Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[WoofnHoof]

Wonder when it will dawn that once breeders are eliminated they will be finding themselves looking for a new line of work?

No breeder I know and respect considers what they do "work".

As for blaming the ills of the dog world on the ANKC. The issue is bigger than that. The causes are myriad and a simplistic finger-pointing response that lays all blame at the door of registered breeders is a nonsense.

The rise of the double income family, 450 sq m blocks and higher density living, changes to the cultural demographic and yes, animal rights campaigning are all shaping changes in attitudes to dogs.

The amount of misinformation about dogs, dog breeds and dog raising is rife. I think that is the space where the ANKC best operates but when you have little money and the press prints what it wishes to, its a tough ask

I'd like less finger pointing and more solutions that go beyond "they should". As I've already said, "they" should be "we".

This is a very good point, however in the beginning PETA had bugger all money too, just a bunch of zealots. So how did they get so prominent and wealthy? They were very clever in their advertising in the beginning, still are in many ways. They knew that sex sells so they got people to strut around in the nude, the news will report that so free advertising that reaches millions. Easy peasy. Next they appealed to celebrities, celebs want to be seen to have a social conscience so they will join a cause, every time a celeb speaks people listen and the media report it, again free advertising.

I think if the brains trust of DOL can put away their cynicism (I am guilty of this as well) we could change the narrative on animal ownership in this country. Everyone here is at least 10x as smart as any of the PETA loonies so I am sure we could come up with some super marketing ideas to promote pure breed dogs and responsible ownership, and work on implementing some effective and lasting welfare practices.

[Salukifan]

No one wants to have what they have now taken away from them. Some people will realise the problem and accept it, and accept change is needed, but most just cling on to what they have and oppose change. Can't see the trees for the forest etc. Those left to bring change have their work cut out. It's the nature of the beast.

WHAT change?

Breed dogs so that the GP can have the 'right now' dog from us, not the pet shop?

Sell to anyone who wants one rather than vet homes?

Breed anything with a uterus to any dog with testicles and forget about health testing?

Breed for what's popular regardless of what the breed standard says?

Push pups out the door at six weeks cos they're cuter then ya know?

It's not ANKC breeders filling the pounds.

What seems to be the go these days is the idea that a pup can be had by anyone, at zero notice and that they are all just a standard dog in different costumes.

Is THAT the change that we should be attempting to accommodate? The "its just a dog" paradigm is one that I want no part of and I expect that there is at least a proportion of society that agrees.

The idea that what the majority wants is best does not fly with me.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Haredown Whippets

[Pjrt]

Wonder when it will dawn that once breeders are eliminated they will be finding themselves looking for a new line of work?

No breeder I know and respect considers what they do "work".

As for blaming the ills of the dog world on the ANKC. The issue is bigger than that. The causes are myriad and a simplistic finger-pointing response that lays all blame at the door of registered breeders is a nonsense.

The rise of the double income family, 450 sq m blocks and higher density living, changes to the cultural demographic and yes, animal rights campaigning are all shaping changes in attitudes to dogs.

The amount of misinformation about dogs, dog breeds and dog raising is rife. I think that is the space where the ANKC best operates but when you have little money and the press prints what it wishes to, its a tough ask

I'd like less finger pointing and more solutions that go beyond "they should". As I've already said, "they" should be "we".

This is a very good point, however in the beginning PETA had bugger all money too, just a bunch of zealots. So how did they get so prominent and wealthy? They were very clever in their advertising in the beginning, still are in many ways. They knew that sex sells so they got people to strut around in the nude, the news will report that so free advertising that reaches millions. Easy peasy. Next they appealed to celebrities, celebs want to be seen to have a social conscience so they will join a cause, every time a celeb speaks people listen and the media report it, again free advertising.

I think if the brains trust of DOL can put away their cynicism (I am guilty of this as well) we could change the narrative on animal ownership in this country. Everyone here is at least 10x as smart as any of the PETA loonies so I am sure we could come up with some super marketing ideas to promote pure breed dogs and responsible ownership, and work on implementing some effective and lasting welfare practices.

