Maddy

Because certain nutjob "rescue" groups give all of rescue a bad name by encouraging their supporters to harass trainers, spreading misinformation about the industry and treating everyone involved in the industry as if they were all monsters. It got so bad that even just being neutral on the racing issue is enough to get you abusive messages and death threats. If you were a greyhound trainer, would you invite someone onto your property to collect a dog if you knew they were probably packing a hidden camera and preparing resources to later raid your kennels and/or home? You can't call someone a murdering monster and then expect them to be willing to work with you.

Yes to this. Clearly defined ethical guidelines that members of an association must follow. With real monitoring & real consequences for breaches. Good, too, the recommendation about independent overseeing. Certain actions may not be unlawful, but according to the agreed-on values of an association, they are not tolerated when done by its members. Which is why I've been trying to find a clear set of ethical guidelines set down by the greyhound racing clubs in the eastern states. I have found 'committees' charged with ethical scrutiny. But I'm trying to find 'scrutiny' of precisely what. Does anyone know? Any such ethical guidelines for greyhound racing will need to take into consideration, the changing public expectations about how dogs should be treated. After all, the continuance of greyhound racing is linked with public support. There's been changes over recent decades in how police & military dogs are raised and dealt with. Even tho' they're 'working dogs', they now fit into the 'dog as companion' value. You can introduce laws and guidelines prohibiting dogs being put down by anyone but a vet but what of the one that's living on a property 100 ks away from a vet which breaks its back, gets hit by a horse or a car and needs to be dealt with so already you have to have exemptions.Current laws with companion animals allow a vet or someone experienced in euthanasia to do the job so that gives permission to using a shooter . Then if you try to make rules about not doing anything other than rehoming them - there is immediately a whole bunch of what ifs too. What if the dog is not suitable for being rehomed for a variety of reasons ,what if you don't have the resources to keep the animal in optimal health etc? As I mentioned further back, state amendments cover the destruction of greyhounds for humane reasons by the owner, trainer or any other person responsible for the care of the dog. If a dog has to be disposed of under those rules, they still have certain obligations to fulfill (such as forms to lodge). Those amendments are in place because association rules cannot put the person at risk of breaching state or federal laws (in this case, welfare legislation). The GAR are actually incredibly thorough, the problem is that they cost money to enforce. Regarding animals assessed as unsuitable for rehoming, the same rules should still apply. Once the dog has been deemed unsuitable by an independent (but qualified) person, the dog can be PTS and when its retirement form is turned in, require that the assessor sign to confirm that the dog could not be placed in a pet home. Pretty simple. On the last bolded point.. besides cases of legitimate hardship (where evidence is provided), I can't see why someone would suddenly not be able to care for one particular dog. When you take animals on, you take on the financial responsibility to care for them. Currently, it's entirely acceptable for people (not just greyhound trainers/owners but pet owners, too) to shirk those responsibilities whenever it suits them. Pet owners are considerably harder to police but the greyhound racing industry is actually in a position where it can bring about real change.

I can only speak for Tasmania but down here, I'd say hobby trainers make up the majority. We do have several big trainers (Bullock, Johnson, Medhurst, etc) and between them, those trainers have the majority of dogs but there are many more small trainers than there are big trainers. Most of my dogs come from trainers who have two or three dog runs down the back of their yard and usually only have a couple of dogs at any one time. Prize money comes from a variety of places- some comes from gambling, some comes from sponsors/advertising, some comes from government and some comes from members fees.

Because the law will say they need to be responsible and each dog will have a paper trail. But how will that stop owners opting to have the dog killed ? Because the law could state that they need to rehome their dog rather than op to euth their dog. I'm not naive enough to believe that all will adhere to the law but if they realise that there are severe consequences that will be dished out .i.e. if it costs a lot more to not obey the law than to foot the bill of looking after that dog until it is rehomed and the chances of them being monitored and caught are also in place, it will stop the majority. Sorry there isnt a snowball's chance in hell that any law will be able to tell someone who owns a dog that they cant opt to have it PTS .You can introduce laws re having vets do the job and you can have guidelines which give a nudge for no bumping them off and rehoming them instead but its just never going to happen. You can, however, introduce new rules to your association that members must abide by. As I mentioned previously, it is not against the law to shoot a greyhound but it is against Greyhounds Australasia rules and the consequences can be very serious. What is needed (for the association) is an independent body to oversee disciplinary processes- people who do not profit from the industry in any way.

It'll serve two purposes- a way for the kennel club to make some money out of crossbreeding (through registration fees) and a way for breeders of crossbred dogs to charge extra for their "papered" dogs. I can't see how either of those things are good for dogs.

