Greyt

I agree entirely. FWIW,I never once took my fosters out for a walk without a muzzle. That said, I find many of the tests that make up the assessment have no bearing on weather a dog should be allowed out without a muzzle. And to have the tests done in a strange environment, without the owner present in atypical situations... well, I won't go on. Which tests would those be? Well look at the WA Law Here: 33. Special provision for greyhounds (1) A greyhound must be muzzled in such a manner as will prevent it from biting a person or animal unless: (a) it is in or at premises occupied by its owner; or (b) it has successfully completed a prescribed training programme. Is there a body of evidence suggesting that Greyhounds bite people more than other dogs do? And yet here is the law..."must be muzzled in such a manner as will prevent it from biting a person" Any test that needs to asses Greyhounds to ensure they will not bite humans in my opinion is way off base. Just my opinion, by I think all new owners should be given access to a course with supplementary reading material, videos etc explaining how to be a wonderful handler... and it should be paid for IMO by the industry. Assessing a dog out of its home environment eg at a kennel for 4 days will not always produce a result consistent with the dogs everyday behaviour at home (IMO) I know great strides forward have been made and sooo much effort have been put in by sooo many people and I don't want to see any backward steps at all. *facepalm* Firstly, regurgitating legislation at me isn't answering my question and neither is making bizarre claims about the purpose of testing. You seem to keep not understanding that the tests have no more to do with human aggression than a standard test for any breed. The point of testing is to assess a number of behaviours in each dog to work out what (if anything) needs addressing, to help pick the most suitable foster home and eventually, for selecting final home. Testing is done to ensure the best possible outcome and it's beyond me how anyone could disagree with it. *facepalm x 100* There ii is in black and white. It is, as Paul Keating may put it. law.. L-A-W Let me break it down into its 2 parts. (A) A greyhound must be muzzled in such a manner as will prevent it from biting a person (B)(1) A greyhound must be muzzled in such amanner as will prevent it from biting a (sic) or animal unless: The law was enacted in 2013. Presumably, parliaments should have be far more enlightened in 2013 around greyhound behaviour than they were when the original laws were enacted. And yet,in 2013, an Australian parliament enacts a law that says: A) A greyhound must be muzzled in such a manner as will prevent it from biting a person I would have thought it would be pretty simple to provide an explanation. Please stop saying I disagree with temp testing. I can see why resource guarding is an important part of a temp test applied to any breed including greyhounds for the purposes of re-homing. Green collar assessments however are used to determine the suitability for a greyhound to be taken into public areas without being muzzled. So why is resource guarding part of the green collar assessment? Simple question. It is important to remember that greyhounds are re-homed outside of the GAP program and their is no requirement for greyhounds to be green collar tested if the owner is willing to have a lead and muzzle outside of the home or have a dog on the property full time.

