WoofnHoof

I'm telling you how it is. Not how it should be. Like it or not the ANKC represents a large proportion of the dog breeding sector, therefore if they are not seen to be acting against those who do the wrong thing the whole sector will be viewed as complicit. Cruelty and waste are not to be tolerated any more. No ifs. No buts. The realty is that the industry is seen as a whole unit by the community, and it is the community which decides their fate. Outside of dog circles the ban has been welcomed. The greyhound racing people coming out and saying they have millions of $ to fight the ban is only making the public more convinced that they had the power to change but lacked the will.

I think they might have to start enforcing their own rules if various governments are just going to wave a magic wand and shut down an entire industry because some are treating animals badly. Just look at all the puppy farms... I'm sure the RSPCA would shut more down if they could prove there was a problem and when they did there were sufficient sanctions to stop repeat offences. There's a double whammy - proving what looks obvious to us - isn't so easy with the current law, and when they do successfully prosecute the most appalling cases - the offenders get slapped with a tiny fine as if animal cruelty doesn't matter. NSW and other governments are using the wrong fix for the wrong problem - similar to BSL applied in Victoria - not dealing with the source of the problem or preventing dog bites etc. Will end up like Italy with 95 different dog breeds banned or declared dangerous? It is no longer the job of the government to fix the problem. It is the job of industry to fix it. Government has been extricating itself from regulatory roles for quite some time now, none of this should be a surprise. If an industry cannot show it self able to self regulate it is not considered a viable indsutry any more.

Currently most of the enforcement powers lie with the RSPCA. They hardly have a shining track record of acting to get the prosecutions that make it easier to turf people out. If we look at most animal industries we have governing bodies, registries accept registrations from people everyone knows is dodgy but they are still allowed to be in the association. Competition entires are accepted by bodies even though everyone knows they treat animals badly. It is those organisations through which we can enforce standards of ethical behaviour. In the example of greyhounds it was simple, they have one registry and one competition body, they had the power to be rid of anyone who didn't tow the line. The ANKC has the power to get rid of unethical breeders inside its own ranks and promote those standards as the only ethical option for puppy buyers. Sure it's hard to act against the bybers but it doesn't mean that because it's hard we give up and let the community put all dog breeders into the same basket. The only reason AR has a voice is because they get out there and shout as hard as they can, everyone else just meekly accepts it or whinges about it behind closed doors. How many have written to their governing bodies? I don't mean deflecting crap like "what about xyz which is much worse" I mean get your organsing bodies to outline a code of practice for welfare, an ethical standard for breeding, selling and competition. And enforce them. If a registered breeder is found to be selling unhealthy cross bred pups what currently happens? Do they get kicked out? Or is it tolerated because they are high up in the club and everyone knows everyone and no one wants to step on their toes? I know it happens in horse breeds there is a welsh breeder highly respected judge who dogs his colts every year, everyone knows he does it but he gets kudos for being a great judge and no one is going to kick his ass to the curb even though he is contributing to a serious wastage issue not just for his breed but for the whole industry. Whatever we can be doing we should be doing to demonstrate a zero tolerance.

I think all animal industries should be treating this as a wake up call. Whether it's an AR agenda is irrelevant, AR just provides the proof of what is happening behind closed doors, it is the community which decides whether the price animals pay is too high. We all need to be pro active about addressing the very valid concerns that people have. It is falling on deaf ears in the horse racing industry, they think that they are untouchable. But it is the people who will decide and if we do not start showing them that we are united in adopting a zero tolerance attitude towards cruelty then we are running on borrowed time, all of us. There is no use saying it's only a few bad eggs, it is not up to anyone on the outside to fix that, and to allow it to continue implies that the industry believes it is acceptable and tolerates it. It's no longer about what the industry believes is acceptable, it is about what the community believes is acceptable and tolerable. We have the power to change that by lobbying the registries and governing bodies of our sports and breeds, get enforcement happening, reward those who do the right thing, turf those who do the wrong thing out. You don't want the bad representing you, get rid of them.