Perhaps they knew he would not be a suitable pet? yes agree. But I badly worded it cause I was at work and couldn't correct it now. It was more save one and take the other out and shoot him when they could have at least taken him to the vet. A lot of trainers I knew when the Ted Medhurst case happened said that although they disagreed with his dishonesty (in forging paperwork), they believed that shooting a dog was kinder than taking it to a vet. To be honest, I'm not sure there's necessarily much difference, depending on circumstances. I don't agree with m-j that it's a one or the other thing but both have the potential to be bad so.. I don't know. I've been out the back at a vet, holding a greyhound while it was put to sleep in front of other dead greyhounds. That poor dog struggled and was obviously very distressed. Then there are the dogs who fight the drugs- they scream and struggle and it's horrific to watch. And on one occasion a dog who, several minute after receiving a full dose, still had a heartbeat and shallow respiration. A careless vet might have just bagged that dog up and tossed it out the back to die slowly of asphyxiation in the bag. On the other hand, shooting equally has potential to bring about welfare concerns, this case is a perfect example. Although that said, at the end of the day, the dog is still dead and that's the problem. If trainers were forced to have their dogs assessed and to rehome those who were suitable, less would have to be put to sleep to start with. Edited for typo

Perhaps they knew he would not be a suitable pet?

While I don't think shooting as a means of euthanasia is necessary cruel (if done by someone who is careful and very experienced), walking a dog into bushland filled with the bones of other dead dogs and the smell of their rotting flesh to shoot it is not doing it a kindness in any way, shape or form. And the choices are not one or the other anyway. When I had to have my two elderly greys put to sleep, we paid the vet a little bit extra to come out to our house. My dogs went to sleep on the front lawn- in the sun, surrounded by people they loved and without any fear (or the need to put a bullet in them). Without racing, there would be no retired racers to have as pets. That's not a reason for racing, as such, but it's something to consider. Some of us don't want conformation bred greyhounds- no offense to anyone who breeds them- and if racing is banned, the beautiful, amazing dogs we love so much will simply cease to exist.

Aren't the greyhounds up for adoption - usually ones that have failed at what they were bred for. They don't chase or not fast enough... Yes it's hard to train against instinctive drift... but not impossible and not every dog or human is "typical". It would have to be a speshull greyhound and not "Stan" speshull. Would be easier to work with a farm dog or a gun dog probably. A greyhound can be not fast enough to race by a few milliseconds. "Slow" greyhounds are still incredibly fast dogs. A small percentage (around 5%) will not chase at all but these dogs are very unusual and some that won't chase cats will still show an interest in wildlife or stock. If that instinct could be trained out of them, rehoming greyhounds would be a piece of cake but I'm yet to see any hard evidence that hundreds of years of selection for prey drive can simply be erased with some liver treats. Chasing is an incredibly rewarding behaviour and there's not much that will discourage them, including severe injury. There are dogs out there that might be safe but finding one is a whole other matter. Some groups don't test at all, some test incorrectly, others misinterpret results. Look at what happened to Brightstar- her experience is unfortunately not that unusual.

Edit- Can't be bothered.

Down here, there was legislation proposed to outlaw shooting of dogs but I believe it is still legal. However, under GAR, trainers are not allowed to destroy their own animals (unless under specific welfare guidelines). A vet could shoot the dog and that wouldn't be a problem, so far as I can see (unless there is some other rule that specifies means of destruction by the vet. If there is such a rule, I'm not aware of it). Edited to add. Some states have local amendments to rules. Victoria does seem to specify means of destruction by a vet. Regarding destruction for humane reasons, Tasmania has this LR:

Hazywal hasn't even replied in this thread and to suggest that we believe that the disposal of (presumably healthy and rehomable) dogs is acceptable is pretty damn rude. We've both spent god knows how much of our time and money saving greyhounds Maddy your reaction is precisely what I was trying to avoid and it doesn't help the discussion. In other threads I remember Hazy (maybe you?) have very calmly and reasonably explained alternative views on the greyhound racing industry which I listened carefully to but I still reached a different position to your general defence of the industry - nowhere did I say you thought that this mass killing is acceptable. This sort of knee jerk reaction is unhelpful particularly when I tried very hard to recognise alternative views on the industry. So IMO you need to calm down and read posts correctly. If you don't want a hostile reaction, don't word things in such a way that it makes it seem as if we support any part of it. We don't, simple as that. Again and again, we've tried to explain why it has to be handled with great care and every time, get accused of being pro racing by people who have no idea of how the industry works and what the consequences will be for the dogs if groups like AA get their way.