Of course it is. Please do not put words in my mouth. When the industry and government sanctions keeping Greyhounds cooped up in tiny cages for 20 hours per day, could there be an alternative approach to allowing this to go on, then temp testing? I don't know, perhaps those involved in the industry could think about the welfare of dogs in the first place? Especially those that draw an income from the remnants of cruelty that the Greyhound Racing Industry perpetuates? Why is it a given that the dogs are allowed to get to that point in the first place? Providing temp testing has always been done when re-homing Greyhounds, and nobody ITT is suggesting it shouldn't be done. But please explain the following to me: Why does the WA Law state 33. Special provision for greyhounds(1) <b>A greyhound must be muzzled in such a manner as will prevent it from biting a person</b> How is this wording appropriate when Greyhounds are amongst the least likely breed to bite a person? Why is a resource guarding test appropriate in an assessment that seeks to determine if a dog can be off muzzle outside of the home? Sorry, I don't buy the black bags argument being put forward ITT which tellingly, you didn't comment on even though it is an outlandish and fanciful attempt to explain a scenario which never happens. And yet the requirement for the assessment is now codified. Just because something is sanctioned doesn't make it right. Like in any form of human endeavour, if the inputs are wrong, you will not achieve the desired outputs. Look at the RSPCA. They have temp testing... ... that result in KILL RATES in the mid-to high forty percentiles. Sorry, I don't buy that one either. It is their inputs that result in the high kill-rate outputs. I've stated ITT before, train the handler as part of temp testing in the dogs normal environment. Have the Greyhound Racing Industry pay for it. After all, there seems to be general agreement in this thread that the Greyhound Racing Industry cause the behavioural issues in the first place. Just a single example, when I handle an ex-racer with super high prey drive, like a good driver that looks up ahead, I look for and fast movement in front of me and when I see it, I immediately reverse direction. The reason I do this is to PREVENT the dog from becoming overly excited in the first place and so I can practice lead training at the same time. If a situation develops too quickly for me to react to and the dog does become excited, I shorten the lead to about 7cm from the neck and turn in the opposite direction and lead the dog away. It is not too hard to apply common sense to these situations. Over time, I exposé the dog to more and more situations that test its behaviour in real world situations, in its own environment. I see the progress the dog has made over time (it is truly remarkable how much a high drive dog can change with a thoughtful approach). Then I can provide a detailed run down of the dogs behaviour to the new owner based on observations collected over months. Given that temp testing is a point in time snapshot but behavioural development occurs over time, why not have the Greyhound Racing industry, which inflicts so much damage on the dogs, pay for an extended foster program and foster caring training? Why not separate GAP from the industry and have a body INDEPENDENT from the Greyhound Racing Industry award funding for Greyhound re-homing to the most worthy providers of Greyhound re-homing? The 4 Corners program only exposed some of the dirty secrets that the general public were not aware of, but are now outraged by. What comes of all of the investigations and enquiries will be a step forward in Greyhound welfare and now is a unique time in the tawdry sports history to either shut it down (IMO won't happen... yet) or to make significant changes resulting in better welfare arrangements for the breed. For once and for all, please don't tell me I am against temp testing or I don't know the difference between aggression and prey-drive as it does not help the discussion to move forward around how you can help to improve the welfare of Greyhounds. We have all, already seen that the status-quo produces woeful dog welfare outcomes, that the industry is not to be trusted with dog welfare and the time is now for new ideas around improvements that will make a positive difference to the welfare of the breed.

I agree entirely. FWIW,I never once took my fosters out for a walk without a muzzle. That said, I find many of the tests that make up the assessment have no bearing on weather a dog should be allowed out without a muzzle. And to have the tests done in a strange environment, without the owner present in atypical situations... well, I won't go on. Which tests would those be? Well look at the WA Law Here: 33. Special provision for greyhounds (1) A greyhound must be muzzled in such a manner as will prevent it from biting a person or animal unless: (a) it is in or at premises occupied by its owner; or (b) it has successfully completed a prescribed training programme. Is there a body of evidence suggesting that Greyhounds bite people more than other dogs do? And yet here is the law..."must be muzzled in such a manner as will prevent it from biting a person" Any test that needs to asses Greyhounds to ensure they will not bite humans in my opinion is way off base. Just my opinion, by I think all new owners should be given access to a course with supplementary reading material, videos etc explaining how to be a wonderful handler... and it should be paid for IMO by the industry. Assessing a dog out of its home environment eg at a kennel for 4 days will not always produce a result consistent with the dogs everyday behaviour at home (IMO) I know great strides forward have been made and sooo much effort have been put in by sooo many people and I don't want to see any backward steps at all.

