Maddy

Nope, no idea of what the name even is. You would think, given how important (and difficult) it is to get traffic to a website and get a name out there, that they'd be making something public. I know Dol isn't the be-all and end-all of rescue but I've heard nothing about it on any of the bigger rescue FB groups, either. PetRescue didn't get to where they are by doing anything quietly- we might not agree with the direction PR is going these days but if there was one thing they did well, it was getting the PR name out there.

This sort of reminds me of something that happened to a friend of mine- The friend had a couple of pedigree pekes and wanted to breed a litter to keep entirely for herself. The breeder of the pekes said the match was fine but to do the usual vet checks first. Friend went to a vet in a lower socioeconomic area and the vet assumed she was planning on backyard breeding pekes for profit and was being very pushy about her desexing them, instead. Now, in the vet's defense, most of the breeding he sees is irresponsible and profit-motivated. Same vet used to do euthanasia for the local RSPCA so he knows all too well what happens to a lot of backyard bred pups. Same vet also happens to be my vet and I know he would've only said what he honestly thought was best (given he didn't know the friend or her reasons for wanting to breed). And although I did explain all this to the friend, she was still pretty miffed to be treated like puppy farming scum. Unfortunately though, when you're the exception to the rule.. that's how it is. Having to put down young, healthy dogs with minor, fixable injuries isn't going to create an especially positive opinion of the people involved, even if some of them are being forced to do it against their own better judgement.

I guess they didn't send them out to everyone, which seems like a questionable move before they've even started.

It was rushed through because it is a land grab, from the rumours I've heard the developers already have their hands up for Wentworth Park saying pick me. To add insult to injury they are not from Australia. The Greens well anything for a vote. While I honestly do understand how you feel I have also been on the other side of the coin from working in the industry. I took a dog to the vet she had been bitten on the leg by her neighbour as she was trying to steal his bone. The vet who didn't know me took xrays and informed me that infection had got into the bone and she couldn't send the dog home with me she needed to stay there. I knew what the owner was like and I knew he wasn't going to pay for the dog to stay at the vet and yes he said put it down, I tried to get the dog but he appeared to think I had an ulterior motive. I made a special trip into town so I could be with the dog as she was being euthed as I'm walking out the car bawling my eyes out the older vet who knew me was walking out with me saying how sorry he was that he had been away when I originally came in and that he was unable to change the young vets mind and how he wished I had been his patient as he would have let me take the dog knowing I would have treated her and not let her suffer in any way, talk about a triple whammy, mistrust from both industries (except the older vet) and the only real loser in the whole scenario a dead dog that didn't need to be. I'd had better days. I also have known lovely owners who I really liked it takes all kinds to make a world. ETA I was actually surprised at what the young vet told me as there was very little swelling and the dog wasn't lethargic at all, but I'm not a vet. My old boy had osteomyelitis in one of his toes (he tore the nail slightly at the base, bacteria got into the base of the nail, spread up into the bone) and he showed no signs of any discomfort, either. The only reason I noticed was he had some lick staining on one particular toe. Initial course of broad spectrum ABs did nothing. Second course of much stronger ABs seemed to start working but then stopped. We made the choice to amputate that section of toe before the infection got any further. We were very lucky in that not only was the infection just in the toe, but in the very last bone of the toe, which meant we had time to try other things and when it did have to come off, it was a quick, cheap and easy surgery that he recovered from really well. Osteomyelitis in a leg bone could be a whole other issue though and could require complete removal of that leg so I can understand the younger vet's reasoning. If the owner was a tightarse, the prospect of a heap of money spent to end up with a three-legged dog.. I doubt they would've been keen on that. Also, if the owner refuses to sign over the dog, the young vet was (unfortunately) right to refuse to give the dog to you. She would have been breaking the law to do so. It's sad that the dog ended up dead just because the owner was too selfish/stupid to just let her go to someone else but then, I've heard of perfectly healthy greys being destroyed because the owner doesn't want someone else to make money off a dog that they failed with. I think it's maybe less about the actual money and a bit more about the pride. Which when you think about it, is even more disgustingly selfish. She refused to send the dog home with me prior to contacting the owner. She told me that they could treat it better at the clinic. I also didn't see the x-rays She didn't even give me a chance as you were given. The older, more experienced, just as caring vet who knew me was prepared to though I did find it odd. The way things are now the owner couldn't have told me to euth the dog. I worked in a rearing kennel the dogs weren't racing As he came from Tassie (he couldn't see his dogs) and had about 6 dogs with us he probably thought that I was going to take it to race because Id noticed it was fast or something like that who knows. I wonder if that was because they suspected the dog would not be returned for treatment or that medication regime would not be complied with. Although as I understand it, their legal obligations don't actually extend to preventing the withholding of veterinary care. The law might be different up there but down here, if a vet suspects you won't return with an animal who requires care, the only thing they can really do (legally) is report it to the RSPCA for follow-up (which many won't do because it can discourage people from bringing their animals in to the vet to start with). That aside, the cheap, short-term treatment would most likely just be ABs and some anti-inflammatories and those can be given just fine at home. I think I would've been wanting to know exactly what treatment they were starting and why they felt the dog was better off staying at the clinic- considering a home environment might be better for a number of reasons. If you have legal responsibility for an animal (which, as defined by the AWA, you would, as a trainer or rearer), they can't just refuse to give the dog back to you. Unless the bill hadn't been paid yet- that makes it a whole different story. I've seen dogs (pet dogs, not greyhounds) withheld from their owners at clinics because the owner turned up to collect the dog with no money to pay the bill.

