighted the 

footage which potentially 

breached GBGB 

guidelines... 

4


CASE STUDIES 

After each visit with the trainers the investigators 

completed a standardised template for conditions 

witnessed at the kennels. 

This template highlighted whether the kennels 

complied with: 

• GBGB’s own minimum standards for the keeping 

of Greyhounds (Rule 212) 

• CIEH guidance on the Animal Boarding 

Establishments Act 1963* 

The following summaries of the five worst kennels 

investigated outlines where both GBGB and CIEH 

guidance was breached, and also included any other 

relevant findings uncovered by the investigators. 

*See appendix for list of GBGB and CIEH comparative guidelines 

Conditions in at 

least three of the 

trainers’ kennels 

would, in the opinion of 

the investigators, severely 

breach both GBGB minimum 

standards Rule 212 and 

CIEH Guidance on Animal 

Boarding Establishments Act 

1963. 

Conditions at many other 

of the trainers’ kennels 

would, in the opinion of the 

investigators, breach some 

GBGB minimum standards 

and Animal Boarding 

Establishments 

Act 1963. 

5


6


TRAINER 1 

• Trainer 1’s facilities housed over fifty Greyhounds. The dogs were generally in pairs with the size of each 

kennel adhering to the guidelines. The site was very haphazard in its construction with almost every 

type of material being utilised – wood, metal, breeze blocks, and even a converted oil drum-type plastic 

container. While the floors of the kennels were concrete, one outside run consisted of concrete paving 

slabs and several of these were uneven, making it dangerous for any dogs or people walking on this area. 

• The kennels were very dirty, with shredded newspaper bedding that smelled strongly of urine, and showed 

evidence of neglect, with signs of chewing on the walls and doors. The flooring of the majority of the 

kennels was soaked in urine and there were numerous excreta in many kennels that had not been cleared 

up for what appeared to be several days. The outdoor runs did not appear to have been cleared at all for 

several weeks. The kennels were dark and dank in appearance. The only light was from the doorways at 

either end of two of the blocks in two of the three kennels. There were no visible heating appliances and 

no evidence of hot running water on the site. 

• Although several kennels had natural gaps in the metal sheeting which did provide ventilation, the 

investigators believe that during the winter months the dogs would struggle to stay warm as there were 

no facilities to provide external heating. 

• The food preparation area was entirely separate from the kennels. It is a metal storage container as seen 

on dockyards, and was untidy. 

• Most of the Greyhounds that were seen were either carrying some form of injury from recent races or 

had just recovered from an injury. Trainer 1 seemed resigned to the fact that his and every other trainer’s 

dogs were injured at almost every occasion when racing. When asked about the presence of a vet or 

physiotherapist for the dogs, Trainer 1 stated that this wasn’t needed as he treated them himself and had 

been doing so for a long time. Several Greyhounds had balding areas (particularly around their rear legs) 

– when commented on by the investigators, Trainer 1 suggested “thyroid problems” as an explanation. 

• Dangerously sharp pieces of wood and fixings were visible in the kennels, risking injury to both Greyhounds 

and humans. No visible firefighting equipment was present at the kennels, and the investigators noted 

that it would be difficult to access the site should a fire break out, as the entrance to the yard has high 

gates. 

• This trainer and kennels was of particular concern due to the state of the kennels and the assertion that 

veterinary treatment is not given to the injured dogs. Trainer 1 puts all of the animals at significant risk and 

should be thoroughly investigated. 

7


8


TRAINER 2 

• Trainer 2’s facility housed over fifty Greyhounds. The dogs were generally in pairs with the size of each 

kennel adhering to the guidelines. However, the investigators noted significant rot and water damage, 

and collapsed rooves were seen in numerous kennels along with dangerously sharp pieces of wood 

and other fixings. The kennels were also very dark and dank in appearance. The only light was from the 

doorways at either end of two of the blocks in two of the three kennels and no heating appliances were 

in evidence. 

• The kennels were very dirty and showed clear signs of neglect. Walls and doors had been heavily chewed 

over what appeared to be a period of many years, there was a heavy lining of surface dust everywhere, 

and there were cobwebs even on the sawdust bedding. The majority of the flooring was soaked in urine 

and there were excreta in many kennels that had not been cleared up for what appeared like several days. 

The outdoor runs did not appear to have been cleared at all for several weeks. 

• The food preparation area was extremely dirty with signs of deep dirt and grime that had been present for 

months. There were chemicals and other unknown substances stored above the cooking pots, presenting 

a real danger of leakage into the dogs’ food. There were hundreds of dead flies on fly strips hanging all 

around the area. The utensils and pots were all old and rusty, and there was evidence of many months – 

probably even years – of hoarding of papers, bags, and tools throughout the whole preparation area. 

