Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[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?

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.

I don't have answers on how they can do that, maybe moosmum doesn't either. What she has done is realise and explain the problem.

The change can only come from within. The larger outside environment of the general public is putting more and more pressure on the smaller exclusive environment of the ANKC. The smaller environment will implode unless it finds ways to become more harmonious and inclusive to the larger environment.

Right now the ANKC (and all that encompasses) are sort of in the pressure cooker. They have to vent enough pressure into the outside environment or they will explode/destruct.

Geez MM I'm starting to sound like you!

I am an uneducated person. If I can get my head around it surely it can't be that hard. You just have to think about it.

Yes I understood all of that and I agree - to a point . I still get frustrated and lost when the pedigree environment or system or whatever is in the mix. As to how they can do that - I don't believe they can based on the current system and I conceded about 13 years ago that I couldn't see them changing from within. So we started another environment that isn't exclusive that has adapted and does continue to do so with changing world environment.

Fact is this particular issue is about conformational characteristics which are being bred into a dog which compromise its health and welfare which is now on the radar and being tagged cruelty. This is not unique to the ANKC or the pedigree system - some may argue it was originally caused by the show system and breed standards but in the year 2016 thousands of people breed these dogs and most are far outside of this exclusive environment. They are part of the environment as a whole. if over night the ANKC became less exclusive and let them all in and throw their stud books open without any restriction and were therefore more inclusive how do you see that this would stop the breeding of dogs which suffer due to the way they are selected - how do you think by being more inclusive this would prevent legislation into the future which may prohibit some conformational issues or breeds or showing when so many outside of the current environment do so now and whether they are in or out will continue to do so.

So in amongst all of this environment talk - which I would be more able to keep up with if each environment was named as a more conventional description - where in all of this do ratbags, zealots, radicals fit in when they are nothing more than a small but noisy cashed up part of the game?

The 1st part of your question re; how to reduce the more extreme traits being bred.

I think by starting with a DOG. Not a standard for a breed. I think we should start at the beginning, not the end.

When I got into horses, I found great mentor and better friend. I thought I understood conformation.

We looked at horse after horse. Picture after picture. We went to shows and critiqued for our selves. I was asked " What is wrong with this picture" . It didn't matter what breed of horse it was. They all depend on straight legs, good angles of shoulder and rump etc.to be fit for purpose. They can be little dumpy ponies or sleek Arabians or heavy draft animals. They all depend on rounded barrels for lung and heart room. Pasterns neither too straight or sloped, croups neither too long or short.

When people show dedication to the SPECIES, then encourage those people to a breed, tho' they will not likely need any by then. Every one is going to have preferences of what type of dog the prefer and think they can contribute to.

As for the radicals. They are small in numbers, just loud. If we can be united behind the SPECIES and our desire to keep them, that voice won't have so much volume or gain so much support.

[WoofnHoof]

Re Rebanne's post: It's sad but not really surprising given the greyhound people who came out straight after the announcement running their mouths off to the media about shooting all their dogs. Not sure what they thought that would achieve. Doesn't give the public a lot of confidence that they are capable of rehoming their greyhounds ethically or putting them down humanely.

Edited July 19, 2016 by WoofnHoof

[moosmum]

To be honest I'm not sure there is a straight answer or a clear path ahead. And I do understand and agree with what you're saying overall too.

If different entities throw their hats in to the ring I suppose it adds to the confusion among most people. Unfortunately money talks, either directly through public campaigns, or indirectly through back door funding. Change takes time, we all have to accept that. Whoever gets their message across more loudly ultimately wins the most support among most people.

unfortunately the message from registered breeding is that because the dogs are generally health tested and breeding is selective etc etc that the animals are somehow better and therefore people expect they will be, as in guaranteed to be better. When the animal doesn't meet or fails the high expectations surrounding animals from registered breeders, that message gets out loud and clear. The few bad messages will always rise above the thousands of good. Owners who get a great animal are just content and we don't hear their message. Owners who don't want everyone to know their gripes.

I guess when people buy a pet outside of the registries they lower their expectations, for better or worse.

Like I said, I don't have the answers, I just want to juggle the pieces of the puzzle to see if I can get any to slot together

Yep. But people expectations are also shaped by what they get and see. If you don't see dogs that stand out for being extrordinarily good, you won't expect to find dogs that can be.

[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?

Because 'registered breeders' ie, ANKC member body, and their members, come across as exclusive, which they are, by the very nature of the membership.

They go and buy puppy farm dogs because those breeders work within the larger less exclusive environment of 'most people'

I'm not saying it's great, just saying that it is that way

'Registered breeders' need to find ways to become less exclusive and more involved with 'most people' .. If they don't at best they will just remain their own little exclusive environment with little meaning to most people, at worst they will cease to exist because of the pressure of 'most people'.......which in the interests of staying on topic, is pretty much what has happened to greyhound racing NSW

They go and buy puppy farm dogs because they can get one from them - because there is no where near enough bred by ANKC registered breeders to fill the demand.

Sure some wont like how some registered breeders make the process harder but most of us don't in fact lots of us will sell to anyone without a care in the world about where they are going.

For now the environment [ the general public] is as desensitised to the way a particular breed characteristic makes the dogs they choose suffer as the people who are breeding them are. Registered breeders who are breeding them are a drip in the ocean of the rest who are breeding them.