It was rushed through because it is a land grab, from the rumours I've heard the developers already have their hands up for Wentworth Park saying pick me. To add insult to injury they are not from Australia. The Greens well anything for a vote. While I honestly do understand how you feel I have also been on the other side of the coin from working in the industry. I took a dog to the vet she had been bitten on the leg by her neighbour as she was trying to steal his bone. The vet who didn't know me took xrays and informed me that infection had got into the bone and she couldn't send the dog home with me she needed to stay there. I knew what the owner was like and I knew he wasn't going to pay for the dog to stay at the vet and yes he said put it down, I tried to get the dog but he appeared to think I had an ulterior motive. I made a special trip into town so I could be with the dog as she was being euthed as I'm walking out the car bawling my eyes out the older vet who knew me was walking out with me saying how sorry he was that he had been away when I originally came in and that he was unable to change the young vets mind and how he wished I had been his patient as he would have let me take the dog knowing I would have treated her and not let her suffer in any way, talk about a triple whammy, mistrust from both industries (except the older vet) and the only real loser in the whole scenario a dead dog that didn't need to be. I'd had better days. I also have known lovely owners who I really liked it takes all kinds to make a world. ETA I was actually surprised at what the young vet told me as there was very little swelling and the dog wasn't lethargic at all, but I'm not a vet. My old boy had osteomyelitis in one of his toes (he tore the nail slightly at the base, bacteria got into the base of the nail, spread up into the bone) and he showed no signs of any discomfort, either. The only reason I noticed was he had some lick staining on one particular toe. Initial course of broad spectrum ABs did nothing. Second course of much stronger ABs seemed to start working but then stopped. We made the choice to amputate that section of toe before the infection got any further. We were very lucky in that not only was the infection just in the toe, but in the very last bone of the toe, which meant we had time to try other things and when it did have to come off, it was a quick, cheap and easy surgery that he recovered from really well. Osteomyelitis in a leg bone could be a whole other issue though and could require complete removal of that leg so I can understand the younger vet's reasoning. If the owner was a tightarse, the prospect of a heap of money spent to end up with a three-legged dog.. I doubt they would've been keen on that. Also, if the owner refuses to sign over the dog, the young vet was (unfortunately) right to refuse to give the dog to you. She would have been breaking the law to do so. It's sad that the dog ended up dead just because the owner was too selfish/stupid to just let her go to someone else but then, I've heard of perfectly healthy greys being destroyed because the owner doesn't want someone else to make money off a dog that they failed with. I think it's maybe less about the actual money and a bit more about the pride. Which when you think about it, is even more disgustingly selfish.

I don't hate every trainer on the planet and I've acknowledged here and in other threads that there are some who actually do care. You basically popped up on Dol when this thread appeared and presumably couldn't be bothered to read older threads on the racing issue to get any sort of idea about me or how I feel about racing before you rushed into idiotic assumptions and imply that I am nutty and have no decency. I'm not an anti, I'm not a nutter and I'm not some AR vegan kook. It's people like you, however, who make me even more sure that banning the sport was probably the right thing to do.

Maybe it'll give industry participants an insight into how emotionally damaging it is to have to rescue their dogs; one after another, year in and year out, a never-ending stream of dogs, never enough space, having to turn dogs away knowing they'd die, being emotionally blackmailed by trainers, having to hold dogs as they die because they can't be rehomed but their owners won't take them back. And that's on top of the abuse copped from industry participants- being called a do-gooder, being told that our rescued dogs would have been happier dead (seriously) and all the while, being treated as a free dog disposal service. Maybe Lifeline could talk to some of the burnt-out and broken rescuers who gave up their lives/money/family just for the love of the dogs, if they want to hear about people contemplating suicide or having breakdowns I really do feel for you Maddy, I have walked your talk also which is why I am an advocate for the industry to continue with strict reforms put in place. In 11 mths time I don't want to feel those feelings of helplessness, sorrow for the many dogs that will die. I just don't want it,it's bad enough as it is. To be honest, I don't understand people that think an avalanche of dogs that will die, because the industry comes to a screeching halt is better than a trickle being able to be rescued, due to the slow death because it may not be sustainable as has happened in America. Call me thick but I just don't get it. I absolutely agree that the shut down should have been organised differently- starting with a ban on further breeding, followed by a ban on new registrations or transfers into NSW after a certain point (24 months after banning breeding would be plenty of time to get the last pups through) and then allowing the industry to just age out gradually. A plan like that would be at least five years but by the time it finally stopped, numbers would have been reduced anyway by the breeding ban and proper rehoming systems could have been organised and put in place for the remaining dogs. I also have serious reservations about how the RSPCA is handling this- I got emailed an application form to help the NSW greys, by an organisation with a pretty dreadful history with regards to rehoming, and if I'm being honest, I was quite offended that I should be subject to "approval" by them. Now, I can understand why this approval process might exist but this particular application form was not at all suitable for weeding out the dodgy rescues from the good ones- it was just a pointless hoop to jump through and, I suspect, a means of weeding out as many rescues as they could. Transferring dogs to community rescue groups is more work than just putting them to sleep and I can't help but think (based on my experiences with the RSPCA down here) that outcomes for the dogs will come a distant second to expediency in disposing of dogs. ASAL, no offense, but you don't know shit about the sorts of people who drop dogs off at my house or call me about "disposing of" their dogs. You just read my post about the emotional strain that rescuing takes on a person (and believe me, it can be terrible) and then turned that into some absurd waffle about how people who are AR nuts don't think other people have feelings. In reply to me expressing how distressing rescue was/is for me. But anyway.. yes, these people who give no f**** at all about my emotional health are exactly the sort who I have to deal with. The very first dog I ever took was a phone call on a Saturday saying that if the dog wasn't collected by first thing Monday morning, it'd be going to the vet. The next dog came from the vet, owner had dropped it off, said they didn't care what was done with it and walked away. Another from a vet, same thing, over and over again. The worst was actually a few years ago.. a trainer called me to take a dog because he didn't want to pay the $45 disposal cost at the nearest vet. I agreed to take the dog and said I'd call him back to discuss details when I got home (I was at the vet at the time), when I got home and called him, he informed me that he'd had an offer on the dog and if I wanted to save her, I'd have to better the buyer's offer. I couldn't afford a few thousand dollars he claimed the other person had offered so I had no option but to tell him to call me if the sale fell through. According to FastTrack, that poor dog is now "retired". And these are some of the people I have to deal with- they know they can emotionally manipulate me, that they can lie to me, because at the end of the day, the welfare of the dog's is what matters most to me and I'll put up with the stress/lack of money/lack of time/emotional exhaustion. So yeah, they can cry me a f***ing river at this point. They think the industry shutting down is bad, maybe they should try cleaning up after it for almost a decade.

