m-j

As it was yes it was deplorable but as I said on a level playing field and legislation introduced as I have mentioned many times in previous posts and that legislation policed I think it could be changed. In the past policies were introduced but not policed (one inspection in 10 years that we knew was going to happen is not good policing, I would have welcomed more surprise inspections as we had nothing to hide)which makes them hardly worth the paper they were printed on. I don't blame you or anybody for thinking the way you do (I have cursed owners myself, paid their vet bills but I took the dog with the exception of one) but to completely ban the industry I don't believe is the way forward for all the reasons I have mentioned, the biggest being this way is a certain death sentence for many of the existing dogs. I also believe if this goes Australia wide it WILL go underground and that it is definitely doable. If people can live bait on a track and there is only one instance of it being filmed, shouldn't be too hard.

As I have said right from the beginning of this thread (and the thread that was started after the live baiting) this wouldn't happen if the government introduced legislation that required the breeders to register the pups at two weeks of age and to do this they needed to pay a fee of several thousand per pup that goes to an independent body that keeps that money until the dog is retired then it is used to enable the dog to go into a rescue organisation and have it's life after racing funded until it is rehomed into a pet home. The legislation could even cover the dogs that are already existing No registration, no racing, makes breeding the pups a wasted exercise in the first place and a huge waste of money for them. Ultrasounds could also be made compulsory so they can't get out of paying the thousands to register the pups. If the numbers on the ground don't tally up to the ultrasound a vet needs to verify why or that all is legitimate. No breeder is going to euth pups at an early age and blow the thousands it has cost them just to get the pups on the ground. Not to mention they could be euthing the next Brett Lee. This would help keep the numbers of pups being bred down and ensure they have a chance to live out their lives. If this was the case the owner/breeders who have gone into this to make money will think very seriously about breeding their bitch as it is hard enough to sell them as it is let alone having to add another several thousand to the price of the pups. Will it see the demise of the industry? possibly, but at least the dogs that would have been in it would have been be safe. The way it is they aren't all safe.

No I don't support game hunters, cock fighting or anything that is cruel and I consider a sport cruel when the end result is certain injury or death or anything the animal involved in it, given a choice, wouldn't participate. Try walking a greyhound past the entrance to an area where they know they have the opportunity to have a free run without them indicating they want to go in there, it is a very very sick Greyhound that doesn't want to go in and have that run. Tail docking doesn't even vaguely compare to dogs doing something they were very much bred to and LOVE to do. Why is Greyhound racing, done as it should be with all on a level playing field and the wastage issue addressed, a deplorable sport?? From my experience the dogs don't agree with you. They would rather have a run than lie on a couch the only time a couch would take precedence is if they are tired after their run. As I have mentioned before a track is about the safest place for them to do this.

Yes you are entitled to your opinion but I think it is as uninformed emotive opinion that is based on a minority that the industry is trying get rid of. an opinion that is going to help pave the way for a government to enable people to lose their livelihoods, which will in turn affect their families and possibly their lives, being denied an opportunity to work can do that to people. It is as uninformed as if I were to say people shouldn't be able to own pets because of pet owners being cruel to their pets which is well documented in vets, rescue organisations, anecdotes, and newspapers.

Yes I have no doubt it will be passed when it goes through the lower house, yet another dodgy move by Baird but anyhoo. I also have no doubt that the industry WILL win in court but the problem there is how long will it take? Years I suspect and by that time the livelihoods of many will be long gone. Pet food distributors closed down and bankrupt, people with mortgages crushed and then there's the reality of suicides. I hope those that are feeling like they can't go on read Baird's link to Lifeline on the end of his facebook post, you know, so they know where to ring From what I've been told it is even looking bad for the industry in court, don't know why but as you have said many people will have lost their livelihoods and the worst bit being the dogs will be gone. The owners who aren't involved in the industry in any other capacity, who consider their dog as an investment (most wouldn't know their dog if they fell over it) which has just suddenly turned into a liability won't be feeling very sympathetic toward their dog/s.