Yes, and further to that, for me anyway, it is critical that the registered pure breed breeders be seen to not only promote responsible ownership and effective and lasting welfare practices of pedigree dogs, but all dogs . There seems to be this disconnect. Of course pedigree breeders want and need to promote what they do, but the protectionist attitude does not help. Carrying on as though pure breed pedigree dogs are the only dogs that deserve respect is alienating a whole lot of people who might just like dogs. Sure, hate the people if you like, but don't be seen to hate their choice of dog, if it isn't a pedigree purebred. Bashing up Jo blo and treating his mutt dog like a bastard child will not further the cause.

[Salukifan]

Yes, and further to that, for me anyway, it is critical that the registered pure breed breeders be seen to not only promote responsible ownership and effective and lasting welfare practices of pedigree dogs, but all dogs . There seems to be this disconnect. Of course pedigree breeders want and need to promote what they do, but the protectionist attitude does not help. Carrying on as though pure breed pedigree dogs are the only dogs that deserve respect is alienating a whole lot of people who might just like dogs. Sure, hate the people if you like, but don't be seen to hate their choice of dog, if it isn't a pedigree purebred. Bashing up Jo blo and treating his mutt dog like a bastard child will not further the cause.

So the fact that the "elitist" ANKC allows non-pedigree and crossbred dogs to compete in their dog sports is what precisely? Mutt bashing?

What's the Associate Register? Protectionist?

And all the ANKC breed club rescues taking on non-pedigree dogs (mostly non-pedigree actually). What's that? Treating dogs like bastard children?

Edited July 18, 2016 by Haredown Whippets

[Pjrt]

All those things happen, I know. I'm almost certain that the vast majority of regular everyday dog owners don't. How can that change?

For example, In the big scheme of things the amount of ordinary dog owners on, who or know about, the associate register and what it's about, is tiny.

I like to ask my pet owning clients where they got there dog from. Many different answers. But I find it crazy that some of the pedigree papered owners I ask cannot even tell me the prefix on their pedigree, while the oodle owners can rattle off the name of the oodle farm they got from. Crazy! But it's true. That tells me there is a marketing issue somewhere in the mix. Or maybe it tells me that for the most part, the pet buying public don't actually care that much where they get their dog from. They just decide what they want and go out and find it. If it's in a pet shop window, or an oodle farm website, or a pedigree breeders property matters little ....how can we make it matter?

Edited July 18, 2016 by Gruf

[Salukifan]

All those things happen, I know. I'm almost certain that the vast majority of regular everyday dog owners don't. How can that change?

For example, In the big scheme of things the amount of ordinary dog owners on, who or know about, the associate register and what it's about, is tiny.

I like to ask my pet owning clients where they got there dog from. Many different answers. But I find it crazy that some of the pedigree papered owners I ask cannot even tell me the prefix on their pedigree, while the oodle owners can rattle off the name of the oodle farm they got from. Crazy! But it's true. That tells me there is a marketing issue somewhere in the mix. Or maybe it tells me that for the most part, the pet buying public don't actually care that much where they get their dog from. They just decide what they want and go out and find it. If it's in a pet shop window, or an oodle farm website, or a pedigree breeders property matters little ....how can we make it matter?

You tell me. You can tell people about puppy farms and they'll rationalise getting a pup from one as "rescue". Ditto pet shops.

[WoofnHoof]

All those things happen, I know. I'm almost certain that the vast majority of regular everyday dog owners don't. How can that change?

For example, In the big scheme of things the amount of ordinary dog owners on, who or know about, the associate register and what it's about, is tiny.

I like to ask my pet owning clients where they got there dog from. Many different answers. But I find it crazy that some of the pedigree papered owners I ask cannot even tell me the prefix on their pedigree, while the oodle owners can rattle off the name of the oodle farm they got from. Crazy! But it's true. That tells me there is a marketing issue somewhere in the mix. Or maybe it tells me that for the most part, the pet buying public don't actually care that much where they get their dog from. They just decide what they want and go out and find it. If it's in a pet shop window, or an oodle farm website, or a pedigree breeders property matters little ....how can we make it matter?