So did this site get officially launched? A rival to Petrescue is great and all but it's not super useful is no one knows it exists.

A few years ago, I named a foster greyhound Lamington. She was black but with really bad scurf, so it kind of looked like someone had sprinkled her in desiccated coconut. Her new owner's renamed her Lucy, which I guess is nice enough but.. meh. Some of the more interesting names I've had.. Islah - Came from a very bad situation with a lot of issues that needed fixing, the name was pretty optimistic on my part but she got there, eventually. Jelly - Named Kelly by her trainer (who names a dog Kelly?) and had to change it to something similar but less awful. Azura (mostly called Zuri) - A daedric prince from the Elder Scrolls. Brinny Doug - Which was a funny name in theory but.. Doug also liked to dig, so that got confusing very quickly. "Who dug the hole?" "Doug." "Yeah, who dug it?" *facepalm* Osti - Originally named Sally2 (we already had a Sally), it was changed to Osti reflect her breeding.

Maybe it'll give industry participants an insight into how emotionally damaging it is to have to rescue their dogs; one after another, year in and year out, a never-ending stream of dogs, never enough space, having to turn dogs away knowing they'd die, being emotionally blackmailed by trainers, having to hold dogs as they die because they can't be rehomed but their owners won't take them back. And that's on top of the abuse copped from industry participants- being called a do-gooder, being told that our rescued dogs would have been happier dead (seriously) and all the while, being treated as a free dog disposal service. Maybe Lifeline could talk to some of the burnt-out and broken rescuers who gave up their lives/money/family just for the love of the dogs, if they want to hear about people contemplating suicide or having breakdowns

I guess wherever there appears to be inconsistency there are two main possibilities. 1) Some things are not true; 2) Most things are true. It seems counter-intuitive, but sometimes apparent inconsistencies are attempts to describe a complex and varied situation. Sometimes one thing is the case and sometimes almost the opposite, but both occur. In the case of greyhounds, people are very emotional and upset. I feel they are saying things without a lot of thought sometimes. Whether those things are correct in some circumstances or not is difficult to figure out. Sometimes there is a story in the grey areas between inconsistencies. There are a lot of things I have been unable to get a straight answer on in the greyhound racing industry. It became apparent after a while that this is because there really isn't one. Lots of variation in how things are done and how people are participating in the industry means there is no single answer that encompasses a majority. agreed and both are true for many.You dont make money out of breeding dogs because all you make goes back into the dogs including infastructure and facilities whch could be sold after you retire but if there is no one any longer needing the kennels etc they drop rapidly in value. This might be true for companion dogs but it's not necessarily true for greyhounds. When you sell a litter of eight greyhound pups for $3,000* each, there is a hell of a lot of money in it. And while some might put profits back into better facilities, many don't. I'm sure there are a few who treat breeding greyhounds as a profession and try to do it to very high standards but the majority would be hobby or casual breeders- a couple of litters a year and to them, not really worth expensive upgrades to facilities or purpose-building things. Most breeders I've seen down here use little tin sheds in dirt yards- hardly the birthing suites at the Cedars-Sinai. *This number is not pulled from the air, by the way. Took a random page of classifieds from GD, worked out the mean price of pups on that page. Mean was $3,125 a pup, median was $3000. It is as true for any breed of dog as any other. There are so many variables that it's impossible for an outsider to judge whether someone is making a profit or not . However, there is no shame in making money out of breeding dogs anyway and if some one is able to do it and still cover doing what is best for the dogs then full marks to them . 8 puppies at 3000 each still doesn't equate to much when consideration is made for vetting dogs from puppy through to adult,vetting of the bitch and the litter ,feeding adult dogs all year and puppies as long as they stay , stud services, and a hundred other things. They sure as hell don't get anywhere near enough to go anywhere near getting paid for their time. If someone is saying things about their state of the art kennels then its a fair guess that this breeder has more than tin sheds and dirt yards, that they have invested lots of time and money into building them and had expectations of getting some of their money back when they sell. I'm not concerned with the moral question of whether or not it's right to make money from animals, just pointing out that in breeding racing greyhounds, there is a great deal of profit to be made. $24,000 is not much? Most puppies aren't vetted from birth to adulthood because they don't remain with their breeder that long. And the vetting they get, from what I've seen, is minimal- the mandatory C3 vaccination, microchip and ear brand. Some might also spring for cheap wormers (although my dog's breeder certainly didn't, the poor puppy was covered in fleas and full of worms at 13 weeks old) and most are feeding cheap meat, not expensive kibbles. Greyhound breeders aren't running a charity, they breed to make money. If breeding greyhounds lost them money, there would be a lot less greyhounds in the world.

