melzawelza

That is a very different statement to what you posted above. Stop exaggerating and being ridiculous. And I'm no fan of the RSPCA. Their kill stats are abhorrent. But he did not say that every single greyhound that comes to them will be slaughtered no questions asked. Pointing to RSPCA kill stats is classic diversion tactics. Again the industry and its supporters try to just point the finger away from their own failings rather than accept the unacceptable issues from within. This is exactly why shutting down the industry is the only answer. Now, anyone want to provide any evidence of the move to erode pet ownership in the many countries that banned Greyhound racing long ago? Or is that all just scaremongering and sky is falling reactions from those who think that the level of 'wastage' needed to support people gambling is just fine and dandy? I think I know which it is...

Sorry what? GRNSW's statement does not say that he can't move the dogs interstate - only that he has to apply for approval to do so, or to kill them. How is the death of an unwanted Greyhound the fault of anyone but the person that puts a bullet in their head or pays a vet to overdose them in barbituate? We keep being told on the one hand that people in the industry love their dogs and treat them like royalty etc etc and on the other hand we are told that thousands of dogs will die after the ban. Well which one is it? People love their dogs? Or people have no use for their dogs if they can't race them and will kill them? It's all a moot point anyway - of the dogs born this year a good chunk of them would have been killed anyway if the ban hadn't happened, and most of the rest of them would have been killed in the coming 2-4 years. I'd say these dogs have a much better chance at life now, given the funds that are being injected in to GAP and other rehoming organisations, as well as the outpouring of compassion and awareness of the plight of ex-racing Greyhounds widening the pool of adopters. Will some dogs die? Absolutely. Most of them would have anyway, and it's awful. Why? Because there's too many bloody Greyhounds being bred every year. That is no-one's fault but the racing industry. At least this will be the last year it happens, rather than the 'wastage' year after year after year. Citation please.

Made me cry when I watched it yesterday. Incredibly bravery from the man and also relief for that woman and her dog.

Not only are the RSPCA stats wrong, but the assertion that the pet owning public are abandoning and killing their dogs at anywhere near the rate of racing greyhound owners/trainers is bulldust too. NSW pound reporting tells us that around 6% of the estimated pet population enter our pounds every year and only about 2% actually stay there. Of that 2% a fair chunk of the dogs are being rehomed and smaller but not insignificant amount of cats. Something around 98% of pet owners prevent their animals needing new homes via the pound every year. That's pretty damn good. You won't get me arguing that the RSPCA (particularly NSW) is seriously underperforming and needs to be pulled out of the dark ages, but quoting completely wrong stats doesn't help that argument. Also, diversion tactics ("they kill dogs too! stop focusing on us!") is not a great look.

If this 'fact sheet' is the best they can come up with I don't think they will convince anyone! Just the first few things to jump out at me are 'We already know injuries and litters are just a fraction of what was guessed during the Inquiry' Since when is 'We already know' evidence of anything? Who already knows, how do they already know? What evidence is there that "they" know anything? What "fraction" was it? The fraction could be 99% of what was guessed, it is still a fraction. This isn't a fact at all yet they have it listed on a fact sheet. Anyone can read a report and say 'I already know this is wrong', that doesn't prove anything as fact. 'The figure of "50-70%" of greyhound pups being euthanised is a fabrication, with less than one-tenth of that number being the actual figure - and most of that figure is for illness, old age and other' Even if they were going to prove that the actual figure is less than one-tenth... they have just claimed that some of the greyhound PUPS euthanised were done so for reason of old age. Not a great way to state something as fact. 'Many rehomed greyhounds were previously counted as part of 'wastage' when they were actually healthy and happy pets' How many is 'many'? 1,000? 15? It's just a meaningless thing to say, the word 'many' is completely subjective. Looks like you can't read. They're saying that most greyhounds have died of old age, they were not killed. I have heaps of old greyhounds here, I am like most people in the industry, we prefer to keep our old greyhounds for ourselves as pets, we don't like giving away older greyhounds to rehoming groups. Plus, when people try to give older greyhounds to rehoming groups (I know for a fact, because I've been trying to save other trainer's retired greyhounds by helping to rehome them and their older greyhounds were always knocked back by these rehoming groups apparently because people don't want old greyhounds, they want cute puppies or young greyhounds. Just yesterday I asked a rescuer group if they could help my mum rehome 7 of the pet greyhounds (aged between 5 to 11) because the owner died 2 weeks ago of lung cancer and my mum is too ill to take them on herself due to her age, and the rescuer group said they can only help with the younger greys because they find them easier to rehome.) If you look on my FB page friends list, you would see hundreds of them posting on their own walls, pics of their old greys lazing about on their lounge in the house. Most of these friends have between 1 to 18 pet greyhounds EACH. They've never given them away to be rehomed. This is why you don't see many older greyhounds in full sight, because trainers don't generally take them all out for walks in public. I certainly have never taken any of my 8 retired greys out in public as I don't trust the off leash/uncontrolled dogs (esp pitbull types, staffy types, doberman types, german shepherd types etc ) as so many pet owners are just plain irresponsible and don't care about training their pet dogs to be good dogs. Years ago a unleashed Doberman took off from his owners while walking along a highway and he crossed the highway to charge at me walking my 3 greyhounds and it was only my frantic screams while I was trying to get the muzzles off my greys so they could defend themselves against this raving 50kgs monster, that brought a passerby to my rescue with a big stick to beat off the Doberman. He was still trying to mouth at my little grey's throat and I was screaming at the stupid owners to pull the dog off, they finally managed to pull him off but told me off for having greyhounds even though mine were on leads and muzzled.They didn't see anything wrong with their dog charging at my dogs unprovoked. This is just one of the few incidents that's happened to me so 10 years ago I quit taking my greyhounds out in public and just preferred to let them potter on my acreage and gallop about in my paddock. They're happy and safe. And certainly living a longer life not being mauled every day by irresponsible owners' dogs. "Nothing wrong with the industry, no such thing as wastage, my friends keep their dogs until they are old so no one kills young healthy dogs for no reason". I can't figure out whether you're in denial or simply willing to lie and ignore facts in order to protect your industry, but either way your posts are a perfect example of why the industry can't and won't change and the only option is to shut it down.