No surprises there. For most of those sorts of groups, it's not at all about helping actual animals, it's about getting certain things abolished. Interestingly, I saw this today and although it sounds all really great in theory, the idea of a group like AA managing the actual welfare of actual animals concerns me greatly. Well, I am glad to hear you speak to the motivations of "most of these sorts of groups". You have such insight. "the idea of a group like AA managing the actual welfare of actual animals concerns me greatly." Interestingly, it doesn't concern me at all because I fear the status quo far more. See http://www.smh.com.a...221-13kyps.html "It cost $50 to get rid of them."They took the dogs out the back shot them in the head and dropped the bodies in a deep pit." A veteran greyhound trainer who has tried to raise the issue of animal welfare told Fairfax Media that he was shocked at the way the dogs were treated at one property when they were considered not good enough or fast enough to race. He was so disturbed about the "disgusting" conditions for kennelled dogs at the same place, he took photos to show a parliamentary inquiry which was examining the industry which attracts $1 billion a year in bets. He also complained to the industry regulator Greyhound Racing NSW (GRNSW) and told them the property had been owned by one of its own employees. Groups like AA are not much different to PETA. They are not rescue groups, they do not deal with the day-to-day welfare of actual animals. Should a group such as AA be given the responsibility of caring for and rehoming large numbers of greys, the outcome could be lasting damage to the reputation of the breed when improperly tested dogs are adopted out to pet homes. Getting snide at me doesn't change the facts This isn't a case of one or the other because there are better options (as I pointed out in a previous post). Ok, lets talk facts: [x] Some within the Greyhound industry use live baiting as a training method. AA does not. [x] In 20112, the now disgraced and stood aside CEO of GRNSW admitted that 3000 Greyhounds per year were put down. 1 Trainer gave evidence to a parliamentary inquiry that dogs are taken to a property and shot for $50.00 then dumped in a pit. Nope, AA doesn't do that. [x] Many racing greyhounds have been systematically doped by those in the greyhound racing industry.[x]The Victorian Greyhound Racing Integrity Commissioner voluntarily resigned because he knew he was not given the authority to actually bring about integrity to the industry. No sign of AA there. [x] An ex Steward has been implicated in the live-baiting scandal [x]An ex employee of GRNSW has been accused of shooting unwanted dogs for $50.00, then dumping them. [x] An ex GR board member has been accused of doping [x] The whole GHNSW board has been stood down in disgrace [x] The Greyhound Racing Industry breeds far too many dogs year in, year out [x] The Greyhound racing industry has been saying for years that they are increasing the welfare of greyhounds. [x]Nobody believes them. You are right, my snide attitude doesn't change any of the above facts. BTW, do you believe that only 3000 dogs per year are killed in NSW? Given the source is from GRNSW, I am erring on the side of not believing. You know, on the AA website, they say 90% of all dogs are disposed of every year. Well, if 7000, were whelped in NSW in 2012, that would mean over 6000 were disposed of according to AA's guestimates. But GRNSW says "only" 3000 were destroyed. Hmmm, who should I believe? Did you miss the part where I said AA or the industry were not the only two options available? My quoted post does mention that but just in case you missed it.. You mean when you suggested phasing out the industry? I saw that. I think it has a great deal or merit, especially with a body independent of the racing industry creating and enforcing a set of standards aimed at dogs still eligible to be in training together with a monetary bond that could be forfeited for infractions of the standards. The independent body would also have the right to spot inspections and other mechanisms to enable enforcement of the standards. And the independent body would not be able to receive other forms of govt funding to prevent conflict of interest situations.

I agree entirely. FWIW,I never once took my fosters out for a walk without a muzzle. That said, I find many of the tests that make up the assessment have no bearing on weather a dog should be allowed out without a muzzle. And to have the tests done in a strange environment, without the owner present in atypical situations... well, I won't go on.

No surprises there. For most of those sorts of groups, it's not at all about helping actual animals, it's about getting certain things abolished. Interestingly, I saw this today and although it sounds all really great in theory, the idea of a group like AA managing the actual welfare of actual animals concerns me greatly. Well, I am glad to hear you speak to the motivations of "most of these sorts of groups". You have such insight. "the idea of a group like AA managing the actual welfare of actual animals concerns me greatly." Interestingly, it doesn't concern me at all because I fear the status quo far more. See http://www.smh.com.a...221-13kyps.html "It cost $50 to get rid of them."They took the dogs out the back shot them in the head and dropped the bodies in a deep pit." A veteran greyhound trainer who has tried to raise the issue of animal welfare told Fairfax Media that he was shocked at the way the dogs were treated at one property when they were considered not good enough or fast enough to race. He was so disturbed about the "disgusting" conditions for kennelled dogs at the same place, he took photos to show a parliamentary inquiry which was examining the industry which attracts $1 billion a year in bets. He also complained to the industry regulator Greyhound Racing NSW (GRNSW) and told them the property had been owned by one of its own employees. Groups like AA are not much different to PETA. They are not rescue groups, they do not deal with the day-to-day welfare of actual animals. Should a group such as AA be given the responsibility of caring for and rehoming large numbers of greys, the outcome could be lasting damage to the reputation of the breed when improperly tested dogs are adopted out to pet homes. Getting snide at me doesn't change the facts This isn't a case of one or the other because there are better options (as I pointed out in a previous post). Ok, lets talk facts: [x] Some within the Greyhound industry use live baiting as a training method. AA does not. [x] In 20112, the now disgraced and stood aside CEO of GRNSW admitted that 3000 Greyhounds per year were put down. 1 Trainer gave evidence to a parliamentary inquiry that dogs are taken to a property and shot for $50.00 then dumped in a pit. Nope, AA doesn't do that. [x] Many racing greyhounds have been systematically doped by those in the greyhound racing industry.[x]The Victorian Greyhound Racing Integrity Commissioner voluntarily resigned because he knew he was not given the authority to actually bring about integrity to the industry. No sign of AA there. [x] An ex Steward has been implicated in the live-baiting scandal [x]An ex employee of GRNSW has been accused of shooting unwanted dogs for $50.00, then dumping them. [x] An ex GR board member has been accused of doping [x] The whole GHNSW board has been stood down in disgrace [x] The Greyhound Racing Industry breeds far too many dogs year in, year out [x] The Greyhound racing industry has been saying for years that they are increasing the welfare of greyhounds. [x]Nobody believes them. You are right, my snide attitude doesn't change any of the above facts. BTW, do you believe that only 3000 dogs per year are killed in NSW? Given the source is from GRNSW, I am erring on the side of not believing. You know, on the AA website, they say 90% of all dogs are disposed of every year. Well, if 7000, were whelped in NSW in 2012, that would mean over 6000 were disposed of according to AA's guestimates. But GRNSW says "only" 3000 were destroyed. Hmmm, who should I believe?