I guess wherever there appears to be inconsistency there are two main possibilities. 1) Some things are not true; 2) Most things are true. It seems counter-intuitive, but sometimes apparent inconsistencies are attempts to describe a complex and varied situation. Sometimes one thing is the case and sometimes almost the opposite, but both occur. In the case of greyhounds, people are very emotional and upset. I feel they are saying things without a lot of thought sometimes. Whether those things are correct in some circumstances or not is difficult to figure out. Sometimes there is a story in the grey areas between inconsistencies. There are a lot of things I have been unable to get a straight answer on in the greyhound racing industry. It became apparent after a while that this is because there really isn't one. Lots of variation in how things are done and how people are participating in the industry means there is no single answer that encompasses a majority. agreed and both are true for many.You dont make money out of breeding dogs because all you make goes back into the dogs including infastructure and facilities whch could be sold after you retire but if there is no one any longer needing the kennels etc they drop rapidly in value. This might be true for companion dogs but it's not necessarily true for greyhounds. When you sell a litter of eight greyhound pups for $3,000* each, there is a hell of a lot of money in it. And while some might put profits back into better facilities, many don't. I'm sure there are a few who treat breeding greyhounds as a profession and try to do it to very high standards but the majority would be hobby or casual breeders- a couple of litters a year and to them, not really worth expensive upgrades to facilities or purpose-building things. Most breeders I've seen down here use little tin sheds in dirt yards- hardly the birthing suites at the Cedars-Sinai. *This number is not pulled from the air, by the way. Took a random page of classifieds from GD, worked out the mean price of pups on that page. Mean was $3,125 a pup, median was $3000.

Most of the greyhounds killed are for illness or old age? That alone makes this graphic complete nonsense. I guess all the Greyhounds taken to pounds in multiples, brought in to vets for 'total blood donation' in multiples, being used for non revival surgery training at universities, going in to rehoming programs or just found in mass pits in trainers backyards with bullets in their heads were just old?? All the shelter workers, rescues, vet surgeries and universities are just lying about the masses of the young, healthy greyhounds that come to them? The industry continues to drag its name through the mud and show the country that it has no ability nor intent to change with this blatant denial. I don't think I've ever had a greyhound over the age of five surrendered to me from a trainer. One of my current fosters (Jelly) is only alive because on the day that she was taken to the vet to be bled, they already had more than enough blood and her trainer wasn't willing to pay the $40 for regular euthanasia. Her trainer was upfront about this, he saw nothing wrong with what he had intended to do to a healthy, four year old dog. Most vet clinics in Launceston use blood from living donors (and Jelly has actually donated blood several times since coming to me, two were life-threatening emergencies) so there is no reason for dogs to die just for their blood. Same with surgical training- training new vets is important but I think we need to reconsider what is acceptable there. The claim that only old or unwell greyhounds are euthanased is utter horse shit.

How would anything other than a bag fit under a tie down or not flip a pulley? How would using animals encourage a dog to chase what it knows to be a plastic bag? The dog is looking at the plastic bag when it starts. The bag is right in front of it. Sorry but I fail to see the potential also. What's more important is that I fail to see the incentive. It's not a race and there is no betting. My most prey driven dog will not chase plastic. They either do or they don't. End of story. This. I had a foster dog who was crazy keen on toys- throw a soft toy for her and she'd chase it and do the death shake until the toy bled delicious stuffing. Same dog tested really nicely with cats and went off to live with one. On the other hand, I've had really drivey dogs who had no interest in soft toys. Drive was through the roof but they had zero interest in chasing something that obviously wasn't alive. That interest in chasing a lure was so lacking that drive or not, they ended up with me. Non-chaser on the lure definitely doesn't mean lack of prey drive and if the dog isn't interested in chasing some fake fur, no amount of possums is going to change that.

May be a strange question...do you think that those highly competative in your sport could potentially be doing exactly the same as they do in Greyhound racing to improve performance? About as likely as flyballers doing the same to improve their dogs desire to get the ball ..... In other words, just not going to happen. Flyballers get a ball, lure coursing dogs chase a lure - it's quite different isn't it? Live baiting would work for lure coursing and not for fly ball? Ignorance. Ignorance about sighthounds and ignorance about lure coursing. The dogs KNOW its a plastic bag. Why on earth would you even consider using anything else??? And besides that, why would anyone bother to cheat at lure coursing? There's certainly no financial incentive and if you're doing lure coursing to test your own dog's coursing ability, cheating entirely defeats the purpose.