Thoroughbred breeders are responsible for the vast majority of thoroughbreds born in this country, there are very few thoroughbreds bred outside the racing indsutry in Auatralia, almost all thoroughbreds born are bred for the racing indsutry by race breeders and are registered or verified in the thoroughbred stud book. Very different situation to the dogs as thoroughbreds cannot race if they are not verified in the studbook and a thoroughbred which cannot race or be registered has a very low $ value, even a purpose bred one. The TB breeders would like to paint the picture that they are not responsible for the oversupply of TBs in this country, hence why they fund "research" to show how many go on to wonderful homes in the pleasure industry.

There is no motivation for criminal gangs to find the large space to run greyhound race meets without the gambling industry to support it. Can't run it any old place they need a nice clean grass track or they will break their legs. Some people might feel the need to race their dogs every now and again but it is unlikely to become a huge underground movement, just not feasible.

Agreed Perse But it may also mean less future suffering by generations of greyhounds... There won't BE any future generations of greyhounds. There's an astonishing amount of 'Oh, people will kill their dogs but at least future greyhounds won't suffer' and 'Oh, they'll kill them anyway' going on. For people who apparently love dogs, this dismissal of thousands of dogs is disturbing let alone greyhounds becoming as rare as hen's teeth. No one is dismissing it, but lets not pretend it's any more deaths than are already seen year in and year out because thousands of dogs are bred with few getting to the track, and far fewer finding suitable homes after racing. As for the breed becoming "rare as hens teeth" that is no ones fault but the breeders and breed fanciers. If all the breed has going for it is its racing ability how on earth do they manage to be decent pets? Better tell the husky breeders they should be taking their dogs to the alpine races every year to justify their existence. The bolded is precisely the dismissal of dog deaths I was referring to. Interesting that you also dismiss the gradual death of a breed. So much for being a dog lover. Why is it okay to save whales and dolphins but breed extinction is just given a shrug? Why do you think the breed will become extinct? Does it have nothing else going for it but it's ability to go round in circles very fast. Again I will put forward the example of huskies but you can use any breed you like, they used to pull sleds, now most of them don't, they aren't extinct so it seems a little odd that you are lamenting an eventuality that there is no real evidence to suggest will occur. You didnt seem to express much anguish about the deaths of greyhounds while the industry was churning along? Just because I believe that continually breeding thousands of dogs to sustain an industry that wouldn't sort it's crap out doesn't mean I am not sad for the fate of the animals who will be dumped. It's called choosing the lesser of two evils. Doesn't mean anyone enjoys it or dismisses it, it is a realty to state that many dogs suffered and died as a direct result of the overbreeding and practices the industry supported, it is not hypocrisy to put the reality in perspective when it comes to weighing up the current situation.

Evidently it's just more acceptable to continue to breed large amounts of dogs and kill large amounts of dogs because heaven forbid the dog world drag itself into the 21st century and get in line with community expectations. Yes there was an opportunity to improve things, but that time has passed, expecting to be able to change things at a leisurely pace so that no ones feelings get hurt is unrealistic. The clock is ticking for every other animal pursuit. Dick around and make excuses as much as you like, doesn't change the reality.

Agreed Perse But it may also mean less future suffering by generations of greyhounds... There won't BE any future generations of greyhounds. There's an astonishing amount of 'Oh, people will kill their dogs but at least future greyhounds won't suffer' and 'Oh, they'll kill them anyway' going on. For people who apparently love dogs, this dismissal of thousands of dogs is disturbing let alone greyhounds becoming as rare as hen's teeth. No one is dismissing it, but lets not pretend it's any more deaths than are already seen year in and year out because thousands of dogs are bred with few getting to the track, and far fewer finding suitable homes after racing. As for the breed becoming "rare as hens teeth" that is no ones fault but the breeders and breed fanciers. If all the breed has going for it is its racing ability how on earth do they manage to be decent pets? Better tell the husky breeders they should be taking their dogs to the alpine races every year to justify their existence.