• Most of the Greyhounds were very noisy, leading Trainer 2 to shout ”shut it!” or “shut up!” at various 

points. Some appeared nervous, with one described by the trainer as a “nervous wreck”. One Greyhound 

was seen being forced into a practice trap for exercise. This trap showed little sign of use and its roof was 

rotted and partially collapsed. 

• There appeared to be several non-Greyhounds at the kennels that had simply been abandoned at the 

premises and were now living with the racers. 

• Although several unused kennels had piles of combustible materials such as sacking and plastic bags 

inside them, no firefighting equipment was seen at the site. 

• This trainer and kennels was of particular concern due to the state of the kennels overall and the fact 

that Trainer 2 was managing them all on their own. Trainer 2 was clearly unable to cope with little or 

no assistance, which put all of the animals at significant risk. Trainer 2’s kennels need to be thoroughly 

investigated. 

9


10


TRAINER 3 

• Trainer 3 housed over fifty Greyhounds. The dogs were generally housed in pairs with the size of each 

kennel adhering to the guidelines. The walls of the kennels were generally of breeze block construction. 

There were a number of kennels in which wood planks (which served as a wall to keep sawdust bedding 

within the kennels) contained metal lips which had loosened and posed an apparent danger to the dogs. 

However, the kennels appeared to be adhering to GBGB minimum standards in terms of construction, 

size, ventilation and lighting. 

• There was a strong smell of urine throughout the establishment. There were several kennels which 

contained excreta and at several locations around the facility there were large bags of excreta covered in 

flies. 

• All Greyhounds were accommodated with suitable bedding and given adequate exercise in accordance 

with guidelines. 

• One section of the kennels was being fed during the investigation however the other kennel areas were 

very noisy. Water was present at each kennel. 

• There were several larger outdoor areas that some dogs were seen running around in. Trainers stated that 

there were gallops nearby but they were not seen by investigators. 

• There was no evidence of any double action locking devices on the doors or windows giving access to the 

kennels. There were only bolts and latches on the kennel gates and doors. 

• The food preparation area for the Greyhounds was contained within the same areas as that for humans. It 

was untidy and showed no signs of being cleaned or disinfected to an appropriate standard for humans or 

animals. The potential for cross contamination was deemed to be high. There were no visible safeguards 

present to inform staff and visitors that they should wash their hands and sterilise utensils to control the 

spread of infectious disease. 

• The trainer stated that all dogs were inoculated. Proof was not provided. 

• The majority of dogs were deemed to be in good health however, serious concerns were raised regarding 

potential cross contamination between dogs and humans due to lapsed hygiene. There were also concerns 

over the kennel’s inadequate firefighting equipment. 

11


12


TRAINER 4 

• This trainer housed over 50 Greyhounds. The Greyhounds were generally housed in pairs with the 

size of each kennel adhering to the guidelines. The walls of the kennels were largely of breeze block 

construction and of dimensions consistent with GBGB guidelines 

• Several Greyhounds were removed, whilst investigators were at the site, to be given a massage and 

treated with a portable ultrasound device to treat minor injuries sustained in recent races. 

• All kennels observed were clean and free of excrement, urine and faeces in accordance with GBGB 

guidelines. 

• All dogs appeared to be given appropriate bedding and investigators witnessed the trainer exercising 

a number of dogs. There was a 90m long run attached to several of the dogs’ outdoor kennels which 

they had access to as well as a two acre field. The trainer also mentioned several times that he regularly 

took the dogs to be exercised at the beach a mile away from the kennels. 

• There was no evidence of double action locks on the inside of door and windows – only bolts and 

latches in breach of GBGB guidelines. 

• All dogs had clean fresh water. The food preparation area was entirely separate from the kennels and 

work surfaces were of a good hygiene standard. 

• There were brushes in every kennel area and cleaning materials in several places which suggested 

precautions were taken to prevent and control the threat of infection. 

• The kennels were housed within large barn buildings converted into kennels. The ceilings were high 

and airy and adequately ventilated. 

• This trainer knew every dog by name and could give in depth details about their racing careers and their 

medical history. He had a close working relationship with his veterinary team and used physiotherapists 

every six weeks to treat the dogs. He was keen to highlight that he would not only reject dogs which 

were offered to him in poor condition but he made sure that he would make the seller known to others 

in the business if they attempted to sell dogs which had been treated badly. He raised concerns that he 

believed the majority of breeders and sellers from Ireland did not have the dogs’ best interests at heart. 

13


14


TRAINER 5 

• This trainer housed over 50 Greyhounds. The Greyhounds were generally housed in pairs with the size of 

each kennel adhering to the guidelines. 