Prey drive is not aggression, humans are not a typical prey species for the breed, you argument is based on a misunderstanding of assessment for greys. Basic temperament testing (resource guarding, handling, children, etc) is done by most reputable rescues, not strictly for the sake of excluding dogs but to help with placement and give the rescue/shelter a list of issues that need to be addressed. For example.. if you don't test for resource guarding, it may not be seen by the rescue and if it isn't seen, it can't be dealt with. The dog gets rehomed with young kids, young kid goes near dog while dog is eating, dog bites kid, dog goes for a one-way trip to vet, leaves in a garbage bag. If supplements are the devil's work, you should check out the Health/Nutrition/Grooming section of the forum, it's practically Sodom and Gomorrah in there. Er no, sorry. Please just because something is government sanctioned, derived, implemented, executed, thought of, sponsored or supervised doesn't make it right. Now, the tests have been around in QLD for what, 2 or 3 years. and Greyhound racing for 75 years or so. "The dog gets rehomed with young kids, young kid goes near dog while dog is eating, dog bites kid, dog goes for a one-way trip to vet, leaves in a garbage bag." How many of these instances have there been? None? I don't know the fats but I would think none would be a good starting point.Another good starting point would be to assume that the stats that indicate that Greyhounds are amongst the least likey breed to attack humans would indicate that they should be amongst the least likely breed to have to be assessed for resource guarding. But they are the ONLY breed of dog that is assessed for resource guarding before they can be legally walked without a muzzle. Just in case you hadn't thought of this, I offer a thought bubble. Dogs of ALL breeds can be prone to resource guarding. Either we should assess ALL breeds for resource guarding or not assess any (including Greyhounds). It doesn't make sense to have the green collar program allowing Greyhounds off muzzle in public to have to be assessed for resource guarding... what is the feared scenario... OK, dog, time for a walk. I have your lead - check, green collar - check. Now just let me get your food bowl and food so I can feed you while we walk - check. Thank god i have the confidence that you won't resource guard whilst off muzzle and being fed whilst we are out for our walk - check. Silly me for not knowing the difference between prey drive and aggression. Now I get it. Because Greyhounds sometimes have high prey drive, they need to be assessed for how they will react when eating their meals when they are off for their walk in public. No damn, that's aggression isn't it? Doh!, I am all confused again. Thank goodness you told me I don't know the difference between the two. And to think, I hadn't even thought of all of those black bags leaving Vets practices prior to the establishment of the assessments. Wow, I feel let down by the media failing to report any instances of Greyhound mailings but they somehow always report other breeds biting people. At least I know the media are on the job when it comes to the despicable practices that some prominent Greyhound industry players perpetrate against Greyhounds and other defenceless animals. Whilst we are on that topic, what do you think your word count (how many words have you written) on DOL railing against the deplorable practices that go on in the industry? Or perhaps you seek to stop talking about the gut wrenching images of savagery we all saw on Monday being perpetrated against poor defenceless animals by heartless trainers from within the Greyhound industry. Yes, in a thread about despicable behaviour of Greyhound Racing Trainers, we should instead, point out to Greyt instead. the difference between prey drive and aggression.