Well the government has signed sealed and delivered their decision, we really will never know if the industry is capable of reform or not as they aren't being given a chance to prove it. I think they had a good go at it though. Imagine if pet owners reduced the number of dogs being bred by 46%, there would be very little need for pounds, rescue organisations etc.

it was posted before they will make some $170 $200 for every one put down, nice little money earner. as for the govt all that land now free for development. thats what counts , the sale of the nsw electricty utilities to china was stopped much to bairds fury and I cant blame him, every other state has had their sales cleared even the sale of darwain port, we will be as displaced as the original land owners by the time our govts has sold or leased everything they can at this rate anyway? Yes! but I thought it was $550, could be wrong. Yes they tried to get Wentworth Park about 7 tears ago I been told and that didn't work for them. The AR guys did the dirty work for them. The fact that people can loose their livelihoods on anecdotal evidence, as much of the report is based on, the way it was rushed through, all the good work that has been done to clean the industry up is ignored, kind of makes you think bye bye democracy.

I'm still confused as to how a government can force people to lose their livelihoods through the application of legislation but not force them to change by applying legislation so the industry can die slowly to allow rescue organisations to cope with the dogs that are going to made redundant. How is it that they can appoint an administrator to close the industry but not to change it??? If it is such a concern why aren't the other states following suit??? What plans did they have in place for the poor dogs whose welfare is now very compromised..... the RSPCA who can't cope with the wastage from the pet industry???

In the 10 years that I was at the kennels with nearly 700 dogs going through in that time we had 3 fatalities. Yes we had injuries that required veterinary attention but only one that stopped the dog from racing and he was rehomed. I think if certain kennels were having a lot of "accidents" that required the dogs to be euthed they would be investigated with the new regulations that have been put in place and vets aren't silly they would probably be very suspicious also. I know of one of the people that was mentioned in the Commission of Inquiry that was on the new board (or whatever they are called) and she was very much for the dogs/animals. I believe the new GRNSW board were genuinely concerned for the dogs welfare. Whereas the government on the other hand....hmmm.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done??? 50% of way the hell too many is still too many. When you're breeding so many dogs that it would be impossible, even with pouring money into GAP, to rehome even a quarter that were bred per year, a reduction is not good enough. Getting vet verification to euth will be no issue for the less scrupulous. I foresee an increase in "paddock accidents". And the hundreds of thousands spent on research? Like the study that they spent $250,000 on, that was (according to leaked emails) nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to get the public off their backs? If the above is what the industry considers sufficient change, the ban can't really have come of that much of a surprise? That is a good effort in such a short time. Put other regulations in place with policing things can change and as I have said in the past and as Corvus just said it won't be viable for the industry to keep going but at least it would wind down slowly to enable the rescuers cope with the dogs, this way I hate to think what is going to happen to the existing dogs. Re paddock injuries, if there are as many unscrupulous people as you give the impression that you think there are, that's a lot of corrupt vets you're talking about....do you really think it would be possible to happen in large numbers? I don't.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done???

That tiny minority of dogs that might end up over there would be a tiny minority too many. I mentioned the census in a previous post as I also received the email, I didn't read it in time as the cut off date was the day before I read it and therefore my 3 weren't included in those stats, plus the others I have rehomed that are still alive in pet homes. You needed to supply ear brands and the dogs breeding it would have been foolish of them to falsify the census as it could/can be easily checked. I wonder how many others didn't reply as well.

I know dogs are ending up in China but there would be far more if the industry is closed down abruptly. When Baird announced that the industry was going to be closed down in 12 mths time several people I know basically said yeah yeah whatever, it won't happen. Laws have been changed/implimented in the past but when the storm blew over it was business as usual, now several weeks down the track they are not quite so blasé as pressure is being applied and they realise that people, including members of the racing fraternity, are sick and tired of them feeling they are above the law. Look at .05 laws I was working in pubs before .05 came in when it did for many years people were blasé about them too until they were properly policed (even the police ignored the law to a degree) publicans and bar attendants were forced to adhere to RSA legislation, the drinking culture was changed. I'm not saying it is perfect but it is immensely improved. If a whole nation can change a very entrenched culture surely Greyhound people can too with the right type of pressure being applied.