Should be on a Billboard, Gruf. ETA: Glad to see Gruf taking centre stage again :laugh: :laugh: Have you ever met a Greyhound?? They LOVE to race! There is nothing cruel about training and racing Greyhounds. The issue is about training methods and reducing over supply. Should we ban pet dogs as well? I mean, they have no choice to be a pet. What about agility dogs? Show dogs? I wonder if it would be possible to keep it as a dog sport, IE no money in it but for the sheer athleticism and enjoyment of the dogs. Probably not now but the idea is nice! Maybe those interested in the sport could engage with lure coursing groups to develop some greyhound divisions, alter the courses to suit, seperate classes etc. Those who wish to keep a "working line" of greys can have their performance testing and it doesn't have the gambling industry supporting it so the only reward is a ribbon (or whatever it is that you win in lure coursing). Plenty of other breeds manage to survive and thrive in dog sports that don't have a culture of bloodletting and unsustainable overproduction and waste. Be proactive about welfare, zero tolerance of cruelty, that is the only way forward. AR are not the ones with power to shut down industries, it's the community, AR just exposes the cruelty to the rest of the community. Stamp out the cruelty. Stamp out the waste. It can only be done from within. Don't wait for the government or anyone else to save your hobby, your sport.

There is no motivation for criminal gangs to find the large space to run greyhound race meets without the gambling industry to support it. Can't run it any old place they need a nice clean grass track or they will break their legs. Some people might feel the need to race their dogs every now and again but it is unlikely to become a huge underground movement, just not feasible.

Government will not regulate. They have no interest in regulation. If the industry won't then it is not a viable industry.

The pleasure market has changed a lot in the last 10-20 years. Warmbloods are much cheaper than they used to be. I sold a nice quiet sound and rideable WB mare a couple years ago for $2k. Dressage is getting more competitive even at the lower levels and Warmbloods do find the work a lot easier, I know as I've ridden both and there is a reason that the trend is heading that way. Just because they are sound and sane doesn't mean they are suitable for all pleasure horse riders, they are still racehorses and most require retraining after racing which brings their cost up to that comparable with the lower priced purpose bred horses. Sure they can often find homes easily enough if they are good looking and quiet but they don't often stay in those homes as they simply aren't suitable for the large majority of riders these days. The market has changed, fewer people have the time and resources to retrain a thoroughbred and it's not financially viable anymore as even good retrainers are having trouble getting decent money for the work they have put into retraining TBs. The pleasure market simply cannot absorb the many thousands of horses bred for racing which get funnelled into it year after year. I've got a TB sitting in my paddock that the previous owner couldn't find a home for even though she is "sound and sane". You need to get our more and see what is competing, and decent warmbloods are not very cheap. I am not talking about 10 - 20 years ago, I am talking about NOW. I have no idea why the TB couldn't find a home - ugly? Hard to fatten? Something wrong with her, or lack of decent advertising. Anyhow this thread is about greyhounds, not racehorses. I get out quite a lot since I have several Warmbloods I show and compete, I know exactly what is selling, which lines, how much they sell for, who is riding what and why. I have been following this trend for a long time and it has take a sharp turn in recent years as Warmbloods have become more affordable. There is nothing wrong with the mare, I think she is lovely but she's not a show horse, and if you think it's ok that plain horses can't get decent homes because people think they are "ugly" so it's fine if they get dogged when they finish racing then you are part of the problem.

I love thoroughbreds but since I don't love the ridiculous amount of wastage that goes on in the industry or the poor welfare for thousands of animals that results from it I would not see it as a tragedy if racing shut down and the breed changes to reflect their new purpose. Breeds are a human creation, they change according to human needs. There is nothing new under the sun here. The fact that the report has found that the necessary changes to address cruelty would make the industry unviable speaks volumes, and for anyone to suggest that it should continue just to keep the breed just as it is is abhorrent. True breed fanciers will develop the breed as they see fit, as they have always done, just without the assistance of the blood money the industry generates.