Hazywal hasn't even replied in this thread and to suggest that we believe that the disposal of (presumably healthy and rehomable) dogs is acceptable is pretty damn rude. We've both spent god knows how much of our time and money saving greyhounds

This is what makes me think they were probably legally killed. You'd have to be all kinds of stupid to illegally kill and dump even a single greyhound if you were a trainer. even legally killed, they've been illegally dumped so that in itself will hopefully lead to prosecution, but all that aside legal or illegal this brings terrible unwanted attention to the greyhound industry. They could be doing themselves and everyone else out of business, they must be morons. Yeah, as I understand it, you can't just dispose of carcasses of animals destroyed using pentobarb wherever you feel like it. Down here, unless you're burying it in your own yard, it has to be disposed of in landfill in a section reserved for medical waste. For animals killed by other means.. I'm not sure of the exact laws but I assume it would fall under littering or dumping of rubbish. Although legalities surrounding proper disposal are probably irrelevant if they did find spent casings there Whoever it was, when they get caught, they're looking at a life ban. Down here last week, a trainer was given a seven year ban for having an unwell greyhound on his property- the dog in question was an old brood bitch which apparently had cancer. Racing Services did an inspection, the dog was found, RSPCA and vet called out and he was slapped with an immediate ban. http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/probe-after-dog-trainers-ban/story-fnj4f7k1-1227282031629 Note that he wasn't banned because of welfare concerns for the dog but because his actions may have harmed the industry. Stay classy, racing industry *eye roll*

This is what makes me think they were probably legally killed. You'd have to be all kinds of stupid to illegally kill and dump even a single greyhound if you were a trainer.

I wasn't talking about a greyhound's ability to injure itself. I was talking about a dog's ability to injure stock on a farm (or the neighbours farm or wildlife in the national park...) Here is what you originally said: And I pointed out how on one particular issue, you were incorrect. It's not a matter of training, it's breed traits and whether or not a typical example of the breed is suited to that environment.

Greyhounds have very long, thin, fragile legs. This makes them unlike most other breeds. Greyhounds can run at over 60km/h, this makes them unlike most other breeds. Greyhounds have a very high prey drive and will continue to chase through serious injuries (like broken hocks) or will chase with such focus that they'll hit solid objects at speed, unlike most other breeds. Comparing a greyhound to a staffy or a lab or a cattle dog is ridiculous.

Without knowing causes of death and how long they'd been there for, I'm reserving judgement for the moment. If they were humanely euthanised by a vet but dumped there because the trainer/s were too scroogey to pay for disposal, that'd be one thing (although still inappropriate) but then.. on the other hand, there are other possibilities It does seem a very risky thing for a trainer to do though. Even if the carcasses are decomposed enough to rule out finding ear brands, they should all be microchipped and traceable.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/more-than-50-greyhound-carcasses-found-in-bundaberg-bushland-20150401-1md2ub.html

Really? You replied to me. If you didn't want to discuss it with me, you didn't have to reply to me. It's pretty simple.

I disagree with you both. :) On which of those particular points would you disagree? Most of them. As I have posted earlier about my friend and her experiences I am not going to repeat myself. The alert barking is the one I would sort of agree with but as I have one here currently, who is teaching her granddaughter the same, my experience is they can be very good watchdogs. But my girls are not the norm. The boys have been pretty useless in that regard. ETA I would happily sell one of my precious pups to a farm, as long as the people met my criteria. Your one friend and her experiences aren't indicative of the breed though. If we're going on anecdotal evidence, I've had one greyhound surrendered to me from a pet home on a farm because she kept chasing native animals while on walks around the property and they didn't enjoy traipsing around for miles looking for the dog. I have no problems with greyhounds living on farms if the owners are realistic in their expectations but in this case, I don't think the breed is suitable

I disagree with you both. :) On which of those particular points would you disagree?

I agree with Hazywal- a greyhound would really not be appropriate for what the OP wants. They're usually terrible guard dogs, they're not suited to being on the backs of utes, they have high prey drive and can be difficult to catch if they take off after something and while they're not heavy dogs, they are fairly big dogs- my old guy was only 33kg and he took up the whole back seat of our large car. I'm all for encouraging people to adopt greys but only where the breed would actually be suitable.

Baby Idiot Dog.. (he was about 16 weeks old in this photo) Bigger Idiot Dog..

Who knows, it seems pretty simple to me If people don't want to board their dogs in kennels with those policies, they don't have to. Personally, I'd prefer a kennel that excluded the higher risk breeds because (here comes the shocker..) owners aren't always going to be honest about their dog's behaviour and a bull breed is more likely to do damage to my greyhound than a westie. If you (GerogeB, etc) disagree, that's fine. You're not using that boarding kennel anyway so it doesn't affect you in any way, shape or form?