• The walls of the kennels were largely of breeze block construction and of dimensions consistent with 

GBGB guidelines. However, the doors were of wooden construction and were worn down by the dogs’ 

claws. This, however, did not appear particularly dangerous to dogs or humans. The kennels all appeared 

to adhere to the guidelines in terms of size, construction, lighting and ventilation 

• All kennels observed were clean and free of excrement and urine in accordance with GBGB guidelines. A 

relation or partner of the trainer claimed it was too costly to get the Local Authority to remove excrement 

from the kennels so they favoured using a company who deliver the dog food to incinerate it for 25p per 

Kilo. 

• All kennels contained adequate and appropriate bedding. 

• There were appropriately six large outdoor areas that some dogs were seen using. The kennels also 

contained a 150m long run used to train the dogs and access to a two acre training field near to the 

facility. 

• There was no evidence of double action locks on the inside of door and windows – only bolts and latches 

in breach of GBGB guidelines. 

• All dogs had clean fresh water. The food preparation area was entirely separate from the kennels – this 

general area, however, appeared dirty although work surfaces were clean in appearance. The kitchen 

area for employees and the Greyhound food preparation area were both deemed dirty and unkempt. 

• There were brushes in every kennel area and cleaning materials in several places which suggested 

precautions were taken to prevent and control the threat of infection. However, a large bag of horse 

meat was on a work surface next to an open outside door and window, which was resulting in flies being 

attracted to the meat. 

• The kennels also contained windows which were opened to ensure the kennels were adequately 

ventilated. 

• This trainer knew every dog by name and could give in depth details about their racing careers and 

their medical history. Echoing Trainer 4, Trainer 5 also said that the majority of Irish breeders were only 

interested in making money and not providing well-bred dogs. The trainer states that the kennels only 

deal with one or two Irish breeders resulting from an established working relationship. 

15


APPENDICIES 

GBGB RULES OF RACING 

MINIMUM STANDARDS 

RULE 212 

Each greyhound shall be accommodated in secure 

kennels with not more than two Greyhounds housed in 

each unit. 

CIEH GUIDANCE (1993) 

ANIMAL BOARDING 

ESTABLISHMENTS ACT 1963 

Each dog must be provided with a separate kennel 

except that dogs from the same household may share a 

kennel of adequate size with the written consent of the 

dogs’ owner. 

Buildings shall be constructed of Brick, Concrete or 

Breeze. Timber or any other suitable material approved 

by the club can be used providing that all walls, 

partitions and passageways have readily cleanable 

surfaces and that they are lined with an approved fire 

resistant material. 

Buildings shall have a minimum of two metres head 

room, with adequate enclosed grooming space or 

enclosed veranda. 

Each double unit shall be at least 2.3 metres in depth, 

with a width of at least 1.5 metres and provides with a 

wooden (or similar insulating material) bench to give a 

single bedding area of at least one metre square with a 

depth of 20cm to the floor. The distance from the front 

of the bed to the front of the kennel shall be at least 1.25 

metres. Single units shall be at least 2.3 metres depth 

with a width of at least one metre. 

Where wood has been used in existing construction 

it must be smooth and treated in order to render it 

impervious. Wood should not be used in exposed 

construction of walls, floors partitions door frames or 

doors in the dog kennelling area. 

All internal surfaces used in the construction of walls, 

floors, partitions, doors and door frames to be durable, 

smooth and impervious. There must be no projections 

or rough edges liable to cause injury. 

Partition walls between kennels must be of solid 

construction to a minimum height of 1.2 metres. 

No reference. 

The floor of the kennel shall be properly constructed 

of a non – absorbent material, the surface of which is 

properly maintained and easily cleaned. 

All floors of kennels and individual exercise areas must 

be constructed and maintained in such a way as to 

prevent the ponding of liquids. 

Each kennel shall be provided with adequate natural or 

artificial light and regulated ventilation. 

During daylight hours light must be provided to exercise 

and sleeping areas so that all parts are clearly visible. 

Where practicable this must be natural light. 

All excreta and soiled material shall be removed at least 

twice daily and more often if necessary from all living 

compartments and at least twice daily from exercise 

areas. 

Each kennel must be cleansed daily. All excreta and 

soiled material must be removed from all areas used by 

dogs at least twice daily and more often if necessary. 

16


Facilities shall be provided for the collection of all 

used bedding and other waste material which shall be 

disposed in a manner approved by the Local Authority. 

No reference. 

All Greyhounds accommodated on the premises 

shall be provided with suitable bedding and be given 

adequate exercise. 

Suitable bedding equipment must be provided which 

allows the dog to be comfortable and which is capable of 

being easily and adequately cleaned and sanitised. All 

bedding material must be maintained in a clean, parasite 

free and dry condition. 

All Greyhounds shall be adequately supplied with 

suitable food and water and visited at suitable intervals. 