Yes that is indeed the question! I think people like to think they are doing research when they are just looking at websites, and their assessment comes down to how well that site has marketed it's POV, not necessarily whether it's actually factual. To be competitive in this world in this day and age it is about selling yourself, your brand etc.

[Pjrt]

All those things happen, I know. I'm almost certain that the vast majority of regular everyday dog owners don't. How can that change?

For example, In the big scheme of things the amount of ordinary dog owners on, who or know about, the associate register and what it's about, is tiny.

I like to ask my pet owning clients where they got there dog from. Many different answers. But I find it crazy that some of the pedigree papered owners I ask cannot even tell me the prefix on their pedigree, while the oodle owners can rattle off the name of the oodle farm they got from. Crazy! But it's true. That tells me there is a marketing issue somewhere in the mix. Or maybe it tells me that for the most part, the pet buying public don't actually care that much where they get their dog from. They just decide what they want and go out and find it. If it's in a pet shop window, or an oodle farm website, or a pedigree breeders property matters little ....how can we make it matter?

You tell me. You can tell people about puppy farms and they'll rationalise getting a pup from one as "rescue". Ditto pet shops.

Don't I know it. I groomed a little mixed breed dog for its first trim on Saturday and got told pretty much that exact scenario. They called the number on the ad, told they can meet in a carpark etc. that rang alarm bells with them so they cooled off on the idea. A couple of days later the seller called them with a sob story and that they were in the CBD that day blah blah and apparently the buying couple folded and agreed to meet and see the pup, and had resolved not to let their emotions get in the way of a poor decision....and then told me to my face that as soon as they clapped eyes in the puppy they had to 'rescue' it. Fleas, worms and all. Then went on to tell me they chose a mixed breed this time around because their pedigree toy poodle was pts at age 8 after a miserable life with terrible skin issues. I hear these things day in day out. Sometimes it's flipped around and they're seeking a 'proper breeder' after having a dud mixed dog.

I don't know the answer.

[Salukifan]

I don't know the answer.

That's the whole point i think. It's a complicated issue and the idea that the ANKC is the one at fault is overly simplistic.

Says she watching her 18.5 year old Toy Poodle toddling past.

[WoofnHoof]

I don't think the ANKC is at fault, but I do think that there is a need for a stronger, louder and more positive voice for dogs in the public space to combat that of AR. And I think the ANKC are well placed to fill that space, or a collaboration between a number of groups.

[Rebanne]

Greyhound Racing Regulation 2016

Written by: Greyhound Racing NSW

On 15 July 2016, the NSW Government introduced the Greyhound Racing Regulation 2016 which requires that owners of greyhounds registered in NSW to notify or seek consent from Greyhound Racing NSW (GRNSW) before transferring the ownership of, retiring, exporting or destroying a greyhound.

The Regulation has been prepared following the NSW Government’s decision to close down the greyhound racing industry from 1 July 2017 and will assist in the tracking and welfare of greyhounds during the wind down process.

The new Regulation requires the owner of a registered greyhound to notify GRNSW, in writing, before transferring the greyhound:

• to another registered owner, or

• to an RSPCA approved greyhound adoption program.

Participants can notify GRNSW by completing the Notification of Transfer Form and sending it to GRNSW at [email protected] or post it to PO Box 170, Concord West NSW 2138.

In addition, the Regulation prohibits a registered greyhound owner, except with the written consent of GRNSW, from:

• retiring a greyhound from racing;

• exporting a greyhound overseas;

• transferring a greyhound to a person who is not a registered owner, or

• destroying a greyhound.

To request consent from GRNSW, please complete the Consent Form and send it to GRNSW at [email protected] or post it to PO Box 170, Concord West NSW 2138.

Persons found to have breached the Regulation are liable to a maximum fine of up to $550. GRNSW may also take further action against anyone found to have breached the Regulation.