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. Yes to all of this.

Sometimes just patience is the key :) Give him lots of routine and stability and you will likely find he settles on his own. Doing some trick training with him and having him use his brain and learn how to 'control' his environment (i.e by doing things he's asked, good stuff happens) might help too.

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.

Just be forgiving of your local council who are also learning how the new system works as well! :laugh: I think it depends who you get through to on the day... Though both Canterbury and Marrickville stuffed up entries a few times so I just kept emailing until they got it right! Definitely - some are more proactive and helpful than others - but all of us have had limited training and help with the new system and on top of that we don't actually have access to it ourselves (except as pet owners if we are), so it's hard guiding people through it when you aren't using it!

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 (as opposed to appearance or as pets) are going to be much more likely to be born predisposed to those breed traits - that is more where my comment lay. My comments re socialisation are more about whether the dog sees small dogs as a dog or a prey animal. Socialisation during critical periods to different types of dogs can help with that (which racing Greys don't typically get). I own a very high prey drive dog. She is generally okay with small dogs (although I am always careful), as she views them as dogs and therefore they don't trigger her drive. There was one occasion though where a very tiny dog in the distance that moved a lot like a rabbit triggered her prey drive big time - she didn't realise it was a dog. Thankfully she was leashed at the time and once she figured out it was a dog she was okay, but certainly if she did not view smalls as dogs on the whole she would be a big risk to them. The way many trainers raise and manage their dogs doesn't help with their rehoming later in life. 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 10 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.

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.

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.

Just be forgiving of your local council who are also learning how the new system works as well! :laugh:

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?

No, let's say lots more. I would like to see the press release that accompanied the study because I bet it will be almost word for word what it says in the article. The actual conclusion is of low diversity not no diversity. And? The diversity is so low in the breed that the significant health issues and poor longevity associated with the breed cannot be corrected without an outcross.

It's possible they could be pressure sores from an e-collar left on indefinitely while too tight. No way to really know. It's important to note that any type of collar that's too tight and left on for a long time can cause pressure sores - it isn't exclusive to any one type of collar.

It isn't a donation request though, it is just a yellow pages listing? They aren't asking for money listing themselves as a local business, they are simply listing their pet search service as available to those in this area - which is a very good thing for rescue pets in my opinion.

What state are you in? The answer may be different depending on differing legislation from state to state.

Yes, that's a point. It's very easy to list your charity as operating or not operating in a state - you just log in to your charity portal and edit it and click save, so I'm not sure why it would be unlisted for NSW considering they clearly do operate in all states. Might be an oversight. Maybe if anyone isn't happy about that, it's worth sending an email to them.

Ill bite what does mobile service in area mean - might clearly say it but thats as clear as mud to me.where I come form all it means is that you can use your mobile phone in that town. Maybe it's not as universal as I think, but to me that means it is a 'mobile' business I.e it services many areas even though it may not have a shop front right there. Maybe but Ive never heard of it used that way. Im not kicking them all's fair but I can see why some feel that some of what they do is bending the facts a bit - but seriously Alfred town would be one of the smallest towns in NSW and according to the ASIC register they don't operate in NSW Their website lists the animals in rescue held by almost every rescue Australia wide - if Alfred is so tiny I'm glad PetRescue comes up when they search animal stuff. Hopefully they may realise that they have access to a huge array of rescue pets if they hadn't before. If there are any local rescues I'd love to see them getting themselves listed up there as individuals too - the more options for rescue pets that locals see when searching the better. As an example, Team Dog members are all based in Sydney and most of our work is done here, but we will help anyone throughout greater NSW if we can. What is the harm in me having us listed in a town that may not even know we exist, so that when they search for the type of assistance/service we provide they find us? Why do I have to have a physical office there in order for that to be kosher?

Ill bite what does mobile service in area mean - might clearly say it but thats as clear as mud to me.where I come form all it means is that you can use your mobile phone in that town. Maybe it's not as universal as I think, but to me that means it is a 'mobile' business I.e it services many areas even though it may not have a shop front right there.

That listing you linked Steve clearly says 'mobile service in area' down the bottom - which shows that they don't have a physical office there. I can't see why having PetRescue pop up when someone searches pet related stuff in the yellow pages is a bad thing, especially if it encourages just one person to click through and browse available rescue pets across Australia. Nothing stopping the local rescues getting a yellow pages listing as well so they're also represented as individual organisations rather than just via Pet Rescue.

Yep, exactly. If a dog is not rehomable either medically or behaviourally then it can and should be put to sleep - and that still fits within the no kill model. Of course it's a difficult decision to make that no one envies, but that is part of someone's role and responsibility when they become a rescuer. Hoarding a dog in a cage for almost it's entire natural term of life rather than make a difficult decision is not doing the right thing by the dog.

You can't run greyhound races in dingy basements out of sight like you can dog fighting. It would be next to impossible to run any kind of organised greyhound racing without being noticed. On top of that, greyhound racing is only legal and operational in five US states and as far as I can tell there's no big issue with illegal races like there is dogfighting.

If APBT did not go extinct after the banning of dog fighting (and are in fact still a very popular pet and working dog), then the Greyhound is not going to go extinct at the banning of racing.