You know that the muzzling requirements are already BSL? Why should Greyhounds be subject to Breed Specific Legislation, particularly once they will no longer be being bred for the purposes of racing and live baited? Because greyhounds have a higher prey drive than many other breeds, regardless of baiting or training, and there is a percentage that will see small dogs as prey. It's not discrimination, it's a breed trait. I have owned greys with very high drive (and still do) and while they are lovely dogs with people and larger dogs, they absolutely would kill something small and fluffy if they got the chance. Part of being a responsible owner is recognising and managing breed traits- pretending they don't exist does the breed no favours. Prey drive is a *dog* trait, and not exclusive to any one breed. There are many breeds that have a higher potential for prey drive, and many dogs within many breeds that have a high prey drive. There are plenty of dogs of all breeds that will kill other dogs for non-prey drive reasons too. Breed Specific Legislation has been shown time and time again to be a complete failure in preventing dog attacks. Adequate and well resourced animal management and education programs are what is effective. Roughly 25% of greys are not small dog safe. Let one of those dogs off lead at a park with a small dog and you'll have a dead small dog in less time than it takes you to realise what is happening. If your greyhound is muzzled and on leash, it can't chase down, grab and shake to death someone else's pet. Muzzling/leashing greyhounds is in no way similar to BSL for things like bull breeds. Muzzling/leashing is for their safety and the safety of other dogs/cats/small animals. In a perfect world, everyone would be sensible and responsible but back here in reality, greyhounds could be at risk of actual BSL if ignorant idiots are allowed to let their greys run unmuzzled and offlead. I know you don't understand the issue with greyhounds all that well (given you've had this same argument with Hazywal before) but if you're keen to find out for yourself, you're welcome to have one of my high drive fosters for a few weeks >.> (That is a serious offer, by the way. Nothing educates quite like the sight of your dog chasing down and destroying someone else's dog, while the attacked dog's owner screams for it to stop) Roughly 25 per cent of statistics are made up. Prove I'm wrong. It's not that I don't want to wade into a shit fight over numbers, Sheridan, it's just.. yeah, I don't. My number comes from my own prey drive testing rates. GAP Vic had similar rates, last I heard.

You know that the muzzling requirements are already BSL? Why should Greyhounds be subject to Breed Specific Legislation, particularly once they will no longer be being bred for the purposes of racing and live baited? Because greyhounds have a higher prey drive than many other breeds, regardless of baiting or training, and there is a percentage that will see small dogs as prey. It's not discrimination, it's a breed trait. I have owned greys with very high drive (and still do) and while they are lovely dogs with people and larger dogs, they absolutely would kill something small and fluffy if they got the chance. Part of being a responsible owner is recognising and managing breed traits- pretending they don't exist does the breed no favours. Prey drive is a *dog* trait, and not exclusive to any one breed. There are many breeds that have a higher potential for prey drive, and many dogs within many breeds that have a high prey drive. There are plenty of dogs of all breeds that will kill other dogs for non-prey drive reasons too. Breed Specific Legislation has been shown time and time again to be a complete failure in preventing dog attacks. Adequate and well resourced animal management and education programs are what is effective. Roughly 25% of greys are not small dog safe. Let one of those dogs off lead at a park with a small dog and you'll have a dead small dog in less time than it takes you to realise what is happening. If your greyhound is muzzled and on leash, it can't chase down, grab and shake to death someone else's pet. Muzzling/leashing greyhounds is in no way similar to BSL for things like bull breeds. Muzzling/leashing is for their safety and the safety of other dogs/cats/small animals. In a perfect world, everyone would be sensible and responsible but back here in reality, greyhounds could be at risk of actual BSL if ignorant idiots are allowed to let their greys run unmuzzled and offlead. I know you don't understand the issue with greyhounds all that well (given you've had this same argument with Hazywal before) but if you're keen to find out for yourself, you're welcome to have one of my high drive fosters for a few weeks >.> (That is a serious offer, by the way. Nothing educates quite like the sight of your dog chasing down and destroying someone else's dog, while the attacked dog's owner screams for it to stop) Roughly 25% of Greyhounds (trusting your stats here) are not small dog safe after coming from an industry that heavily selected them for intense prey drive, did not socialise them to small dogs in their critical socialisation period (and potentially for years after), reinforced that drive over and over again and live baited many of them. I've got lots of experience with prey driven dogs, and once they've had a live kill (catching rabbits, possums, other animals while out or in their yards) the intensity of the drive goes through the roof and becomes much more difficult to manage. I would be *very* interested to see if that 25% stays once we're dealing with dogs that have not been bred, raised and trained in the racing industry. I suspect it won't. As far as I can tell, Australia is one of the only countries with BSL for Greyhounds, yet other countries are not suffering from rampaging Greyhounds killing every small dog in sight while being allowed to run around off leash. On top of that, plenty of non-greencollar approved greyhounds are currently owned by people who do not comply with the legislation, and yet again we are not seeing rampaging greys on the loose killing other dogs in any sort of regularity. I am not doubting that some Greyhounds are a true safety issue around small dogs, from genetics alone. Those dogs need to be rehomed carefully to owners who take their potential seriously, just like dogs of other breeds that also pose a safety risk. Part of that is likely to be the owner muzzling/leashing them in public. If the risk is too great for that individual dog, they should not be rehomed. "In a perfect world, everyone would be sensible and responsible" - I agree that we don't live in a perfect world but the people that aren't sensible and responsible won't muzzle and leash their greys regardless of the rules. The vast majority *are* sensible and responsible and prevent their dogs ever being an issue. Meanwhile we have 75%+ of Greys that pose no risk subject to legislation that stigmatises them and hinders their adoptability. We've also got animal management officers wasting time attempting to enforce it rather than focusing on other strategies proven to be successful. ETA: I would genuinely love to take you up on your offer, however I can't foster adult dogs - my dog is an arsehole to them on her own property (super social off the property). Not fair on the other dog. It's a shame as given the industry shutdown I'd really love to foster some Greys over the next 12 months and beyond. Drive is not necessarily hereditary- I rehomed the litter sister of a Launceston Cup winner, he was a hard, driven dog, she went to a home with a cat and a chihuahua. I've had two litter sisters, one went on to be rehomed to the owner of our test small dog and the other.. prey drive too high to rehome. Breeders use popular sires thinking that the drive will be present in the pups but more often than not, litters are completely random. As for things like socialisation.. the impacts are questionable. I had a dog surrendered to me who had been rehomed as a baby puppy, lived his whole life with a particular cat and then at 3 or 4 years of age.. chased down and killed that cat. I've taken in several pups (oopsie litters) who were never trained and again, prey drive levels were random- there was one who was cat safe, one was questionable on cats but fine with small dogs, another was definitely not small dog safe. There is a reason why every greyhound needs to be tested and that is that the dog's background is not particularly useful in estimating level of prey drive. Race training doesn't necessarily make any difference and live baiting only amplifies the dogs who were already on the higher end of the scale. With racing gone, drive will be a lot less of a consideration in breeding and for some people (the ones who will let their dog offlead without thinking about it), I suppose that's a good thing. Personally though.. I don't think it's necessarily a good thing for the breed's future. The greys we have today are a product of their purpose- they might not be suited to the sort of person who can't be bothered with a leash but then, the breed shouldn't have to change to suit the lowest common denominator. Water down an important breed trait and you risk losing the characteristics that make the breed what it is. Agree completely that prey drive (or many traits) are not necessarily hereditary as in just because the parent shows it, the pups will too. That's not what I was intending in my original comment - I was more commenting on the overall predisposition within the closed gene pool that is a breed. Dogs still actively being selected for working traits are going to be much more likely to be born predisposed to those breed traits - that is more where my comment lay. Honestly I do hear what you're saying and I do share the concerns about the loss of the characteristics of a breed. I hate to say it but it's very similar to what was heard from many hardcore APBT people... that by banning dog fighting you would lose the APBT in that form (which is a pretty incredible dog.... the dogs still being rescued from busts in the US are something special). It's a difficult line to walk when you balance the inherent cruelty in an industry for the dogs themselves and the traits that industry produces in the dogs you love. I've really liked your posts in this thread over the last few days and I share much of your views. For me, the cruelty and wastage is too much to justify. Excellent APBT people worked their dogs in other ways in an attempt to preserve the breed as best you can without actually using them in dogfighting, and I think a lot are doing a great job and also producing great dogs. I hope that that can happen with Greys too. It would definitely be hard to see them just become another show breed. Unfortunately there's no easy answer, but for me the industry has to go for all the reasons you stated earlier. Personally I am firmly on the side of avoiding BSL and sticking to much more effective animal management legislation and programs but I understand where you're coming from. I do think it's likely that the amount of Greys in the community in 5 years that are a big threat to small dogs will be lesser, and I do think that Grey owners overall have been doing a good job of keeping their dogs and others safe, and I think that will continue long after BSL for Greys is lifted. This is the unfortunate truth. I love the breed as it is now and while my drivey dogs might require different management to something like a lab, they more than make up for it in other ways. Being raised into their teenage months with the rest of their litter means most are perfectly dog sociable (prey drive issues aside); being bred for sport means most are incredibly healthy dogs; the handling and constant upheavals required for the sport means most are adaptable and outgoing. But when it's just for pets.. I suspect we'll see a lot more "rare" blue greyhounds and a lot more health and temperament problems. Honestly, it's the temperament that worries me the most- my slovenly, quiet, agreeable dogs are perfect as they are. I've seen the result of backyard breeding greyhounds for pets and the results were beyond terrible. But yeah.. on the other side of all of that.. everything else. I wish there was a better answer, for the sake of the dogs. Some variation on the American system (to prevent abuses) might possibly work but it'd take the sport out of the hands of little hobby trainers anyway so.. yeah, I still don't know.