Participants must not retire a greyhound from racing, export a greyhound, transfer a greyhound to a person who is not a registered owner, or destroy a greyhound unless they have received written consent from GRNSW.

In the case of destruction of a greyhound, GRNSW consent is not required if the greyhound is destroyed by a veterinary practitioner in an emergency in order to relieve it of suffering or distress due to injury or illness.

[Rebanne]

The rumor of what is next is that all transport or NSW greyhounds within the state and over the border will be forbidden and pet greyhound owners trasporting their own dogs will have to prove they are not part of an underground greyhound transport scheme!

I show my dogs in NSW quite often. I will be taking their papers next time I go over the border. Will also be asking the VCA what they are doing about this/what support do I and others have for the showbred greyhounds.

[asal]

The rumor of what is next is that all transport or NSW greyhounds within the state and over the border will be forbidden and pet greyhound owners trasporting their own dogs will have to prove they are not part of an underground greyhound transport scheme!

I show my dogs in NSW quite often. I will be taking their papers next time I go over the border. Will also be asking the VCA what they are doing about this/what support do I and others have for the showbred greyhounds.

Scary how fast this was done, hope all greyhound owners are warned to keep their dogs safe if they travel with them then.

Edited July 18, 2016 by asal

[moosmum]

I confess sometimes I wish moosmums posts were in plainer language, but I absolutely love them, because they usually force me to think, hard.

I don't confess to completely understand, but what I take from it is. The environment is everything apart from the self. If the self can't, won't, don't, refuse to adapt to the changing environment outside of themselves, then the environment will force it's hand. History tells us plain and clear what happens to those who don't adapt to their environment. The self cannot expect the environment to adapt to it ......the self must adapt to the environment. Whether that means I put more clothes on so I am comfortable sitting in my cold lounge room, or pedigree dog breeders adapting to changing purpose and expectations.

Thanks Gruff. I wish I could be plainer, but this is the way I talk. Its not such a problem face to face.

Buy yeah, you have it right. When you create an organization, you are creating an environment with its own purpose.

Thats not usualy a problem, because its still just PART of an environment out of many parts.

The problem is when its a closed or exclusive organization. It sets limits its pupose. Its no longer just another part of the whole. Its distinct from the rest.

Its members are responding to that organized environment alone. The demands from out side are an intrusion on that space. Theres very little give and take of messages to act on. The message its members act on are those set out at its inception. The culture is set, or fixed and not able to quickly adapt or respond to change. Its an environment for its members, but since it 'acts' independently of the larger environment, its also an identity. Or another 'self' but far more influential on the larger environment than you or me on our own because of the sheer numbers of individuals all acting on the same message.

Each in their own way, yes. But still the single environment and the messages its members receive from THAT environment. If its an exclusive org, Its messages must take precedence and its members a fixed single identity.

The purpose( keeping pedigrees) isn't the problem. Thats an identity that serves a purpose. The exclusive nature is.

Because that makes it an environment IN an identity it can't escape. It can't effectively respond to any demands out side of its ' self '. It can't be both a distinct identity and an isolated environment. An environment does not respond. It can only demand.

So what is your solution?

Theres a disconnect because of a 'line in the sand' The pedigree. Thats the line. ( and why pedigree comes up)

Blur the line. Scuff it.

It doesn't have to be an elite or an exclusive field to keep pedigrees for pure breed dogs, or even to keep them pure. Any one can full the criteria to become a member, follow the rules and gain those pedigree certificate to be an 'exclusive' or 'elite' breeder. Thats what we tell them to do if they are to have any credibility at all as a breeder.

The full membership and pedigree certificates give them credentials as elite and exclusive breeders. Wrong message as I see it.

It shouldn't be seen as an elite or exclusive field (or identity/environment) to be a breeder producing what people want. It can't be if it expects to meet the needs of the community beyond its own borders.

It should be a dedicated field.

You throw a whole lot of stuff out the window right there.