No surprises there. For most of those sorts of groups, it's not at all about helping actual animals, it's about getting certain things abolished. Interestingly, I saw this today and although it sounds all really great in theory, the idea of a group like AA managing the actual welfare of actual animals concerns me greatly. Well, I am glad to hear you speak to the motivations of "most of these sorts of groups". You have such insight. "the idea of a group like AA managing the actual welfare of actual animals concerns me greatly." Interestingly, it doesn't concern me at all because I fear the status quo far more. See http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/greyhound-welfare-its-50-for-the-bullet-and-the-dog-is-dead-20150221-13kyps.html "It cost $50 to get rid of them."They took the dogs out the back shot them in the head and dropped the bodies in a deep pit." A veteran greyhound trainer who has tried to raise the issue of animal welfare told Fairfax Media that he was shocked at the way the dogs were treated at one property when they were considered not good enough or fast enough to race. He was so disturbed about the "disgusting" conditions for kennelled dogs at the same place, he took photos to show a parliamentary inquiry which was examining the industry which attracts $1 billion a year in bets. He also complained to the industry regulator Greyhound Racing NSW (GRNSW) and told them the property had been owned by one of its own employees.

No, you didn't say other things. What you did say is above and it's an abominable comment, I was ashamed to even read it. To quote you, verbatim, "They didn't think that far ahead, they didn't think about where dogs will go if the industry was shut down completely they still have NFI. Gone Are The Dogs posted this morning "what happens to the dogs now?" Should've thought about that earlier hey?" The campaigners have "NFI"? You mean the people appalled by live baiting, doping, unfathomable "wastage", cheating, money laundering, various other criminal activity not to mention that board members are being caught out, ex-stewards have been involved in live-baiting and self regulation is a joke. You mean those people have "NFI"? Tell me, what do you think of the public's outrage about this issue? What? Are you part of the GRDBOIT cult are you? The very ones that insist every single greyhound is rehomable? The ones that slandered my name all over the AA pages because I don't believe every greyhound is rehomable (like any other breed) and called me a dog killer because I still stand by that? Those people? What do I think of the publics outrage? I'm as filthy as they are. So you tell me...what happens to the dogs...now, today if greyhound racing in this country is shut down immediately? To answer your questions: No, I am not affiliated in any way with the above group or any activist group. I am an individual concerned about the mass disposal of unwanted Greyhounds and abhorrent training practices including live baiting and doping and poor nutrition. Do I believe that every Grey is re-homable? I don't have enough experience to answer that. My *opinion* is that Greyhounds have shown in study after study to be amongst the least likely of all breeds to attack humans. My opinion is that the assessment programs are overly onerous and have some just silly elements eg, why is there a need to test only Greyhounds around how they react when approached when eating? Are the authorities worried that Greyhounds are routinely fed when out walking and if they are approached, they will become aggressive? Some of the scenarios included in the tests are too silly for me to even think about. As a group, only Greyhounds are routinely subjected to a code of practice that enables trainers to keep them in tiny cages for 20+ hours per day and thanks to media reports, we have seen some trainers live baiting and doping so how is the dog supposed to develop "normally" in the way that other dog breeds that are raised as pets are? My opinion is that if there are Greyhounds that should not be re-homed, it has nothing to do with the breed and everything to do with the way they have been treated by their trainers... you know, industry people. Those charged with the dogs welfare. Those subjected to stringent industry regulations. I have seen the joyfulness with which young Greyhounds live their lives before they are broken in. I have seen and experienced the changes that ex-racing greyhounds undergo when transitioning to pet life and the progress that they make is truly remarkable. I have seen ex-racing dogs whose life's greatest pleasure is to meet a new human and to eagerly make friends with other dogs of all breeds. I know of ex-racing dogs being used as therapy dogs, bringing joy to the lives of elderly and infirm people. I know that Greyhounds make wonderful pets for all sorts of people, some that can't provide too much exercise, some that don't like too much hair and some that don't like that doggy smell. I know Greyhounds are well suited to apartments, duplexes and small houses. So what I think is that Greyhounds are suited to a variety of people living in a variety of situations and with a variety of lifestyles. Nobody can answer your last question. My best guess would be that most Greyhounds would be made to disappear. So very much like happens with a Greyhound industry but in much greater numbers. The rescues would be inundated. The breeding programs would cease. Punters would punt. Many in the industry would try to get involved with horses. My guess is that over the coming years, you would not see the over breeding and subsequent mass disposal of wonderful, healthy dogs, you wouldn't see cruelty such as live baiting, You wouldn't see healthy dogs fed an unhealthy diet filled with supplements n the name of winning, You wouldn't see the cheating, doping, money laundering, corrupt officials... It would be a nicer world to live in. Thank you for asking.

