Something NZ Racing Can't Afford But Do We Need It?

[Chief Stipe]

Who will pay for racing welfare body?

The Thoroughbred Aftercare Welfare Working Group has spent more than a year researching the best way for Australian racing to look after racehorses once their careers on the track are over.

 

By Brad Waters
03:20am • 30 November 2021

26

Comments

A levy on punters’ betting accounts was suggested as one way in which to fund the proposed Thoroughbred Welfare Australia body.

The Thoroughbred Welfare Australia proposal is a key part of more than 43 recommendations made by the Thoroughbred Aftercare Welfare Working Group, which was convened to investigate the best way for racing to support horses once they leave racetracks.

Four vets, including the former Victorian Premier Dr Denis Napthine, headed the Thoroughbred Aftercare Welfare Working Group (TAWWG), which was supported by racing and breeding identities such as champion trainer Chris Waller and Godolphin Australia boss Vin Cox.

After working through 180 written submissions, including from top racing participants such as Ciaron Maher and Tony Gollan, and more than 50 meetings the TAWWG compiled a 141-page report on the management of horse post-racing.

The report noted a national approach to thoroughbred welfare is vital as is all stakeholders lobbying state and federal governments for a national traceability register of thoroughbreds ensuring their locations are known throughout their lives.

The TAWWG estimated the cost of setting up TWA and implementing the rest of its key recommendations to be in the vicinity of $10 million.

The panel suggested some of that money come from bookmakers with breeders and owners also contributing.

Under the plan, breeders would pay $300 soon after a foal is born while owners would pay another $300 when their horses, including imports, are registered to race in Australia.

Jockeys, trainers and betting companies could be asked to contribute a small portion of their earnings towards thoroughbred welfare.

 

“The TAWWG recommends the industry should establish an efficient funding mechanism for TWA,’ the report read.

“This could include a small levy on breeders, trainers, owners, jockeys, and contributions from Racing Australia, sponsors and charitable donations. “

The TAWWG plan called for bookmakers to set aside a percentage of turnover for horse welfare or to pay a charge based on the number of account holders betting on racing.

“Another potential revenue source is from bookmakers … this could come from a very small percentage of turnover on thoroughbred racing, or a contribution based on the number of account holders that bet on the sport,” the report read.

“With $29 billion bet on horse racing in Australia last racing season, setting aside a very small percentage of turnover for welfare could easily make a significant funding contribution.”

“Another mechanism worth exploring is seeking an annual payment from bookmakers for every active account that bets on racing.

“With an estimated 4 million active wagering accounts in Australia, a contribution of 50 cents per active account would provide $2 million to fund welfare activities.”

The TAWWG report also called on jockeys and trainers to pay one per cent of their earnings via prizemoney into a thoroughbred welfare fund.

 

[Freda]

We need SOMETHING... but only a handful of breeders, owners, trainers, could afford to lose even  small portion of their meagre earnings at present.

[Chief Stipe]

23 hours ago, Freda said:

We need SOMETHING... but only a handful of breeders, owners, trainers, could afford to lose even  small portion of their meagre earnings at present.

Why do "we need SOMETHING"?  Did we really need ANYTHING in the past?

Or is it being driven by a loud minority (are they actually that loud or are they imagined?) who dont really care a sod about racing?

[Freda]

There are plenty of cowboys who couldn't give a sh#t about the welfare of their charges post-racing....or, for that matter, the safety of the [ mostly] young people who take these horses on.

And - I have personally had dealings with some of these - well meaning but out-of-their-depth women [ usually ] who decide to 'rescue' a racehorse and the poor bastard ends in a terrible state.

I read a post from Berri Schroder a few years ago, about humane destruction of horses which are just not suitable for rehoming.  A decent facility for processing these horses is sorely needed, as the horror stories from the Aus scandal channel  showed a while ago.   They can't all be kept, it just isn't practical for horse or human.

[Chief Stipe]

22 minutes ago, Freda said:

There are plenty of cowboys who couldn't give a sh#t about the welfare of their charges post-racing....or, for that matter, the safety of the [ mostly] young people who take these horses on.

And - I have personally had dealings with some of these - well meaning but out-of-their-depth women [ usually ] who decide to 'rescue' a racehorse and the poor bastard ends in a terrible state.

I read a post from Berri Schroder a few years ago, about humane destruction of horses which are just not suitable for rehoming.  A decent facility for processing these horses is sorely needed, as the horror stories from the Aus scandal channel  showed a while ago.   They can't all be kept, it just isn't practical for horse or human.

I agree nearly 100% with your post @Freda!  Probably a first!  What's more from what I've seen in the past with many such schemes the majority of the money taken from the struggling industry stakeholders (the payers) goes on marketing and administration.  It doesn't actually go towards whatever the perceived problem is.

If I read you correctly there isn't really an existing problem other than an imaginary one that is being played upon by a small group that are totally anti-racing. Yes - I come from a farming background so have a practical view point based on the fact that in my mind a horse is a stock animal.  The industry cannot afford to rehome every animal or care for them from the cradle to their natural grave.  It isn't as if we are mass producing animals and then selectively culling at birth or within the first two years.  It is just too expensive to do that and the industry is focused on producing horses that can perform.  Sorry dogs but you have some shyte to sort out!  I agree with the humane culling aspect but after recent experience with a dry stock farm the rules and regulations in NZ seem to be far beyond what we have seen in the controversial hidden cameras from Australia.

I see some irony in the way the industry is run and horses that in the past could have had a long and productive life are being forced out e.g. the aged durable gelding and the slow mudder with incredible stamina.  We no longer even see the Stallion stars of yesteryear that competitively race on to six or seven years of age.  Seems we have more and more mares doing that though!