All dogs must be adequately supplied with suitable food. 

Wholesome water must be available at all times and 

changed daily. 

Eating and drinking vessels must be capable of being 

easily cleaned and disinfected to prevent crosscontamination. 

They must be maintained in a clean 

condition. 

Eating vessels must be cleansed after each meal. 

Drinking vessels must be cleansed at least once a day. 

Ample exercise facilities shall be readily available. 

No reference to exercise areas. 

When Greyhounds are being transported, the Trainer 

will be responsible for safety and welfare of those 

Greyhounds. This will include suitable restraint and 

adequate air management to ensure their well-being at 

all times, including when the vehicle is stationary. 

No reference to transportation. 

Children under the age of 15 shall not be in charge of a 

Greyhound. 

No reference to age. 

17


Double action locking devices shall be fitted to the 

inside of all doors and windows giving access to the 

kennels, except the one giving general entrance, where 

locks shall be operated on the outside. Bars shall be 

fixed over the inside of all windows and sky lights or: 

alternatively, suitable close mesh or gauze shall be fitted 

to the inside of windows and/or ventilators. All hinges 

and screws thereof shall be covered or made secure by 

extra bolts. 

All supplies of food shall be kept in a secure place which 

shall be kept clean and vermin free at all times. 

Where metal bars and frames are used, they must be 

of suitable gauge (approximately 10-14) with spacing 

adequate to prevent dogs escaping or becoming 

entrapped. Where metal edging is used, this must not 

present a risk of injury to the dog. 

Exclusive facilities, hygienically constructed and 

maintained, must be provided for the storage and 

preparation of food for the dogs. 

Where fresh and cooked meats are stored, refrigeration 

facilities must be provided, and potential food 

contamination must be avoided. 

Containers must be provided for the storage of foods 

and shall be so constructed and kept in such good order, 

repair and condition as to be proof against other insects 

and other pets. 

All reasonable precautions shall be taken to prevent and 

control the spread of infectious or contagious diseases. 

Adequate precautions must be taken to prevent and 

control the spread of disease and parasites amongst the 

dogs, staff and visitors. 

A Greyhound in licenced kennels shall be required to 

have vaccinations against: 

i. Distemper 

ii. Viral Hepatitis 

iii. Leptospira Canicola 

iv. Leptospira Icterhaemorrhagiae 

v. Parovirus 

and any other vaccination as required from time to time. 

Proof must be provided that dogs boarded or resident 

have current vaccinations against Canine Distemper, 

Infectious Canine Hepatitis, Leptospirosis and Canine 

Parvovirus and other relevant diseases. The course 

of vaccination must have been completed at least four 

weeks before the first date of boarding or in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s instructions. A record that this 

proof has been supplied must be kept onsite throughout 

the period the dog is boarded. 

Complete cleansing and disinfection of any kennel 

shall be carried out when vacated and before any other 

Greyhound is admitted to that Kennel. 

Each occupied kennel must be thoroughly cleansed, 

disinfected and dried upon vacation. All fittings and 

bedding must be thoroughly cleansed and disinfected at 

that time. 

18


All heating appliances shall be of such construction as to 

constitute no risk of fire. 

Heating appliances must not be sited in a location or 

manner where they represent a fire risk to dogs. 

All premises shall be provided with electric light, 

telephone; running cold water and access to hot water. 

A sink with hot and cold running water must be 

provided. 

19


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Dogs Trust worked with the agency Tracks to 

conduct this investigation. 

Dogs Trust is the UK’s largest dog welfare charity 

caring for over 17,000 dogs at its network of 20 

Rehoming Centres throughout the UK. We will never 

put a healthy dog to sleep. Our mission is to bring 

about the day when all dogs can enjoy a happy life, 

free from the threat of unnecessary destruction. 

Dogs Trust is a registered charity in England [227523], 

Scotland [SC037843] and Ireland [CHY16218]. 

Tracks Investigations is an ethical investigation 

agency supporting the work of conservation and 

animal protection NGO’s and charities worldwide. 

Attribution 

Attribution: Any use of the information in this report 

must be credited to Dogs Trust and you must not alter, 

transform or build on the material. 

For further information please contact: 

Laura Vallance 

Head of Public Affairs 

Laura.vallance@dogstrust.org.uk 

Report design by 

Anna Mackee 

www.annamackee.com 

20


For more info, please contact 

Laura Vallance 

Head of Public Affairs 

Laura.vallance@dogstrust.org.uk 

Head office: 

17 Wakley Street London 

EC1V 7RQ 

020 7837 0006 

www.dogstrust.org.uk 

info@dogstrust.org.uk 

Registered Charity numbers: 227523 and SCO37843 

22

greyhound 2015

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?