Four Corners: Greyhound Racing: Live Baiting Revelations

[Tempus Fugit]

If the federal government gets its way with its proposed medical research fund (funded from our doctor visits) maybe more unwanted greys will go to research institutions.

[Greyt]

I haven't been on line much in the last few days but as soon as I am my newsfeed on FB is flooded with panicked greyhound rescues screaming for foster carers and money. These are the same rescues that have been campaigning for the end of greyhound racing and now dogs are starting to come in they are crapping themselves at the enormity of what they have been demanding. 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?

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?

[dogbesotted]

If the federal government gets its way with its proposed medical research fund (funded from our doctor visits) maybe more unwanted greys will go to research institutions.

Dog forbid.. one cruelty for another is not a solution.

h

Edited February 22, 2015 by dogbesotted

[HazyWal]

I haven't been on line much in the last few days but as soon as I am my newsfeed on FB is flooded with panicked greyhound rescues screaming for foster carers and money. These are the same rescues that have been campaigning for the end of greyhound racing and now dogs are starting to come in they are crapping themselves at the enormity of what they have been demanding. 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?

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?

Edited February 22, 2015 by HazyWal

[Lhok]

According to some on the Animals Australia page it doesn't matter if some/most are euth'd as they apparently would be anyway and if it justifies the industry being shut down it is completely fine with them which I found abhorrent.

--Lhok

[LisaCC]

According to some on the Animals Australia page it doesn't matter if some/most are euth'd as they apparently would be anyway and if it justifies the industry being shut down it is completely fine with them which I found abhorrent.

--Lhok

Animals Australia has connections to PETA. That view is not surprising when you realise that.

As for greyhounds and research, how many people here are members of the ANKC again? Do you know that the ANKC gives grants to university research into dogs? I personally know one of which involves greyhounds.

I expect many breeders will be using the research that has come out of it in the near future too.

[Greyt]

I haven't been on line much in the last few days but as soon as I am my newsfeed on FB is flooded with panicked greyhound rescues screaming for foster carers and money. These are the same rescues that have been campaigning for the end of greyhound racing and now dogs are starting to come in they are crapping themselves at the enormity of what they have been demanding. 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?

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.

[Maddy]

According to some on the Animals Australia page it doesn't matter if some/most are euth'd as they apparently would be anyway and if it justifies the industry being shut down it is completely fine with them which I found abhorrent.

--Lhok

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.

[Rebanne]

According to some on the Animals Australia page it doesn't matter if some/most are euth'd as they apparently would be anyway and if it justifies the industry being shut down it is completely fine with them which I found abhorrent.

--Lhok

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.

Oh God me too. I was nearly sick when I read that

[Maddy]

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.

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.

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...

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.

[_PL_]

Not sure if it's been posted yet but the NSW Gaming Authority sent this out.

2wk extension to greyhound racing act review submissions

[Greyt]

According to some on the Animals Australia page it doesn't matter if some/most are euth'd as they apparently would be anyway and if it justifies the industry being shut down it is completely fine with them which I found abhorrent.

--Lhok

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.

[Maddy]

According to some on the Animals Australia page it doesn't matter if some/most are euth'd as they apparently would be anyway and if it justifies the industry being shut down it is completely fine with them which I found abhorrent.

--Lhok

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.

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).

[Greyt]

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.

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.

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...

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.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Greyt

[Maddy]

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.

Two or three years? Government sanctioned? Where on earth are you getting your information from? Temperament testing has been around and evolving for a very long time. The government has never had anything to do with it, groups do it because IT HAS BENEFITS and I can't believe the validity of assessment is even being argued here

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.

I'm sorry but it's plainly obvious to me that you don't understand aggression or any of the behavioural issues assessed for. How many dogs (of all breeds) get dumped because they've bitten kids? Lots. But human aggression and resource guarding are not the same thing. Resource guarding is not aggression, just as prey drive is not aggression. Resource guarding in greyhounds is tested for because it is an issue which can come up. Have I made that nice and easy for you to understand? Resource guarding =/= aggression.

But they are the ONLY breed of dog that is assessed for resource guarding before they can be legally walked without a muzzle.

What the hell are you talking about? Go to any branch of the RSPCA and watch a temperament assessment being done. ALL BREEDS ARE TESTED FOR RESOURCE GUARDING.

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). Greyhounds do NOT need to have a Green Collar to be fostered or re-homed. 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.

Firstly, see above. Second, I'm beginning to think you must be trolling me.

Silly me for not knowing the difference between prey drive and aggression.

You also don't understand the differences between resource guarding and aggression.

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?

What are you even asking here?

[Maddy]

Not worth getting banned over.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Maddy

[*kirty*]

All reputable rescue groups temperament test all dogs before rehoming. It's not just Greyhounds.

The muzzle law is ancient but no doubt came about because of the methods used to train the dogs. Greyhounds are known for being almost bomb proof with humans but not so great with small animals. Of course many Greyhounds are fine with small animals, but if they aren't they can do a lot of damage very quickly.

As for your other comments, of course their behaviour is due to their upbringing. Everybody knows that. The same is true for all dogs. However no other breed of dog is routinely raised in kennels and runs, not properly trained or socialised, taught to chase and potentially kill small animals - and then turfed out into the community. When raised as a pet as part of a family, they are no different to any other dog. But when raised in the manner described above, care must be taken when rehoming.

A lot of people have worked very hard for a long time to change the public's perception of Greyhounds and to change muzzling laws. It only takes a few nasty incidents to undo all that good work.

[Greyt]

According to some on the Animals Australia page it doesn't matter if some/most are euth'd as they apparently would be anyway and if it justifies the industry being shut down it is completely fine with them which I found abhorrent.

--Lhok

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?

[Maddy]

According to some on the Animals Australia page it doesn't matter if some/most are euth'd as they apparently would be anyway and if it justifies the industry being shut down it is completely fine with them which I found abhorrent.

--Lhok

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..

This isn't a case of one or the other because there are better options (as I pointed out in a previous post).

[Greyt]

A lot of people have worked very hard for a long time to change the public's perception of Greyhounds and to change muzzling laws. It only takes a few nasty incidents to undo all that good work.

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.