No, you didn't say other things. What you did say is above and it's an abominable comment, I was ashamed to even read it. To quote you, verbatim, "They didn't think that far ahead, they didn't think about where dogs will go if the industry was shut down completely they still have NFI. Gone Are The Dogs posted this morning "what happens to the dogs now?" Should've thought about that earlier hey?" The campaigners have "NFI"? You mean the people appalled by live baiting, doping, unfathomable "wastage", cheating, money laundering, various other criminal activity not to mention that board members are being caught out, ex-stewards have been involved in live-baiting and self regulation is a joke. You mean those people have "NFI"? Tell me, what do you think of the public's outrage about this issue?

Many ex-racers have very poor teeth due to being fed a broth-like substance filled with supplements their whole life. As a breed, their ability to accept often intolerable conditions from birth and still turn into great pets is incredible.

In an ABC report, the now temporarily suspended CEO of Greyhound Racing NSW Brent Hogan, stated he did not have access to the same capabilities as Animals Australia to investigate. Pointedly, the Minister said he had never been informed of the issue by Mr Hogan, nor were any resources asked for.. I guess plausible deniability is important to the Minister. It is almost hilarious to think how toxic those in the industry have become so quickly during an election campaign when just a few days ago if any pollie was ever asked, they woud reply along the lines of the NT spokesperson eg, There is no evidence of abuse, we have a strict compliance regime in place, we have made great strides in animal welfare, etc, etc. Yeah, sure.

Even if the evidence is not accepted, it will lead to another round of media reporting and re-fresh the public's memory. So will each of the investigations under way. It is like shining a light under a rock. Oh joy for an industry used to getting its own way through the cover provided by the various gaming ministers.

Lets hope Animals Australia don't get their hands on footage about how many thousands of Greyhounds each year are made to "disappear" by those in the industry. It would be even uglier. So far the warriors fighting the cause of animal rights seem to be: [ ] RSPCA [ ] Politicians [ ]All of the Greyhound Integrity Commissioners [x] Animal Rights Groups [x] The ABC [x] Even Fairfax Media There are only so many absolute PR disasters any industry can take before the public demands action.

The standard reply is 2 or 4 as for example, you can take 2 with you and leave 2 at home. I had a dog and 2 fosters and the third always felt left behind so I think 1,2 or 4

Height generally will not have an impact except for very few dogs that are re-active due to past history with other dogs. I never found it to be an issue with Greys anyway. The lead will create much more interest in your dog in my experience. If you can go to quiet areas of the park, especially in quieter times and when the 2 trouble dogs will not be there and trial having her off the lead, you may get a better sense of what happens. FWIW, I have never seen a GD attack another dog so not having perfect recall is not the hugest of issues if you are confident that Willow will not be the aggressor.

Sorry, but I can't stand that little saying applied to animals. It's only used by people so poor that the arse is falling out of their pants to justify why they have racing dogs when clearly they cannot afford proper care for them. There's food, parasite prevention, dental care, the list goes on. What else do these bogans' kids miss out on so they can continue to race dogs? You are right, but it appeals to my darker side... humans going without in favour of dogs. Greyt, the TAB would get rid of dog racing in QLD and replace it another 1000 pokie machines in a heartbeat. Dog racing is the least profitable form of gambling for them. It is the state governments that regulate exactly what the TAB is allowed to invest in. It is the government that would need to be lobbied to see real changes in welfare rather than just getting an empty PR response from the industry. Unless things are made laws, and there is enforcement, people will continue to make money from greyhounds with no regard to welfare. You are right about the Whippets, but it appeals to my darker side... humans going without in favour of dogs. The racing industry has an 80 year history, is politically, socially and economically connected and has a momentum that suggests that it is not going to close its doors tomorrow. At the same time, it exists at the whim of the various governments that control it so it can't be blind to community expectations without consequences. And the rate of killing is appalling and the community knowledge of it is growing. Please pardon the pun, but placing an all or nothing bet on closing down the industry is a losing bet this year and for the foreseeable future. And there are things that can be done to decrease the killing now, none of which made it into the letter sent to Greyhound owners and trainers by Brent Hogan: For example: Mandate that state greyhound racing industry bodies include in their primary responsibility, the care and welfare of greyhounds (and not just the organisation of racing meetings and integrity of wagering) Mandate that actual figures are put on a reduction of killing with a plan, tabled and reviewed in parliaments around that reduction eg, to reduce from 3000 in 2012 to 2000 by 2017 Immediately stop the export of racing greyhounds to Macau where they face a death rate of 100%. And ban the export of Australian bloodlines there. Mandate annually increasing funding to go to increasing the re-homing rates of ex-racers. This can be done in a variety of ways eg, the TAB idea, having an extra Whelping or Sales fee or many other ideas. Use on track mechanisms to make Greyhounds more competitive and less likely to be disposed of eg, through extending the racing classification system allowing for slower dogs Change the racing tracks themselves so that racing is safer for the animals Politicians need to have easy options where they can be seen to be doing the right thing. For example, when the integrity of the greyhound racing became a hot issue in Victoria, they installed an Integrity Commissioner. That the Integrity Commissioner resigned because he felt that he could not meet his own organisations charter is not an issue for the government, it is an issue for the industry - note, that unlike regular Ombusman, the Integrity Commissioner is not independent of the body it is reporting on - that tells you something. This issue will build momentum as more Greys make it into the hearts and minds of the general public and the media. I hope Mr Hogan knows that if he is asked the same question in 5 years and the answer is still 3000, he will give interested groups all that they need to press for the introduction of a body such as the RSPCA to oversee the welfare of racing greyhounds and that will be a disaster for the industry. ETA that obviously Brent Hogan can't mandate governments do these things but obviously, any or all of the racing bodies around Australia can do most of these things themselves, without being asked and Greyhound Racing NSW didn't do any of them.

