Time to end greyhound racing in the ACT

chewy14 said :

mcs said :

chewy14 said :

mcs said :

chewy14 said :

Dame Canberra said :

Wait, what? The ACT Government funds our greyhound racing industry close to a million dollars per year and Canberra only gets around half of that value back in return?

Surely that money could be better spent elsewhere.

Yeah that doesn’t sound legit, I’d like to see the reports quoted here. Does that “value to the local economy” include all gambling revenue going back to the government as well as all other associated benefits of this industry?

That number is correct – see the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission Report from 2011. No gambling revenue from ACTTAB goes back to the Government anymore – ACTTAB has been privatised.

Ignoring the welfare issues for a moment, if you are going to run the economic benefit argument against the Greyhounds, the same argument should be raised against the other two racing codes as well – the harness racing and the thoroughbreds. Their economic returns are equally as pitiful, in particular when you consider that the Horses get somewhere around $7 million pa.

Ah yes I found it. That number is the 2009-10 number and us only the direct return to the ACT government, leaving out the gambling revenue return (which admittedly for ACT dogs will be tiny anyway) out or any indirect benefits that flow from the industry.

Interestingly, the ICRC thinks it’s reasonable to treat the racing industry separate from the wagering industry. Surely they’re almost totally linked and should be looked at holistically.

Either way this article isn’t really comparing apples with apples by trying to use that figure to claim the greyhound industry isn’t viable in the ACT. Unless the author wants to remove all public funding for any entity that doesn’t have a direct financial return to the government.

The gambling return to the ACT from betting on ACT racing is tiny, across all codes. I can’t remember where I saw it but only a small part of the turnover of ACTTAB is actually from betting on ACT races – with a vast majority of it on interstate racing, across all codes.

I’d guess this was the basis of the work done to suggest they were racing and wagering were ‘seperate’ questions in the ACT. Quite clearly, as you identify, they are not per say – but I guess the view taken was that ACTTAB would easily survive with or without actual local racing product, whereas the local industry would not survive without funding provided by Government (originally through ACTTAB, now through the Budget).

Yes, taken in isolation, of course ACTTAB would survive without an ACT racing industry but what happens when every state takes the same view? That their wagering industries will survive without their racing industries because gamblers will simply bet on someone else’s racing?

There is a limitation in that way of thinking that tries to split the two industries. At some point, limiting the product will severely limit the revenue or any prospect of growth.

Of course that doesn’t apply across all states, and if it did would be a disaster. But I think its a fair way to look at the ACT context itself – and one really does wonder why the Government spends so much money a year to prop up the industry.

Interestingly enough, there is a significant push from the TABs etc to develop alternate revenue streams compared to Australian racing product (for instance, cartoon racing through trackside, and a lot more coverage of international racing) – mainly because its far cheaper for them in terms of fees payable on the content.

mcs said :

chewy14 said :

mcs said :

chewy14 said :

Dame Canberra said :

Wait, what? The ACT Government funds our greyhound racing industry close to a million dollars per year and Canberra only gets around half of that value back in return?

Surely that money could be better spent elsewhere.

Yeah that doesn’t sound legit, I’d like to see the reports quoted here. Does that “value to the local economy” include all gambling revenue going back to the government as well as all other associated benefits of this industry?

That number is correct – see the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission Report from 2011. No gambling revenue from ACTTAB goes back to the Government anymore – ACTTAB has been privatised.

Ignoring the welfare issues for a moment, if you are going to run the economic benefit argument against the Greyhounds, the same argument should be raised against the other two racing codes as well – the harness racing and the thoroughbreds. Their economic returns are equally as pitiful, in particular when you consider that the Horses get somewhere around $7 million pa.

Ah yes I found it. That number is the 2009-10 number and us only the direct return to the ACT government, leaving out the gambling revenue return (which admittedly for ACT dogs will be tiny anyway) out or any indirect benefits that flow from the industry.

Interestingly, the ICRC thinks it’s reasonable to treat the racing industry separate from the wagering industry. Surely they’re almost totally linked and should be looked at holistically.

Either way this article isn’t really comparing apples with apples by trying to use that figure to claim the greyhound industry isn’t viable in the ACT. Unless the author wants to remove all public funding for any entity that doesn’t have a direct financial return to the government.

The gambling return to the ACT from betting on ACT racing is tiny, across all codes. I can’t remember where I saw it but only a small part of the turnover of ACTTAB is actually from betting on ACT races – with a vast majority of it on interstate racing, across all codes.

I’d guess this was the basis of the work done to suggest they were racing and wagering were ‘seperate’ questions in the ACT. Quite clearly, as you identify, they are not per say – but I guess the view taken was that ACTTAB would easily survive with or without actual local racing product, whereas the local industry would not survive without funding provided by Government (originally through ACTTAB, now through the Budget).

Yes, taken in isolation, of course ACTTAB would survive without an ACT racing industry but what happens when every state takes the same view? That their wagering industries will survive without their racing industries because gamblers will simply bet on someone else’s racing?

There is a limitation in that way of thinking that tries to split the two industries. At some point, limiting the product will severely limit the revenue or any prospect of growth.

bikhet said :

dungfungus said :

pajs said :

No need for a ban. Just remove the government subsidy and let them stand on their own feet. Same goes for horse-racing.

Why stop there?
The big money goes to the four football codes and not necessarily through the front door. There is absolutely no return on investment subsidising any sport.

I’ll agree with you if you are referring to professional/commercial sport, but can see some benefit in the government subsidising junior/amateur sport.