One of the things I'm worried about if the industry closes is the greedy sending their unwanted dogs to Macau or China to race in the underground race tracks, or the possibility of underground racing starting here. If that happens all will be lost, the selfish uncaring AH's will still be able to profit from these beautiful dogs misery and the ethical trainers/owners and dogs will loose a sport they enjoy, not to mention another source of employment going down the gurgler.

Sorry my misunderstanding re the people you were talking about that have tarred lure coursers with the same brush as the unethical Greyhound people. Just as the ethical people have been except lure courses haven't got the whole country down on them and lure coursers aren't having their right to participate in and enjoy their sport because of the unethical ones taken away from them altogether. Like I said I agree with you the law probably is stupid. Yes the Greys do get to catch a toy, otherwise they wouldn't chase, some states do it on the track with the lure, some do it in the catching pen, my pups always got drive satisfaction with the toy. Like I said very few make money out of racing, yes hoping that they will have the next Brett Lee and all that would go with it is incentive but very few actually reach that goal, otherwise like I said I would have been racing dogs. The wealthy people in the sport of both horse racing and dog racing are wealthy because they have other means to make money. I didn't say that the sport of lure coursing is the same as racing from the human perspective, just the drive that the dog is working with to enable you to compete in the sport is, which is why I was assuming the law of not being able to have bait animals on your property has been extended to lure coursers. If the rule has been extended to people who own sighthounds well that is also ridiculous. Especially if you had seen my Greyhound the other day at the vet several days ago completely ignoring a rabbit in a cage right next to her and the cat on the counter above her and the cats and rabbit in the cages at the pet shop today, yet she is more than happy to chase a toy.

It's not about the material the lure is made out of, Greys chase plastic replicas of an animal that tweets not squeals, it is the movement, it is about enhancing that drive. I spent 10 yrs teaching pups to chase a toy, if the toy wasn't moving they showed no interest in it, move it and they were straight onto it. In fact lure coursing is closer to chasing a living animal than the lure on a track in that the lure goes along the ground. I had to train my pups to chase the toy in the air by starting it on the ground and gradually raising it or they showed little interest in it if it was in the air initially. Which is why the poor animals in the four corners report were tied to the raised lure. I had a couple of pups that lacked interest in movement initially, so to gain their interest I went and scented a toy with fox fur plucked from a road kill fox, the scent did get them interested then small movements got them chasing, then they realised what fun it was. The Greyhound people didn't make the rule extend to the lure coursers the Government did. The incentive is the competition why compete if you are not competitive, you can be social with your dogs in other ways that doesn't include competition.

You don't need to own pets, perhaps we all need to get another hobby and not have pets because of the potential that someone might do harm. Better take away schools, churches, any social group or even employment because there is a potential that someone might do harm. That's the problem with slippery slope answers to problems where does it end because the ban it all method to prevent cruelty can be applied to just about everything. --Lhok I agree maybe the Greyhound industry doesn't provide enough votes as it is a minority that is exclusive and elusive and there are many who support the end of it. The examples you have given are necessary and majority groups.

It's all about dogs chasing something, enhancing that drive, as I mentioned with my story about the showing and trialling unethical things are done just to satisfy egos. Can you say you know all the lure coursers in your state and how they train. I'm guessing lure coursers don't bait with animals but I suppose it could be a just in case measure. I'm with you it is stupid but unfortunately it is same the kind of sport.

I suppose that's how the many ethical trainers feel. Their rights were impinged on also as the bait animal rule has been in for a long time. I didn't think that cats came under the ban on bait creatures, can't remember. Only a very small percentage of lucky people who race dogs make any money out of it otherwise I would have been racing dogs. Up until the four corners report it was all anecdotal evidence, just like my stories of what I have seen. I think to save many dog's lives the unethical need to shown this is not a storm in teacup, it won't blow over and you will be policed. Like with the job I'm in a the moment I need to do a lot of work that I don't like or want to do and quite a bit is done in my own time because of unethical people. I have a the same choice as the lure coursers in NSW either do what is required or get another job or in their case, hobby.