Whippet Racing was once very popular in the UK where it was said that the family may have to go without food, but not the Whippet! The money will corrupt the already corrupt through doping, race rigging, betting irregularities etc but thankfully, most owners and trainers are not corrupt. If there were more money to go around, perhaps more would be spent on the welfare of the dogs. A good place to start would be the various TABs as they are (presumably) making money off the gambling that greyhound racing attracts.

Syndication is the greatest of all evils as far as I'm concerned because it makes the process even less focussed on the animal's welfare. If you have 20 priorities, you don't have any priorities. The same goes for dog ownership. Syndication means that the responsibility of ownership is transferred to the trainer, who in turn, does not own the dog. None of the "owners", the syndicate members have to take direct responsibility for the dog in the way that normal pet owners do. As a financial instrument, syndication is probably fantastic, but it is also a big fail for dog welfare.

There will never be enough homes for the amounts of racing greyhounds looking for one. Quite a few will not be suitable for rehoming, that needs to be remembered. Last year there was a total of 10 ANKC greyhounds pups registered. I directed a small number of people to sites where they could try and buy a race bred greyhound puppy. But the reality is very few people want a greyhound puppy. I wasn't overwhelmed with enquires. And not all people wanting greyhounds are suitable owners. I have cringed at a couple of threads lately where people have asked what breed is suitable for them and greyhounds are suggested when it is obvious to me that they are not suitable. For dogs that have been around since the 1700's pet Greyhounds still haven't had their day. If the racing industry ceased tomorrow, the breed would probably die out shortly after except for some new pet breeders who would meet a demand. But the course that the breed is travelling at the moment is, to the pet world, evolutionary or iterative, not revolutionary. These dogs have a couple of things in their favour, especially how genuinely happy they seem to be to meet new people and old friends alike. People meeting a grey for the first time is a genuinely revelatory experience for so many and many of those first meetings result in those people considering a Grey as a pet. Almost counter intuitively, my local shelter has recently begun to re-home Greys and many are gone within a day or two... it almost seems as if Greyhounds winding up in this local shelter is a good thing for the breed. Also, Greyhounds are ideally suited to many elderly people who may not want to go on long walks or have the energy to pursue the more active breeds. And as we age as a society and we live longer, lower energy, low shedding, clean dogs may become more popular. As to temperament testing, those that are not suitable for pet life is a much lower number than the number of dogs killed and the issues do not depend on each other. That is, if 3000 more per year could be saved in NSW, minus the number that would not pass temperament testing, that is something we can all wish for. Even with that in mind, it is one of my life's best experiences, taking a high-prey hound into my home and observing almost daily improvements in its adaptation from racing to pet life. Rebanne is just ahead of her time, like so many pioneers. the more, the dogs get out in the community, the greater the interest, knowledge and demand.... at the moment, all of the ingredients are lacking, but it doesn't have to be that way forever.