You know that the muzzling requirements are already BSL? Why should Greyhounds be subject to Breed Specific Legislation, particularly once they will no longer be being bred for the purposes of racing and live baited? Because greyhounds have a higher prey drive than many other breeds, regardless of baiting or training, and there is a percentage that will see small dogs as prey. It's not discrimination, it's a breed trait. I have owned greys with very high drive (and still do) and while they are lovely dogs with people and larger dogs, they absolutely would kill something small and fluffy if they got the chance. Part of being a responsible owner is recognising and managing breed traits- pretending they don't exist does the breed no favours. Prey drive is a *dog* trait, and not exclusive to any one breed. There are many breeds that have a higher potential for prey drive, and many dogs within many breeds that have a high prey drive. There are plenty of dogs of all breeds that will kill other dogs for non-prey drive reasons too. Breed Specific Legislation has been shown time and time again to be a complete failure in preventing dog attacks. Adequate and well resourced animal management and education programs are what is effective. Roughly 25% of greys are not small dog safe. Let one of those dogs off lead at a park with a small dog and you'll have a dead small dog in less time than it takes you to realise what is happening. If your greyhound is muzzled and on leash, it can't chase down, grab and shake to death someone else's pet. Muzzling/leashing greyhounds is in no way similar to BSL for things like bull breeds. Muzzling/leashing is for their safety and the safety of other dogs/cats/small animals. In a perfect world, everyone would be sensible and responsible but back here in reality, greyhounds could be at risk of actual BSL if ignorant idiots are allowed to let their greys run unmuzzled and offlead. I know you don't understand the issue with greyhounds all that well (given you've had this same argument with Hazywal before) but if you're keen to find out for yourself, you're welcome to have one of my high drive fosters for a few weeks >.> (That is a serious offer, by the way. Nothing educates quite like the sight of your dog chasing down and destroying someone else's dog, while the attacked dog's owner screams for it to stop) Roughly 25% of Greyhounds (trusting your stats here) are not small dog safe after coming from an industry that heavily selected them for intense prey drive, did not socialise them to small dogs in their critical socialisation period (and potentially for years after), reinforced that drive over and over again and live baited many of them. I've got lots of experience with prey driven dogs, and once they've had a live kill (catching rabbits, possums, other animals while out or in their yards) the intensity of the drive goes through the roof and becomes much more difficult to manage. I would be *very* interested to see if that 25% stays once we're dealing with dogs that have not been bred, raised and trained in the racing industry. I suspect it won't. As far as I can tell, Australia is one of the only countries with BSL for Greyhounds, yet other countries are not suffering from rampaging Greyhounds killing every small dog in sight while being allowed to run around off leash. On top of that, plenty of non-greencollar approved greyhounds are currently owned by people who do not comply with the legislation, and yet again we are not seeing rampaging greys on the loose killing other dogs in any sort of regularity. I am not doubting that some Greyhounds are a true safety issue around small dogs, from genetics alone. Those dogs need to be rehomed carefully to owners who take their potential seriously, just like dogs of other breeds that also pose a safety risk. Part of that is likely to be the owner muzzling/leashing them in public. If the risk is too great for that individual dog, they should not be rehomed. "In a perfect world, everyone would be sensible and responsible" - I agree that we don't live in a perfect world but the people that aren't sensible and responsible won't muzzle and leash their greys regardless of the rules. The vast majority *are* sensible and responsible and prevent their dogs ever being an issue. Meanwhile we have 75%+ of Greys that pose no risk subject to legislation that stigmatises them and hinders their adoptability. We've also got animal management officers wasting time attempting to enforce it rather than focusing on other strategies proven to be successful. ETA: I would genuinely love to take you up on your offer, however I can't foster adult dogs - my dog is an arsehole to them on her own property (super social off the property). Not fair on the other dog. It's a shame as given the industry shutdown I'd really love to foster some Greys over the next 12 months and beyond. Drive is not necessarily hereditary- I rehomed the litter sister of a Launceston Cup winner, he was a hard, driven dog, she went to a home with a cat and a chihuahua. I've had two litter sisters, one went on to be rehomed to the owner of our test small dog and the other.. prey drive too high to rehome. Breeders use popular sires thinking that the drive will be present in the pups but more often than not, litters are completely random. As for things like socialisation.. the impacts are questionable. I had a dog surrendered to me who had been rehomed as a baby puppy, lived his whole life with a particular cat and then at 3 or 4 years of age.. chased down and killed that cat. I've taken in several pups (oopsie litters) who were never trained and again, prey drive levels were random- there was one who was cat safe, one was questionable on cats but fine with small dogs, another was definitely not small dog safe. There is a reason why every greyhound needs to be tested and that is that the dog's background is not particularly useful in estimating level of prey drive. Race training doesn't necessarily make any difference and live baiting only amplifies the dogs who were already on the higher end of the scale. With racing gone, drive will be a lot less of a consideration in breeding and for some people (the ones who will let their dog offlead without thinking about it), I suppose that's a good thing. Personally though.. I don't think it's necessarily a good thing for the breed's future. The greys we have today are a product of their purpose- they might not be suited to the sort of person who can't be bothered with a leash but then, the breed shouldn't have to change to suit the lowest common denominator. Water down an important breed trait and you risk losing the characteristics that make the breed what it is.