The FOUNDATION of a good dog isn't a pedigree paper bestowed on it. The foundations of a good dog is dedication. To understanding dog husbandry, behavior, traits,temperament, purpose, conformation, health genetics etc that allows a person use use the information they have. The pedigree allows a dedicated person to do it more effectively. It doesn't give you a good dog if the foundations aren't there.

Promoting the end result of good breeders work isn't the same as promoting the foundations of a good breeder. Not unless it ends there.

Edited July 18, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

I confess sometimes I wish moosmums posts were in plainer language, but I absolutely love them, because they usually force me to think, hard.

I don't confess to completely understand, but what I take from it is. The environment is everything apart from the self. If the self can't, won't, don't, refuse to adapt to the changing environment outside of themselves, then the environment will force it's hand. History tells us plain and clear what happens to those who don't adapt to their environment. The self cannot expect the environment to adapt to it ......the self must adapt to the environment. Whether that means I put more clothes on so I am comfortable sitting in my cold lounge room, or pedigree dog breeders adapting to changing purpose and expectations.

Thanks Gruff. I wish I could be plainer, but this is the way I talk. Its not such a problem face to face.

Buy yeah, you have it right. When you create an organization, you are creating an environment with its own purpose.

Thats not usualy a problem, because its still just PART of an environment out of many parts.

The problem is when its a closed or exclusive organization. It sets limits its pupose. Its no longer just another part of the whole. Its distinct from the rest.

Its members are responding to that organized environment alone. The demands from out side are an intrusion on that space. Theres very little give and take of messages to act on. The message its members act on are those set out at its inception. The culture is set, or fixed and not able to quickly adapt or respond to change. Its an environment for its members, but since it 'acts' independently of the larger environment, its also an identity. Or another 'self' but far more influential on the larger environment than you or me on our own because of the sheer numbers of individuals all acting on the same message.

Each in their own way, yes. But still the single environment and the messages its members receive from THAT environment. If its an exclusive org, Its messages must take precedence and its members a fixed single identity.

The purpose( keeping pedigrees) isn't the problem. Thats an identity that serves a purpose. The exclusive nature is.

Because that makes it an environment IN an identity it can't escape. It can't effectively respond to any demands out side of its ' self '. It can't be both a distinct identity and an isolated environment. An environment does not respond. It can only demand.

I like your posts too. they do what so many are loath too. think!

Thanks. Glad I am doing something! :laugh:

Edited July 19, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

The rumor of what is next is that all transport or NSW greyhounds within the state and over the border will be forbidden and pet greyhound owners trasporting their own dogs will have to prove they are not part of an underground greyhound transport scheme!

I show my dogs in NSW quite often. I will be taking their papers next time I go over the border. Will also be asking the VCA what they are doing about this/what support do I and others have for the showbred greyhounds.

What a mess.

[moosmum]

The 'environment' outside of of the ANKC Is everyone else other than their members, which is a lot of people, largely ordinary pet owners and non pet owners. The ANKC have created their own little environment in which is members are stuck, exclusively. The bigger, outside environment, ie, the general public, is demanding change, but the exclusive environment of the ANKC inhibits change by its very nature. The solution lies in the smaller environment, the ANKC, making itself less exclusive and more able to adapt to the bigger environment, the general public.

It's most people, including most breeders.

You'd think most pet owners would be in favour of higher standards of breeder care and health testing.

So why do they keep buying puppy farm dogs?

A big part is because there IS a disconnect. They don't understand the processes of sourcing a good breeder. They don't understand what a good breeder does or why they do it. Thats not taught or demonstrated. The pedigree is given as the answer. Not the things a good pedigree is founded on.

Edited July 19, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

I confess sometimes I wish moosmums posts were in plainer language, but I absolutely love them, because they usually force me to think, hard.

