Failure to give voice to our plea to revoke mandatory muzzling of sighthounds

In April I called upon the members of the Australian National Kennel Council Limited (Dogs Australia) to advocate against the mandatory muzzling of all sighthounds competing in team Lure Coursing events and continued seeking replies.

Over the months that followed, I received advice to redirect my enquiry to my local member body (Dogs Tas 16/4/25 pers. comm.). Other members declined to act (Dogs Queensland 19/6/25 pers. comm.), commenting that no concerns were raised by their members (Dogs West 19/6/25 pers. comm.), or declined to comment (Dogs VIC 19/6/25 pers. comm. and Dogs NSW 20/6/25 pers. comm.).

Unfortunately, my local member body also declined to act (Dogs SA 1/7/25 pers. comm.), commenting that my proposal was not supported by the State Lure Coursing Advisory Committee. The SA Lure Coursing Advisory Committee added that intend to wait for next rule review in 2029 to raise any concerns.

In short, members of Dogs Australia chose not to advocate against the introduction of mandatory muzzling of all sighthounds competing in team Lure Coursing events, despite the capacity for rules to be reviewed between formal, 4-yearly rule review in Australia.

This leaves us with the introduction of mandatory wearing of muzzles (Rule 5.81): a clear indication that Dogs Australia chose to approve an added risk to sighthounds completing in fast-paced, team Lure Coursing events, rather than to ensure the existing rules that protect the integrity of Lure Coursing events and the safety of sighthounds are adequately upheld. That is, that every sighthound can prove its ability to course the lure (Rule 7.1), that a sighthound that interferes with another is dismissed (Rule 6.2), and that a sighthound that is aggressive to another can since subsequently prove its ability to course the lure before being allowed to enter another trial (Rule 6.3).

What you can do, if this affects you directly:

• If your sighthound is the only one of its breed running in an open class, they do not need to wear a muzzle (ie only hounds competing in a brace or trio are required to wear a muzzle; Rule 5.8).
• If you have two sighthounds that would otherwise compete in the same open class, you can request that they run separately; cite Rule 9.4 when you submit your entries.
• If your sighthound is likely to compete with others in a brace or trio, be aware the current muzzle specifications suit only larger breeds, such as Greyhounds2 and fail to take into consideration the real variation in sighthound breeds, or availability of muzzles for purchase (e.g. suitably sized muzzles that do not contain metal). Allow plenty of time for you and your sighthound to practice building value of the muzzle, and getting used to wearing the muzzle during everyday movement, before the high paced, and high arousal environment, of a Lure Coursing trial.
• Report any breaches of Rules 7.1, 6.2, or 6.3 to your club and member body.
• Report any injuries caused by muzzles to your club and member body.

Thank you for your continued support! 

1 Dogs Australia. 2024. Rules for the conduct of Lure Coursing Sanctioned Events. Dogs Australia. Accessed 01/12/2024. https://dogsaustralia.org.au/media/10291/8-da-lure-coursing-rules-01-01-25.pdf

2 Greyhound Racing SA 2009. Greyhound Racing: Get involved! Greyhound Racing SA, Regency Park SA