You know that the muzzling requirements are already BSL? Why should Greyhounds be subject to Breed Specific Legislation, particularly once they will no longer be being bred for the purposes of racing and live baited? Because greyhounds have a higher prey drive than many other breeds, regardless of baiting or training, and there is a percentage that will see small dogs as prey. It's not discrimination, it's a breed trait. I have owned greys with very high drive (and still do) and while they are lovely dogs with people and larger dogs, they absolutely would kill something small and fluffy if they got the chance. Part of being a responsible owner is recognising and managing breed traits- pretending they don't exist does the breed no favours. Prey drive is a *dog* trait, and not exclusive to any one breed. There are many breeds that have a higher potential for prey drive, and many dogs within many breeds that have a high prey drive. There are plenty of dogs of all breeds that will kill other dogs for non-prey drive reasons too. Breed Specific Legislation has been shown time and time again to be a complete failure in preventing dog attacks. Adequate and well resourced animal management and education programs are what is effective. Roughly 25% of greys are not small dog safe. Let one of those dogs off lead at a park with a small dog and you'll have a dead small dog in less time than it takes you to realise what is happening. If your greyhound is muzzled and on leash, it can't chase down, grab and shake to death someone else's pet. Muzzling/leashing greyhounds is in no way similar to BSL for things like bull breeds. Muzzling/leashing is for their safety and the safety of other dogs/cats/small animals. In a perfect world, everyone would be sensible and responsible but back here in reality, greyhounds could be at risk of actual BSL if ignorant idiots are allowed to let their greys run unmuzzled and offlead. I know you don't understand the issue with greyhounds all that well (given you've had this same argument with Hazywal before) but if you're keen to find out for yourself, you're welcome to have one of my high drive fosters for a few weeks >.> (That is a serious offer, by the way. Nothing educates quite like the sight of your dog chasing down and destroying someone else's dog, while the attacked dog's owner screams for it to stop)

You know that the muzzling requirements are already BSL? Why should Greyhounds be subject to Breed Specific Legislation, particularly once they will no longer be being bred for the purposes of racing and live baited? Because greyhounds have a higher prey drive than many other breeds, regardless of baiting or training, and there is a percentage that will see small dogs as prey. It's not discrimination, it's a breed trait. I have owned greys with very high drive (and still do) and while they are lovely dogs with people and larger dogs, they absolutely would kill something small and fluffy if they got the chance. Part of being a responsible owner is recognising and managing breed traits- pretending they don't exist does the breed no favours.

