This year, greyhound racing in Britain turns 100 years old. The first race ran on July 24 1926 in Manchester, where six dogs chased a mechanical hare around a track.

Recently, the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) published its 2025 welfare figures, under a reassuring headline: licensed racing “maintains high welfare standards”.

Look closely, and those same welfare figures show that a dog in 2025 was 77% more likely to die at the racetrack (from fatal injury or being put down following an injury) than when the industry’s welfare strategy was introduced in 2022, even accounting for the fact there have been fewer races and fewer racetracks operating.

In terms of a percentage of race starts, that increase in likelihood of death seems small - from 0.03% to 0.05%. But behind that percentage are 161 dogs who died at the track in 2025: more than three dogs a week.

The GBGB is responsible for both promoting and running greyhound racing, and for regulating it. This means the same entity that works to keep the sport thriving is also the one that reports on how its dogs cope.

The numbers that guide approval

Most of the public seem to believe that people have a moral responsibility to prevent, or at least minimise, poor welfare in animals that they use for any purpose. If an industry using animals loses public approval, the activity is probably operating on borrowed time. The case for greyhound racing continuing rests largely on the industry’s own records.

---

Read more: Ringling Bros circus closure shows our changing attitudes to animals in captivity

---

The UK government said in October 2025 that it has no plans to ban greyhound racing in England, pointing to improvements made by the GBGB, such as its 2022 welfare strategy, and the laws already in place, which require a vet at every race meeting and set standards for record keeping.

UK law recognises dogs as sentient beings – that they have feelings like joy or frustration. Once you accept that (as animal welfare scientists do), our responsibility when caring for animals doesn’t stop at minimising suffering. It extends to enabling the good experiences a life worth living requires.

What the industry figures leave out

The GBGB publishes annual figures on injuries, deaths and where dogs go when they leave racing, and presents them to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Few animal-reliant industries are this forthcoming.

A combined total can be accurate in reporting the national injuries dogs sustained while racing, but not tell the whole story. When we built a more complete picture using AI agents (under human supervision) and public websites, more details became visible.

Our research used five public-facing websites that together contained information about 31,028 dogs and 1.27 million races between 01 January 2022 and March 31 2026.

It is a new use for this technology, one that makes the data fully visible.

The data from these websites gave us a fuller picture of the greyhounds that race. Our findings showed us that equal numbers of male and female dogs race, most dogs are black, and they typically start racing before turning two years old. We can also pull out the story of individual dogs, to better understand their experiences.

For example, the 12,999th dog (selected at random and anonymised) in our dataset was a black male, bred in Ireland. He raced at Kinsley stadium (West Yorkshire) 15 times from March 2023, winning four times in early races. The records then show he experienced a succession of rough races from May, jostled by the pack and constantly checking his stride to avoid crashing into the dogs around him. This resulted in him finishing at or near the back of the pack, until his final race in August 2023, when his racing and public record stop, just five months after starting.

This dataset found that some racetracks recorded serious incidents while racing (such as a dog striking a rail or being knocked over by another dog) up to five times as often as others. This is something the annual, nationally aggregated data release does not illuminate, although government committees have been asking for it.

Of individual dogs racing, 85% were bred and reared in the Republic of Ireland, beyond the reach of the GBGB, which regulates racing but has no oversight of their breeding and early lives. Most dogs only race for around one year, and the rate at which they leave racing has not changed since 2022 when the GBGB’s A Good Life for Every Greyhound welfare strategy was introduced. Welfare charities have raised concerns about oversupply and “wastage” (dogs bred in large numbers and then discarded), with animal shelters often shouldering the role of rehoming.

Once dogs exit racing, most vanish from public view. Over 95% of dogs that have left racing cannot be checked, as they are no longer subject to public reporting requirements.

What are the most likely causes of poor welfare?

A report released in July 2026 from Blue Cross, Dogs Trust, Hope Rescue and the RSPCA outlines the systemic welfare challenges they believe that greyhounds in the UK face.

The report suggests that poor welfare can arise at every life stage. The charities say they are concerned about breeding practices that are harmful such as surgical artificial insemination (banned in Britain but still used in the Republic of Ireland where most racing dogs are bred) and inbreeding; estimates some dogs spend 95% of their time in kennels; and health issues (such as teeth and limb problems) that follow dogs once they exit racing.

Britain isn’t deciding the future of animal-reliant industries like greyhound racing in isolation. In the past year, New Zealand, Wales, Scotland, and a second state in Australia have all decided to end greyhound racing on animal welfare grounds.

Public acceptance and government policy should not rest on figures provided by the industry, but on independent data assemblies which are available for deeper interrogation.

Before trusting any welfare claim, consider these three things:

• Can you see the data behind it?
• Who collected it, and do they profit?
• Does it really show you the animals’ lives?

A hundred years of industry record keeping has not answered whether the welfare of these dogs is acceptable in 2026. Independent scrutiny might.

Editor’s note: A spokesperson for the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) said: “As the sport’s regulator, GBGB is the only organisation with access to the full, verified dataset relating to injuries and fatalities across licensed greyhound racing in Great Britain. GBGB publishes an independently verified summary of this dataset annually, providing a level of transparency and detail that exceeds the reporting requirements set by Defra.”