This is my big concern/ worry, about how the Greyhound breed lives on now that the industry that breeds the bulk will close down?? I always had a Greyhound in my future There will always be greyhounds. Same as as other breeds have survived long after their original jobs were consigned to history. Most huskies bred in this country never see snow or a sled or gig yet the breed exists and thrives. A good dog is a good dog, it doesn't need to be part of an industry entrenched in cruelty just to keep the breed going.

The pleasure market has changed a lot in the last 10-20 years. Warmbloods are much cheaper than they used to be. I sold a nice quiet sound and rideable WB mare a couple years ago for $2k. Dressage is getting more competitive even at the lower levels and Warmbloods do find the work a lot easier, I know as I've ridden both and there is a reason that the trend is heading that way. Just because they are sound and sane doesn't mean they are suitable for all pleasure horse riders, they are still racehorses and most require retraining after racing which brings their cost up to that comparable with the lower priced purpose bred horses. Sure they can often find homes easily enough if they are good looking and quiet but they don't often stay in those homes as they simply aren't suitable for the large majority of riders these days. The market has changed, fewer people have the time and resources to retrain a thoroughbred and it's not financially viable anymore as even good retrainers are having trouble getting decent money for the work they have put into retraining TBs. The pleasure market simply cannot absorb the many thousands of horses bred for racing which get funnelled into it year after year. I've got a TB sitting in my paddock that the previous owner couldn't find a home for even though she is "sound and sane".

The pleasure industry does not have the capacity to absorb the excess from racing, and its capacity is decreasing as purpose bred horses are more in demand. Easy to find someone in the pleasure industry to take a free horse but few have the ability or resources to actually home them long term. If an industry cannot self regulate it will be shut down. It's as simple as that. Government is no longer interested in regulation of industry.

The writing has been on the wall for a very long time, more than long enough to clean up the industry. It's no use saying "it's just the bad ones, don't tar us all with the same brush", it is no one else's job to clean up the industry, only those within the industry can and should do it, the "few bad eggs" should be stamped out and not tolerated or tiptoed around. All animal industries need to be proactive about animal welfare, reactivity does not work.

I didn't see the OP but my boy was very flat after his desexing and I didn't know it at the time but he had a liver shunt so was suffering from the effects of the anaesthetic. I recommend people get pre surgery bloods done these days as it can pick up liver issues.

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/3945591/kim-banned-from-owning-horses-ordered-to-pay-600k/ Hollingsworth has finally been banned from owning horses, only for two years but further charges are pending I believe and she has to sell or give away her current horses immediately. I am sure she is a very damaged human being and I don't think it's appropriate for her past to be continually dragged up by the media and others but she doesn't evoke a lot of sympathy from me, she has been given many chances to improve the conditions of her animals and has refused to change her behaviour.

Tell him if his masculinity is defined by the kind of dog you have he's got bigger problems.

Lulu doesn't seem to bark as much, her barking was more an alert bark so probably because she doesn't hear as much now she thinks there's nothing to bark at. But when she whines to go out I've noticed that has gotten louder, maybe she thinks if she can't hear I can't either lol :)

Love that pic :)

Lulu has been going deaf for about a year now, really noticed it after she had a haematoma on her ear, it's been not too bad actually because she can't hear storms as easily so doesn't get as stressed which is something but it's not nice to realise how old she's getting I usually use hand signals with her anyway but I've made them more exaggerated so it's easier as her eyesight is starting to go as well, she seems to be going fine at the moment so hopefully she will keep on for a bit (lot) longer.

My two have been pretty good for some years now (*touch wood*) I anticipate more issues as they are getting older, Sonny of course cost a bomb as a pup with his liver shunt but it has been no trouble since then. They are on joint supplements on and off if they start to look creaky but other than that they have been pretty good. Lulu will need teeth doing at some stage her teeth are getting a bit yuk. The horses are a different story, while Sonny's shunt surgery cost more than any one procedure with the horses, they still far outstrip the dogs when it comes to vet expenses.