Gaping holes in flawed greyhound report

THE case for Premier Mike Baird’s greyhound ban has been dramatically undermined after it emerged that graphic evidence used to justify the shutdown was more than 10 years old and had nothing to do with NSW.

Mr McHugh’s “chilling” report into the NSW greyhound industry is being used as the state government’s central justification for wiping out the sport from next July. Picture: Nathan Edwards

THE case for Premier Mike Baird’s greyhound ban has been dramatically undermined after it emerged that graphic evidence used to justify the shutdown was more than 10 years old and had nothing to do with NSW.

Errors have also been found in calculations in the report, adding to the seven mistakes and amendments that have already been acknowledged by its author, former High Court judge Michael McHugh.

And in a further blow to the document’s credibility, the report cites research carried out by an animal rights group, partly via social media and “personal contacts” of the research team, who questioned only a small number of people in NSW.

Mr McHugh’s “chilling” report into the NSW greyhound industry is being used as the state government’s central justification for wiping out the sport from next July.

But a dog breeder who makes a highly emotive claim that he drowned surplus puppies — right at the start of the document — is actually from the US and was speaking prior to 2005.

Mr McHugh linked the breeder’s quotes to shocking claims that up to 40 per cent of greyhounds born in NSW never make it to the racetrack and up to 68,448 were killed over 12 years because they weren’t up to scratch.

. Nathan Austin with Happy Petracca. Pic Nathan Edwards

The report reads: “The evidence shows that 40 per cent of those greyhounds whelped never make it to the racetrack. As one breeder stated, ‘Dogs who don’t have the instinct [to chase] or the tools to be a consistent winner, well a good handler can spot it a mile away ... most of the time I’d drown the pups’.”

But the man being quoted was not a NSW breeder — he was an American called “Ernie” operating in the US.

Mr McHugh sourced the quote from a 2015 report by the Working Dog Alliance Australia, which failed to point out where “Ernie” was from.

The quote was originally printed by Canadian-based ­academics in a 2005 report about the US greyhound industry. It appeared “Ernie’s” reference to drowning puppies may refer to a period well prior to 2005.

The Canadian academics have acknowledged their “ideological position as supporters of animal rights”.

Other flaws in the McHugh report include a table of data comparing the number of dogs officially named in NSW to those making it to the racetrack that is based on incorrect percentage calculations.

The claims - and the holes

Earlier this week, Mr McHugh retracted his claim that a slimmed-down greyhound industry — a key measure that may have reduced the number of greyhound deaths — was not financially sustainable.

Mr McHugh’s report also cites a survey of fewer than 2500 people — many of whom were found on social media or were “personal contacts” of the research team — to back up its assertion that “large sections” of the industry would resist positive changes.

Of the small number of people questioned, only 15 per cent were members of the greyhound racing industry. And only 35 per cent lived in NSW.

“Nonetheless, it tended to confirm what other evidence before the commission has indicated,” the report says. “That sections of the industry, perhaps large sections, are hostile to change that is necessary, if the industry is to continue.”

Mr McHugh did not respond to a request for comment last night. Mr Baird insisted the report looked at the global greyhound industry and said Mr McHugh’s reputation was “unblemished and of the highest order”.

The report recommends only Parliament consider a ban and offers recommendations for reform, which the government dismissed. Opposition Leader Luke Foley said the doubts raised about the justification for the ban “confirmed the need for the government to hit the pause button”.

“There needs to be a sensible debate on improving animal welfare standards without destroying the livelihoods of decent people who have done nothing wrong,” he said.