ActewAGL and TransACT used to be the major sponsors of junior/amateur sport as well as the large professional clubs. I think they have curtailed their involvement since they had a change in the board/ownership. I think the horse racing industry (how does it qualify as a sport?) gets subsidised by the government. The government couldn’t even make a meaningful profit from running a TAB.

dungfungus said :

pajs said :

No need for a ban. Just remove the government subsidy and let them stand on their own feet. Same goes for horse-racing.

Why stop there?
The big money goes to the four football codes and not necessarily through the front door. There is absolutely no return on investment subsidising any sport.

I’ll agree with you if you are referring to professional/commercial sport, but can see some benefit in the government subsidising junior/amateur sport.

gazket said :

Dame Canberra said :

I think the key point is that the ACT Government is using taxpayer money to prop up an industry that delivers a negligible return on investment.

Join the queue , there is plenty of that going on. We are paying for electricity that will be used by South Australians .

Ah well put Gazket.

chewy14 said :

mcs said :

chewy14 said :

Dame Canberra said :

Wait, what? The ACT Government funds our greyhound racing industry close to a million dollars per year and Canberra only gets around half of that value back in return?

Surely that money could be better spent elsewhere.

Yeah that doesn’t sound legit, I’d like to see the reports quoted here. Does that “value to the local economy” include all gambling revenue going back to the government as well as all other associated benefits of this industry?

That number is correct – see the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission Report from 2011. No gambling revenue from ACTTAB goes back to the Government anymore – ACTTAB has been privatised.

Ignoring the welfare issues for a moment, if you are going to run the economic benefit argument against the Greyhounds, the same argument should be raised against the other two racing codes as well – the harness racing and the thoroughbreds. Their economic returns are equally as pitiful, in particular when you consider that the Horses get somewhere around $7 million pa.

Ah yes I found it. That number is the 2009-10 number and us only the direct return to the ACT government, leaving out the gambling revenue return (which admittedly for ACT dogs will be tiny anyway) out or any indirect benefits that flow from the industry.

Interestingly, the ICRC thinks it’s reasonable to treat the racing industry separate from the wagering industry. Surely they’re almost totally linked and should be looked at holistically.

Either way this article isn’t really comparing apples with apples by trying to use that figure to claim the greyhound industry isn’t viable in the ACT. Unless the author wants to remove all public funding for any entity that doesn’t have a direct financial return to the government.

The gambling return to the ACT from betting on ACT racing is tiny, across all codes. I can’t remember where I saw it but only a small part of the turnover of ACTTAB is actually from betting on ACT races – with a vast majority of it on interstate racing, across all codes.

I’d guess this was the basis of the work done to suggest they were racing and wagering were ‘seperate’ questions in the ACT. Quite clearly, as you identify, they are not per say – but I guess the view taken was that ACTTAB would easily survive with or without actual local racing product, whereas the local industry would not survive without funding provided by Government (originally through ACTTAB, now through the Budget).

pajs said :

No need for a ban. Just remove the government subsidy and let them stand on their own feet. Same goes for horse-racing.

Why stop there?
The big money goes to the four football codes and not necessarily through the front door. There is absolutely no return on investment subsidising any sport.

I worked to re-home greyhounds for five or six years. My family would foster dogs under the Greyhound Adoption Program and prepare these sleek and noble beasts (thanks Darryl) for new lives on people’s lounges and laps. We took more than a dozen dogs from the track to fantastic new lives in some surprising settings.
I think it’s a bit rich to tar the entire industry with the disgusting efforts of a few. What about we send some people to jail, fine them until their eyes squint and warn ’em off for life. But the actions of a few are not the answers of all. It’s more complex than just “ban it NOW”. But perhaps that’s a too sophisticated approach. Perhaps all we can do is just stand and scream, rather than working to solve a problem.

vintage123 said :

When I was a child growing up in the country my parents looked after a friends greyhound whilst he went on holidays, whilst it was gentle in nature and very passive as soon as it saw our three cats halfway down the paddocks it chased them and killed them all. We were too naive and too slow to do anything. When the owner returned he explained that he used live baits to train his greyhounds. Looks like nothing has changed.

Amazing how “My dogs never” and “That’s an exaggeration, it’s only the few bad apples” then becomes total astonishment that what everyone knows about is a day to day fact. Then after being FORCED to do something about it with a virtual gun held to their heads, they will claim to have cleaned it all up.

At that point that you know it is back to business as usual.

btw The RSPCA does its good work hampered by those in various industries who join it with the sole aim of sabotaging its efforts to prevent cruelty to animals.

mcs said :

chewy14 said :

Dame Canberra said :

Wait, what? The ACT Government funds our greyhound racing industry close to a million dollars per year and Canberra only gets around half of that value back in return?

Surely that money could be better spent elsewhere.

Yeah that doesn’t sound legit, I’d like to see the reports quoted here. Does that “value to the local economy” include all gambling revenue going back to the government as well as all other associated benefits of this industry?

That number is correct – see the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission Report from 2011. No gambling revenue from ACTTAB goes back to the Government anymore – ACTTAB has been privatised.

Ignoring the welfare issues for a moment, if you are going to run the economic benefit argument against the Greyhounds, the same argument should be raised against the other two racing codes as well – the harness racing and the thoroughbreds. Their economic returns are equally as pitiful, in particular when you consider that the Horses get somewhere around $7 million pa.

Ah yes I found it. That number is the 2009-10 number and us only the direct return to the ACT government, leaving out the gambling revenue return (which admittedly for ACT dogs will be tiny anyway) out or any indirect benefits that flow from the industry.

Interestingly, the ICRC thinks it’s reasonable to treat the racing industry separate from the wagering industry. Surely they’re almost totally linked and should be looked at holistically.

Either way this article isn’t really comparing apples with apples by trying to use that figure to claim the greyhound industry isn’t viable in the ACT. Unless the author wants to remove all public funding for any entity that doesn’t have a direct financial return to the government.