I don't confess to completely understand, but what I take from it is. The environment is everything apart from the self. If the self can't, won't, don't, refuse to adapt to the changing environment outside of themselves, then the environment will force it's hand. History tells us plain and clear what happens to those who don't adapt to their environment. The self cannot expect the environment to adapt to it ......the self must adapt to the environment. Whether that means I put more clothes on so I am comfortable sitting in my cold lounge room, or pedigree dog breeders adapting to changing purpose and expectations.

Thanks Gruff. I wish I could be plainer, but this is the way I talk. Its not such a problem face to face.

Buy yeah, you have it right. When you create an organization, you are creating an environment with its own purpose.

Thats not usualy a problem, because its still just PART of an environment out of many parts.

The problem is when its a closed or exclusive organization. It sets limits its pupose. Its no longer just another part of the whole. Its distinct from the rest.

Its members are responding to that organized environment alone. The demands from out side are an intrusion on that space. Theres very little give and take of messages to act on. The message its members act on are those set out at its inception. The culture is set, or fixed and not able to quickly adapt or respond to change. Its an environment for its members, but since it 'acts' independently of the larger environment, its also an identity. Or another 'self' but far more influential on the larger environment than you or me on our own because of the sheer numbers of individuals all acting on the same message.

Each in their own way, yes. But still the single environment and the messages its members receive from THAT environment. If its an exclusive org, Its messages must take precedence and its members a fixed single identity.

The purpose( keeping pedigrees) isn't the problem. Thats an identity that serves a purpose. The exclusive nature is.

Because that makes it an environment IN an identity it can't escape. It can't effectively respond to any demands out side of its ' self '. It can't be both a distinct identity and an isolated environment. An environment does not respond. It can only demand.

So what is your solution?

Theres a disconnect because of a 'line in the sand' The pedigree. Thats the line. ( and why pedigree comes up)

Blur the line. Scuff it.

It doesn't have to be an elite or an exclusive field to keep pedigrees for pure breed dogs, or even to keep them pure. Any one can full the criteria to become a member, follow the rules and gain those pedigree certificate to be an 'exclusive' or 'elite' breeder. Thats what we tell them to do if they are to have any credibility at all as a breeder.

The full membership and pedigree certificates give them credentials as elite and exclusive breeders. Wrong message as I see it.

It shouldn't be seen as an elite or exclusive field (or identity/environment) to be a breeder producing what people want. It can't be if it expects to meet the needs of the community beyond its own borders.

It should be a dedicated field.

You throw a whole lot of stuff out the window right there.

The FOUNDATION of a good dog isn't a pedigree paper bestowed on it. The foundations of a good dog is dedication. To understanding dog husbandry, behavior, traits,temperament, purpose, conformation, health genetics etc that allows a person use use the information they have. The pedigree allows a dedicated person to do it more effectively. It doesn't give you a good dog if the foundations aren't there.

Promoting the end result of good breeders work isn't the same as promoting the foundations of a good breeder. Not unless it ends there.

MM each time we get to this bit and again I honestly think that there is a huge chunk missing in your base line. Its here where I I become lost

In the real world outside of this forum the vast majority are not telling people that the only way they can have any credibility is if they are members of the ANKC in fact the majority are saying exactly the opposite. The ANKC has over 30,000 members Australia wide and only 3 and half thousand are breeders of these three and a half thousand people only approx 80 of them breed more than 10 litters a year. So they have 27000 members who are there for other reasons and many of them dont own purebred dogs , they participate in other dog related activities sanctioned by the ANKC

A full membership and owning a registered pedigreed purebred dog gives someone the ability to provide a registered certification of who the dogs parents are and to participate in conformation shows to determine which dogs on the day that are registered and will be used for breeding resemble the breed standard.