In the last fifteen years, Dr Mia Cobb has received funding to research or advise on the welfare of racing greyhounds from the Australian Government, Greyhound Racing New South Wales, RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, and Racing & Wagering Western Australia. Her current role is funded by The John McKenzie Fellowship from the University of Melbourne and the Chaser Innovation Research Fellowship (Canine Welfare Science). Dr Cobb also sits on the joint Dog Welfare & Ethics Advisory Panel for Assistance Dogs International and the International Guide Dog Federation, the advisory committee for PetRescue, and chairs the Dog Welfare Advisory Committee for Guide Dogs Victoria.

Donald Maurice Broom does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The massive and deadly floods on the Nepal-Tibet border are a stark reminder of why the world needs to constantly update its understanding of the fragile ecosystem in the Himalayas.

These towering mountains contain nearly 90,000 glaciers, which sustain ten major river systems. Countries nearby, including India, Pakistan, China, Afghanistan, Nepal and Bhutan, are reliant on water resources that cross borders here. As major river-based hydro economies, their agricultural production, energy security and wider economic stability depend on the availability and the timing of river flows.

Changes in snowmelt, glacier retreat and water availability can cause untold hardship for millions of people relying on it. It can also create incredible danger as seen in August 2026, when a flash flood caused by a collapsed glacier washed away villages, bridges and roads on both sides of the Tibet-Nepal border, killing more than 1,000 people.

Understanding and measuring winter snowfall in these regions is exceptionally important. It is the main source of freshwater when it is released by snow melting during the region’s warm and early-summer crop growing seasons, when local communities need it most.

---

Read more: Nepal-Tibet disaster linked to climate change – a glaciologist explains

---

Understanding future Himalayan hazards

No one knows precisely how much water the mountains currently provide, and how this will change. This knowledge gap also hinders our understanding of the occurrence of geo-hazards including avalanches triggered by extreme snowfall events and flooding caused by the rapid melting of snow.

The recent Nepal disaster could be related to a spell of unusually warm weather. This may have weakened the snowpack creating a rapid melt. I work with a team of glaciologists at the British Antarctic Survey, whose team had sensors six miles (10km) away from the site. Results suggest that enhanced melting could have introduced water into the crevasses weakening the ice-rock connections.

Studies project that roughly half of the glacier ice in the Himalayas (equivalent to about two billion Olympic swimming pools) could melt by the end of this century – enough to raise sea levels by over a centimetre but there is still considerable uncertainty in these projections.

This is because we do not have enough measurements of snowfall and ice across large areas in this challenging terrain. As a result, scientists often have to extrapolate from relatively small numbers of observations to enormous and highly varied terrain.

Computer-based tools (known as models) that combine available observations with information about land and the atmosphere have proved to be indispensable and often come to rescue when gap-filling is necessary. But models are only as good as the observations used to constrain them.

New scientific approaches are beginning to offer solutions, but they are rather sparse and insufficient on their own beyond the region where they have been tested.

For example, my recent study with colleagues found a new way to accurately measure mountain snowfall reducing measurement errors dramatically – measuring snow has been a long-standing problem because of which mountain water resources have been hugely underestimated over the years.

Another regional study recently reported a measure of the water stored in some of the key Nepalese glaciers using an airborne method that involves taking an aerial survey of the region using instruments mounted on a helicopter. Scientists are also using a technique known as radar interferometry, which uses a combination of radio waves to detect very fast-moving mountain slopes that risk collapsing.

A combination of one or more such techniques could be used to predict where snowfall is concentrated, how much water it is likely to contribute to the region and also identify areas at risk. New information could be used to cast early warning preparedness strategies feeding into a forewarning system for timely evacuation of the region’s most vulnerable.

What happens next?

Scientific innovation alone will not be enough. There is an urgent need for proven ideas to be commercially adapted and systematically deployed across critical zones. The numbers and the imminent dangers involved can now no longer be left to discussions in research papers and conferences, they must be made public on the equivalent of a war footing.

An evacuation success story from the Swiss village of Blatten in 2025 shows what this can achieve. Hundreds of people were moved out before a huge section of the glacier broke off. The authorities had already identified areas at risk and publicly shared hazard maps. Continuous monitoring of the landscape, precipitation and ground movement fed into an early warning system.

But success stories from the west cannot simply be transplanted wholesale into the Himalayan context because of the region’s inhospitable elevation, harsh weather and limited infrastructure. An approach that factors in indigenous and traditional knowledge should be part of plans and policies.

What is also needed in the Himalayas is a far more highly coordinated monitoring network that brings together everyone who depends on and manages mountain water. This would include potential state and non-state organisations, researchers, local authorities and mountain communities. Communities should be central to this effort. Local people can help install and maintain monitoring equipment, collect observations and contribute knowledge of their own environment.

Examples of existing successes from the region include the use of community-managed reservoirs to artificially store meltwater, the construction of ice stupas (an artificial glacier) and glacier grafting techniques to grow new, water-producing glaciers designed to gradually release water during the growing season. The community-based flood warning system in parts of Nepal’s Koshi basin is a success story but is limited in its approach to provide alerts during a cascading disaster, such as the one we witnessed recently.

These results should help policymakers and scientists understand how communities dependent on mountain ecosystems are responding to change – and what support they need to adapt to reduce their vulnerability to future hydro-climatic shocks, such as droughts and floods.

Regardless of the current changes in Himalayan snowfall and glacier melt, local people need to play a vital role in helping measure what is happening in the climate system. And that, as well as countries working more closely together, should help with the future planning that is desperately needed.

Siddharth Gumber receives funding from the National Environmental Research Council (NERC), The TEAMx-FLOW project (NE/Z50399X/1).