Sorry but this could not be more wrong. I have earned my living helping organisations shift and re-align their cultures, and the factors for successful culture change do not exist in this industry and probably never will. . You're probably right but I feel optimistic as I am currently working in an industry that has been forced into being accountable and ethical and while it ducked and weaved in the past now it is being properly policed so people are towing the line as they are worried about the consequences. The industry I'm talking about is far bigger than the Greyhound racing industry.

In regards to the 7% wasteage, recently the GOTBA (Greyhound Owners, Trainers and Breeders Association) sent out a survey asking members to send in the ear brand and breeding of the retired greys in their Kennel or back yard. They are the people who know what dogs have been registered as race dogs, they are ear branded at 3months or they don't race which makes the purpose of owning the dog null and void. I'm guessing this is where that figure came from. It still isn't a true indicator as I missed out on doing his as I didn't read the email in time so my three are not accounted for, the previous dogs I've put into pet homes, that are still alive haven't been accounted for and they wouldn't have been as they are not in my back yard, how many others missed out older people who don't have email etc. In the past you didn't have to say what you did with your retired dogs, now in NSW you do. I'm pretty sure this only refers to Greys registered with the GRNSW, I see it as the industry being made transparent and accountable which in my books is great. The GRNSW is not going to take dogs off people what are they going to do with them?? It just gives them the capability to say you said you had this dog in your kennel it isn't here please explain and here is your fine or you're out of this industry. As far as the lure coursing dogs being caught up in this, if you aren't doing the wrong thing I don't understand what the issue is, unless you have rabbits as pets. To say just because there is no money is involved in a sport so everyone does the right thing is so wrong. Some of the things I have seen in the show and obedience ring and at training has made me shudder and I have reported an incident. These things were done in public goodness knows what happens at home judging by some of the body language I have seen from dogs, which is them telling the story, makes me wonder. Admittedly I haven't been involved in any dog sports for quite a few years but I did notice that with positive motivational training methods being used more, the body language of the majority of dogs has certainly improved but the sports are self regulated and not everyone is ethical.

People can gamble on human sports of all kinds too, do we stop them as well? Because gambling is regulated there are measures that have been put in place to assist problem gamblers with their problem and because they can be seen (transparency) it can be done, if it goes underground no transparency no regulation and the people willing to take the risk to organise gambling outlets for gamblers probably wouldn't give to hoots about gambler's welfare so long as they get their money. Gambling is an addiction, if it was made illegal it won't stop, drugs are a good example, Portugal (I think that was the country mentioned in the docco I was watching) has legalised some drugs and 10 yrs down the track there have been improvements. The racing culture could be changed, not overnight though, by forcing them to be accountable for the dogs welfare before, during and after racing. The industry does need to become more educated, transparent, regulated and policed. If that becomes the norm the younger up and coming trainers, owners etc will accept it as that is the way it is. As has been mentioned Greys love to run and I believe the track is the safest place for them to do this, if there were as many Greys running around at off-lead dog parks etc as there are racing, there would be far far more injuries even fatalities, as much as I love them I'm convinced they are the klutzes of the dog world. In nearly 50 yrs of owning dogs, the last 12 with Greys I 've had more self induced injuries than in the other nearly 38yrs with other dog breeds. I am very careful where I let my dogs off-lead. In the pens and running lanes at the kennels I worked at, the ground was manicured and well maintained to avoid injuries.