Im not sure why you want to tell us that a good dog isnt a pedigree paper bestowed on it . Any breeder knows this and so do people who are looking at buying them and owning them. thousand's of people sell puppies everyday with hand written pedigrees where some or none of the dogs have ever been on the ANKC registry. ANKC breeders have been promoted as being a more preferable source of puppies in the past because they have had had third party accountability and historically they are the only ones who did. Thats no longer the case with updated state laws and codes. I prefer to buy from a person who can give me a registered pedigree because for me its important for me to know that for the last several generations my dog has the same breed ancestors. If Im buying a beagle I want to know that its a beagle and I believe the best way of knowing that is to get one with a registered pedigree because if I buy one without it grandad may have been a pit bull. Everyone Ive ever sold a puppy to buys one from me for the same reason. they don't ask to see the pedigree first or ask what relatives are in the pedigree etc they know a good pedigree isnt what makes the dog.

So what a small group of breeders breed purebred dogs and register their puppies on a stud book. They promote what they do because they make a truck load of money out of it . I do whatI do because Im interested in more than the generation Im putting on the ground and knowing who the parents are helps me to avoid health problems and temperament issues. Its not because Im more exclusive or elite - its simply because my goals are better achived by being able to access the dogs which have a recorded history - those who breed dogs outside of the pedigree system have different goals not because Im better than them etc but because we have different goals.

Its not the use of a registered pedigree system or the exclusive ability for only members to be able to register their puppies with them or their desire to have only dogs their members breed listed on the registry in the year 2016 that is the problem and in the real world purebred registered breeders are seen as pond scum by much of the wider environment.

this forum is not indicative of what is real in the dog world.

[Steve]

The 'environment' outside of of the ANKC Is everyone else other than their members, which is a lot of people, largely ordinary pet owners and non pet owners. The ANKC have created their own little environment in which is members are stuck, exclusively. The bigger, outside environment, ie, the general public, is demanding change, but the exclusive environment of the ANKC inhibits change by its very nature. The solution lies in the smaller environment, the ANKC, making itself less exclusive and more able to adapt to the bigger environment, the general public.

It's most people, including most breeders.

You'd think most pet owners would be in favour of higher standards of breeder care and health testing.

So why do they keep buying puppy farm dogs?

A big part is because there IS a disconnect. They don't understand the processes of sourcing a good breeder. They don't understand what a good breeder does or why they do it. Thats not taught or demonstrated. The pedigree is given as the answer. Not its foundations.

You see I think that's crap .Who tells people the way to tell a good breeder is only because of the pedigree ?

[Steve]

Greyhound Racing Regulation 2016

Written by: Greyhound Racing NSW

On 15 July 2016, the NSW Government introduced the Greyhound Racing Regulation 2016 which requires that owners of greyhounds registered in NSW to notify or seek consent from Greyhound Racing NSW (GRNSW) before transferring the ownership of, retiring, exporting or destroying a greyhound.

The Regulation has been prepared following the NSW Government's decision to close down the greyhound racing industry from 1 July 2017 and will assist in the tracking and welfare of greyhounds during the wind down process.

The new Regulation requires the owner of a registered greyhound to notify GRNSW, in writing, before transferring the greyhound:

• to another registered owner, or

• to an RSPCA approved greyhound adoption program.

Participants can notify GRNSW by completing the Notification of Transfer Form and sending it to GRNSW at [email protected] or post it to PO Box 170, Concord West NSW 2138.

In addition, the Regulation prohibits a registered greyhound owner, except with the written consent of GRNSW, from:

• retiring a greyhound from racing;

• exporting a greyhound overseas;

• transferring a greyhound to a person who is not a registered owner, or

• destroying a greyhound.

To request consent from GRNSW, please complete the Consent Form and send it to GRNSW at [email protected] or post it to PO Box 170, Concord West NSW 2138.

Persons found to have breached the Regulation are liable to a maximum fine of up to $550. GRNSW may also take further action against anyone found to have breached the Regulation.

Participants must not retire a greyhound from racing, export a greyhound, transfer a greyhound to a person who is not a registered owner, or destroy a greyhound unless they have received written consent from GRNSW.

In the case of destruction of a greyhound, GRNSW consent is not required if the greyhound is destroyed by a veterinary practitioner in an emergency in order to relieve it of suffering or distress due to injury or illness.

well I reckon they had better get a property lawyer, a consumer law lawyer and a constitutional lawyer and quick.