I would say that my own experience is representative of many. I have owned dogs all of my life by Greyhound Racing never interested me. I only happened to begin to learn about the breed a little over 1 year ago and almost by chance at that, and when I did, I became interested in many aspects of the breed, including their PTS rates. I *think* that the Greyhound industry might be feeling the pressure at the moment because they are looking at what is happening to the horse jumping racing people where Ministers are having to defend the sport and re-affirm that it will continue every time a jumper falls and is PTS in a race. The Greyhound people must be looking around the curve and wondering if they are next. The sport is also facing declining numbers at the gate, even though revenue is fairly healthy due to pay tv and internet betting is probably having an impact too. If the numbers decline too far, then the pollies might find it easier to take action if there are effective community and media initiatives. So here I am fostering some lovely hounds and teaching them the way of the pet world and sooo many people ask me about them. And most of them, previously had never considered a hound before in their lives. One dog I had attracted no less than 4 potential adopters from the dog park but none of them could have another dog at the time. So anyway, there are all of these people out there who have never been exposed to the breed, have never considered having one as a pet and have no idea that so many dogs are put down. But now we also have the internet to speed up the knowledge factor, the post racing programs, the wonderful community based rescue groups and the ANKC breeders like Rebanne showing off the wonderful breed. I don't expect an "Arab Summer" type up-rising, more of a slow burn. And if the racing industry feel that they should do a better job of reducing the kill numbers, that can only be a good thing for the individual dogs that are saved from a big "E" being painted on their head. I remember the days when my mum would have been in a frenzy at the thought of having a real mink coat. Now women the world over are abhorred by such thoughts. The challenge to the Greyhound Racing Industry is to prevent the public from thinking the whole industry is abhorrent due to the fate of the dogs because if they do, the pollies will act. Who knows? There maybe a day when the numbers of dogs not needed by the industry is matched or exceeded by the number of dogs available to adopt. If that day comes, it will be because the industry has moved in the right direction on this issue and more (much more) of the public have fallen in love with the Greys. For me, it will be a Greyt day!

No actually, industry representatives have been asked many times what the actual kill numbers and have never before, publicly stated them. But they have taken the time to trash those that put up best guesses based on information gleaned from many sources. For all of the statistics available about greyhound racing (and there are a lot down to whelping numbers of each litter), none of the information from Greyhound racing officials, relates to where greyhounds born each year end up. To quote you, "if you've had your head firmly buried in the sand up until now" you would think that the only reason not to publish the annual kill figures would be because the the numbers are embarrassing, to kill so many beautiful animals is shameful, that Greyhounds as Pets and GAP just touch the surface and because if the actual numbers were common knowledge, the general public (we have been characterised as a nation of dog lovers) would be outraged.

You are awesome. More and more Greyhounds will get out into the community over time and each one will be a living, breathing endorsement and advertisement around what fantastic pets they make. In turn, this will lead to even more being adopted instead of killed.... hopefully we will see some in your neighbourhood soon!

Stop attacking the good intentions PL! and people think that they are going to take on the might and power of the racing industry with their good intentions and made up facts and figures. It's laughable really and the latestt " ban racing petition" won't get further than a shredder or round filing bin When the CEO of of Greyhound Racing NSW says publicly that 3000 healthy dogs die as a result of the industry in NSW alone each year, that community expectations are changing and that Greyhound NSW needs to do better, change is already happening.

Er no, the Australian Greyhound Racing Industry is uniquely well equipped in the destruction of dogs. It doesn't need to be compared to Pedigree Dogs Exposed. So if racing at Wentworth Park has been around since 1932 or so, the Greyhound Racing industry in NSW alone has killed in excess of 200,000 dogs. The problem with the facts and figures as they relate to the killing of dogs as a by-product of the Australian Greyhound Racing industry is that none of them are good, save for GAP which makes a very small by valuable difference. Where are you making this up from ? Are these facts , figures, estimates or guesses that you've come up with yourself ? So far I've seen nothing that relates to Australia, with the exception of your first post and even then, you appear to have made it up Well, if you conduct Greyhound racing for 80 years and you kill 3000 dogs per year, you kill a total of 240,000. So I rounded down the number to account for the formative years of the sport etc That said, it doesn't account for the greyhound racing was at its nadir eg in 1975 there were over 6000 litters vs 2814 in 2010/11. So as a by product of racing, killing just 200,000 beautiful healthy dogs, only in NSW, is a very conservative estimate.