Quite a few points here that really aren't worth addressing, for a number of reasons. If you want to believe that you were hired to do research that would actually be applied, that's your business You assume that you know the industry well enough to judge their intentions and I can assure you, you very obviously don't. Ah, of course. I am the one that is ignorant about what my job is and why I am doing it. Silly me. It couldn't be you, who hasn't the faintest idea what my job actually is until I hinted at it just last night. It's not the industry I have faith in, for the record. It's the people that are currently leading GRNSW. I know it is difficult for you, but consider just for a moment that I might be a rational, thinking being with a mountain of cynicism and I actually need evidence before I believe something. Your evidence seems to consist of a leaked e-mail from someone that no longer works at GRNSW. Could my information be more current? Surely not. Cool story, bro.

Quite a few points here that really aren't worth addressing, for a number of reasons. If you want to believe that you were hired to do research that would actually be applied, that's your business You assume that you know the industry well enough to judge their intentions and I can assure you, you very obviously don't.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done??? 50% of way the hell too many is still too many. When you're breeding so many dogs that it would be impossible, even with pouring money into GAP, to rehome even a quarter that were bred per year, a reduction is not good enough. Getting vet verification to euth will be no issue for the less scrupulous. I foresee an increase in "paddock accidents". And the hundreds of thousands spent on research? Like the study that they spent $250,000 on, that was (according to leaked emails) nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to get the public off their backs? If the above is what the industry considers sufficient change, the ban can't really have come of that much of a surprise? Ahem. That is my research you are talking about that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on. Obviously I can't be objective on this issue seeing as I lost a lot of sleep over securing that tender and getting the project off the ground, and it seems like it might all be for nothing if other states don't pitch in to keep the study going. Nonetheless, I can assure you that it's not expensive smoke and mirrors. There are actual research agreements with milestones that must be met for the funding to keep flowing, and I don't get paid if the funding stops. *snip* It's expensive when it was never intended to really be used in any meaningful way. You, and whoever else was involved, were paid to make it look like the industry cared and wanted to fix all its problems. And this is not just my opinion, it's all public record now. That doesn't mean the research can't be applied elsewhere but let's not pretend that GRNSW were actually looking to make meaningful changes. There was an e-mail leak last year where management was talking about sinking some money into research to make everyone feel a bit more confident in the industry. By the time the research tender was put together, new people were in charge. If they just wanted to make people think they would change, they would not have sunk so much money into the research. There are two post-docs being funded by GRNSW at the moment, and post-docs cost three times more than PhD students, which is what the Working Dog Alliance report suggested. I like to think the best of people, but that doesn't mean I'm an idiot. I have spoken at length with those in charge now, and I am confident they are there precisely because they intend to drag the industry kicking and screaming if need be into the light. Why not? They had lost public trust and were facing intervention from the government. When you consider what the government's decision actually was, GRNSW didn't spend anywhere near what they should have and now, they stand to lose everything.

I don't feed much kibble but usually keep some around for emergencies and out of the many, many brands I've tried, ToTW is the only one I've had any luck with. Palatability seems to be an issue, from a few friends who tried it but there are several varieties- my dogs wouldn't touch the fish-based one but will eat the venison one without too much sulking. I find the packaging less than ideal but for different reasons to Jules. With the huge bags, they can't be resealed to keep the contents fresh so you have a choice of buy in bulk (less expensive) and have stale kibble by the time you reach the bottom of the bag, or.. pay much more for the smallest bag but have fresh food. Or tip it all out into something that can be sealed- fixable enough on the consumer's end but really, how hard would it be to put a ziplock strip on the bag like some other brands have?

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done??? 50% of way the hell too many is still too many. When you're breeding so many dogs that it would be impossible, even with pouring money into GAP, to rehome even a quarter that were bred per year, a reduction is not good enough. Getting vet verification to euth will be no issue for the less scrupulous. I foresee an increase in "paddock accidents". And the hundreds of thousands spent on research? Like the study that they spent $250,000 on, that was (according to leaked emails) nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to get the public off their backs? If the above is what the industry considers sufficient change, the ban can't really have come of that much of a surprise? Ahem. That is my research you are talking about that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on. Obviously I can't be objective on this issue seeing as I lost a lot of sleep over securing that tender and getting the project off the ground, and it seems like it might all be for nothing if other states don't pitch in to keep the study going. Nonetheless, I can assure you that it's not expensive smoke and mirrors. There are actual research agreements with milestones that must be met for the funding to keep flowing, and I don't get paid if the funding stops. *snip* It's expensive when it was never intended to really be used in any meaningful way. You, and whoever else was involved, were paid to make it look like the industry cared and wanted to fix all its problems. And this is not just my opinion, it's all public record now. That doesn't mean the research can't be applied elsewhere but let's not pretend that GRNSW were actually looking to make meaningful changes. I'm not suggesting vets would be as stupid as to falsify paperwork, I'm suggesting that faced with the prospect of having to hold dogs for GAP placements (or private rehoming)- something that would take up kennel space, time and money- that instead, dogs might come in to vets injured from "paddock accidents". Paddock accidents that weren't really accidents, if you're catching my drift? And before anyone throws their hands up in the air and starts wailing about how ludicrous that is, bear in mind that a trainer who wants to destroy a young, healthy (and potentially rehomeable) dog is exactly the sort of person that the policy was introduced for. And they will find loopholes or ways to break the rules without risk of getting caught because that is what shitty people do.