In the report there were a lot of recommendations that obviously haven't been upheld fast enough. It would have been a difficult job as you have a handful of people trying to move a mountainful of resistant people steeped in tradition and a culture. This culture has come about because of money and egos, so the Mike Baird has said enough is enough you flaunted the law so you are going to pay I'm closing this industry down. His motivation for doing this I really don't know but as has been said I suspect it wasn't completely driven by the dogs welfare. The bits I have read of the report don't really give much detail on how the problem of thousands of dogs are going to be dealt with (you would think after 12mths they would know). The driving force for these people racing dogs, live baiting, lack of concern for the outcome for the dogs is driven by money so this is why I said add $3000-$4000 per pup. Breeders are going to think very seriously about breeding their next litter of pups as it is hard enough to sell dogs at $2000+ let alone adding another $3000-$4000 which the breeder will have to absorb if the pups don't sell. The pups/dogs that are not wanted are then put into a rescue organisation with $3000-$4000 to ensure that they have enough money backing them to enable them to be rehomed. The breeder/owner will have to do this rather than face the penalties for not doing so as they will be made accountable, plus the breeder will be out of pocket for all the expenses they have incurred to get the bitch in whelp anyway, which is not a cheap exercise. The reason why I said register them before they are 2 weeks old is that they aren't moving then so they can't test them for prey drive and very few breeders will want to take the risk of possibly euthing the next Brett Lee. Indiscriminate breeding is very rare amoungst Greys, again this is money orientated, the bitch is useless for several months or you have wasted an opportunity to breed to a dog you would really want to breed with, most greys generally only cycle every 12 mths, so they make sure it doesn't happen (pity pet owners don't take the same precautions). When the pups are sold the same accountability goes onto the new owner The report said that there are a certain amount of Greys needing to be bred each year to make the industry viable, if that quota isn't reached things will go pear shaped, so the industry will die, but the dogs that are racing now will still be able to do so and the influx of dogs into the rescue system will be a slower trickle than the avalanche it is going to be now. If the industry in NSW is closed down it will be a wake up call to the other states to get their act together and play the game by the law or the same thing will happen to them. When the Four Corners report came out the few people I talked to about it believed it was a storm in a teacup, I did try to say that no it isn't there are a lot of people peeved about this, but it fell on deaf ears. Just as I tried to tell them that to get a mad keen chaser you don't need to use live baiting despite the fact I had walked the talk for 10 yrs with roughly 600-700 greys, got dogs chasing that had stopped chasing ect, was employed by a guy who was as tight as a fish's backside with money, had old school mentality until he saw the results of the toy training, he would not have wasted money employing me to train these dogs if it hadn't worked. As far preventing live baiting the only things that I can think of are... like my boss people need to be educated and attitudes changed and random checks on properties ( to cut down costs I had though that perhaps drones could be used, but then you are probably starting to violate human rights). Doping.. more swabs done at races. All these things cost money to do again this along with a decrease of Greys to race will help with a slow cull of the industry, which is probably another reason why the GRNSW has been reluctant to implement the changes as fast as some would like.

If nothing else comes of this hopefully it will galvanise the other racing bodies and or the politicians in other states into getting their act together to do the right thing so they don't have the same fate or public backlash.

I said this in the last discussion we had on this topic when the Four Corners report came out. I believe if owners of the breeders had to pay a registration fee of $3000-$4000 per pup before it was two weeks old on top of the other fees they need to pay which was then put aside for the dog to go into a rehoming facility when it retired there would A LOT LESS pups being born in the first place. If they don't pay that fee the dogs can't be registered therefore can't race. The industry would then die a slow death and the dogs that exist would still get to race until they can't any more. It won't really help the existing young dogs that can't race but neither does the present situation and it also effects the many dogs that are racing plus it will help the many people that will loose their jobs or income and I'm not just talking about trainers I'm talking about the vets, food suppliers, people that are employed because of the tracks needing to be maintained and run on race day etc. As I said last time my boss would have jumped at the opportunity and put in more pens and employ people to look after the dogs knowing that he was going to be paid a weekly sum to look after these dogs, which would a be lot more reliable than the stingy owners that didn't like paying someone to look after their dogs. While I'm not arguing with you that the industry had more that it's fair share of scumbags in it, not all are like that and to tar them all with the same brush is extremely unfair. I know lots of lovely people who really do like their dogs and do have more retired dogs in their homes than are racing.