FAQ's about Western Australia’s greyhound racing industry

1. Why are people against greyhound racing? 

Too many dogs are bred 
The greyhound industry breeds more dogs than there are homes or tracks for. Not every dog is fast enough to race, and not all dogs are successfully rehomed post-racing, creating a persistent oversupply.  

Data from the past 10 years by Racing and Wagering WA shows that even in the best years, nearly a quarter of greyhounds never make it to the track — and in the worst years, almost 40% fail to do so.  

While there is a re-homing program funded the State Government, around 33% of ex-racing greyhounds are rehomed through community programs. Crucially, these programs are funded entirely by volunteers and local groups, not the racing industry, placing a heavy financial and logistical burden on the very communities trying to care for these dogs. 

Dogs are injured and sometimes killed while racing 
Greyhounds race at high speeds, often in close groups, which increases the risk of collisions and falls. This can lead to serious injuries like broken bones, and some dogs are euthanised as a result. These are not rare events — they happen regularly enough to be a major welfare concern.  

It’s hard to get the full picture of what happens to every dog 
There isn’t a complete, publicly accessible system that tracks every greyhound from birth through to death. Data that is available is often limited or not independently verified, making it difficult to understand the true scale of injuries, deaths, and long-term outcomes.  

The same organisation promotes and regulates the industry 
In Western Australia, Racing and Wagering WA is responsible for growing the industry and overseeing welfare standards. This creates a conflict of interest — it’s difficult to independently regulate something you are also trying to promote and financially support.  

2. Don’t greyhounds love to race? I thought they were born for it. 

Greyhounds are naturally fast dogs, and many enjoy running. But there’s an important difference between a dog choosing to run in a safe environment and being made to race in a competitive setting. Racing involves pressure, close contact with other dogs, and a real risk of injury. So, the question isn’t whether greyhounds can run — it’s whether it’s acceptable for them to be put in situations where harm is likely. 

3. Owners and trainers say they love their dogs. Wouldn’t they look after them? 

Many people in the industry do care about their dogs. However, the welfare concerns are not just about individual care — they’re about how the system works overall. Greyhound racing depends on breeding large numbers of dogs and selecting only the fastest. Dogs that are injured, don’t perform, or are no longer competitive still need long-term care. Not all of these dogs end up in good outcomes, which is where the concern lies. 

4. What will happen to all the dogs if greyhound racing is banned?  

A transition would need to be carefully managed. This would likely include gradually reducing breeding; supporting rehoming and adoption programs; and government providing funding for care and rehabilitation. Other countries have shown that, with proper planning, most greyhounds can successfully move into homes as pets. 

5. Doesn’t the greyhound adoption program already solve the problem of what happens to ex-racers? 

Rehoming programs are important, but they only deal with part of the issue. They happen after dogs have already been bred and raced. They don’t prevent injuries, deaths, or the number of dogs being bred in the first place. To fully understand welfare, you have to look at the dog’s entire life — not just what happens at the end. 

The industry has a rehoming program known as GAP – Greyhounds as Pets and they rehome a large proportion of ex-racing greyhounds, however 33% of greyhounds no longer racing are rehomed through community programs. Crucially, these programs are funded entirely by volunteers and local groups, not the racing industry, placing a heavy financial and logistical burden on the very communities trying to care for these dogs. 

6. Isn’t it hypocritical for RSPCA WA to be against greyhound racing when every year they put down a lot more animals than the greyhound industry? 

The situations are very different. RSPCA WA cares for animals that are often very sick, badly injured, or unsafe to rehome. In those cases, euthanasia is sometimes the most humane option to prevent further suffering. Greyhound racing, on the other hand, is an entertainment industry. The harm happens as part of that activity — not as a last resort. RSPCA WA’s focus is on preventing avoidable harm wherever possible. 

7. What do other countries think about greyhound racing? 

Greyhound racing is much less common than it used to be. Around the world, it now legally operates in only a small number of countries, including Australia, Ireland and the United Kingdom. The others are the United States, where there’s only one track left, and New Zealand where it will be banned from August 2026 due to ongoing welfare concerns.  

Australia has more greyhound tracks than the rest of the world combined. That gives some context for where things are heading internationally — and how different Australia’s position is. 

8. Aren’t there rules and officials to protect the dogs? 

Yes — there are stewards, rules, and veterinarians involved in the greyhound racing industry. However, having rules does not always translate into good welfare outcomes.  

Evidence shows that serious injuries and deaths still occur. Also, there are significant differences in how breaches of the rules are handled: violations of the greyhound industry’s own racing rules are often treated differently from similar breaches of the Animal Welfare Act 2002. 

Concerns about independence also remain, since the same organisation is responsible for both promoting and regulating the industry, raising questions about accountability and impartial oversight. 

9. Greyhound racing has been around for a long time. Why change now? 

Many things that were once widely accepted have changed as we’ve learned more and community expectations have evolved. For example, laws around animal welfare, farming practices and the use of animals in entertainment have all shifted over time. As our understanding grows, it’s reasonable to reassess activities — especially where there is clear evidence of harm.