The other bit of the environment wants less dogs to suffer because of how they are selected and it gets bigger and louder every day.

The strategy from every one breeding them and owning them is denial whether they are pedigreed or not and until there is an acknowledgment that its a problem and it needs to be dealt with its a threat to the status quo - but Im curious as to how such a small minority ecxclusib=ve group[ environment] is expected to be able to control what those outside of their environment do and how they can not be in the muck as the plug is pulled.

The greyhound thing really was/ is exclusive. You cant breed a grey or race it unless you were part of that exclusive gang [environment] but anyone can breed a pug without being a part of any environment [ group].

You can't control what those people out side your environment do. ( tho' thats attempted now, by calls to ban them )

What you can do is help to shape the environment to hold higher expectations, to be better than that.

The Grey industry has been far more exclusive. Technicaly, you could breed a grey just as easily as a Peke. But there would be little purpose to it. Purpose Is central to these issues. A big part of why catering more to people who want a PET is essential for the K.Cs.

[moosmum]

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.

The major difference which links in with some of MM points is that the people who are members of a group. ANKC, AAPDB and the MDBA hear it, see it, and we know its in the mix . We can all tell our stories of how our members are targeted and how we are punched up on pretty much every level by animal rights. As groups we have choices in how we will respond in order to create change or fight for where we are and want to stay. The rest of the members of the wider environment who are not being kept upto date on what is going one will still know to keep an eye out for the radicals but they wont see a possible ban on them breeding certain breed types coming.

Whats more we all know - those within and outside of the ANKC environment that they [the ANKC - own the breed standard that they run the shows that these breeds compete in and everyone seriously expects that if it is a situation where any part of what they publicly proudly make so much money out of is under threat that of all groups, all environments or all members of that environment that this is where the battle will rage . If this environment group isn't going to pull their gloves on and fight for those who breed these breed types then who will?

And to be honest why would the rest of the world want to be included rather than get as far away from them as possible to save themselves?

Yes. The disconnect again. Ordinary people are pretty blind to the threat of having dogs taken away from them.

[moosmum]

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.

Yep. But I realy think the emphasis has to come off promoting PEDIGREE dogs, and promoting dogs with out the constant reference to pedigree. If an appreciation for the species can be taught, the pedigree is a logical conclusion or peak of the values and foundations learned to support the species. A dedication to the species will almost always lead to a breed.

[moosmum]

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.

No. Show them how its done right and demonstrate the difference.

[moosmum]

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?

You are over defensive. But catering to people with associate registers and dog sports as long as the dogs taking part are speyed or neutered is kind of patronizing. Different standards.

[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.

Yep. But I realy think the emphasis has to come off promoting PEDIGREE dogs, and promoting dogs with out the constant reference to pedigree. If an appreciation for the species can be taught, the pedigree is a logical conclusion or peak of the values and foundations learned to support the species. A dedication to the species will almost always lead to a breed.

I think that to a point it has to come from a pedigree/pure breed point of reference because even with the bad rap pures get they are still respected as a "brand". That's why so many crossbreeders still try to market a dog with "papers" and make up registries to stick their dogs into, because the brand of a pedigree dog still has value. A pure breed dog is a dog with a known history and that is an ideal when people need a dog that fits their needs. While lots of people say they like variety and difference the reality is that if the dog doesn't fit their life they aren't likely to change their lifestyle to fit the dog, they are more likely to get rid of it. They don't always link the concept of pure with matching their lifestyle but that is the lack of communication and marketing more than anything else. As is the perception that pure breeds are for dog snobs.

[moosmum]

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.

Its not about whos at fault. I don't think any one here is trying to lay blame. Just discuss what is.

If the K.Cs ARE blamed for any fault, Its not for things that were conciously chosen today, but mistakes made at inception of the orgs. that inherently carried through in the cultures development. And what I find so scary is that there are so many organizations and bodies that have made the same mistakes, far removed from anything to do with dogs.

Maybe that has a lot to do with with how intolerant todays culture is of people who don't get every thing right 1st try.

[moosmum]

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.

Yep. But I realy think the emphasis has to come off promoting PEDIGREE dogs, and promoting dogs with out the constant reference to pedigree. If an appreciation for the species can be taught, the pedigree is a logical conclusion or peak of the values and foundations learned to support the species. A dedication to the species will almost always lead to a breed.

I think that to a point it has to come from a pedigree/pure breed point of reference because even with the bad rap pures get they are still respected as a "brand". That's why so many crossbreeders still try to market a dog with "papers" and make up registries to stick their dogs into, because the brand of a pedigree dog still has value. A pure breed dog is a dog with a known history and that is an ideal when people need a dog that fits their needs. While lots of people say they like variety and difference the reality is that if the dog doesn't fit their life they aren't likely to change their lifestyle to fit the dog, they are more likely to get rid of it. They don't always link the concept of pure with matching their lifestyle but that is the lack of communication and marketing more than anything else. As is the perception that pure breeds are for dog snobs.

O.K . Good points. But I also think this addresses Steves concerns about how a minority is influencing the majority who have nothing to do with them. Its a culture thats developed over a long long time and what the K.Cs are today isn't what they always were. What they are today, or were yesterday doesn't have instant effects.

Theres a time delay for effects to be felt and alter the culture.

Just look at the people wanting to know what BREEDS their mutt has. Breed has a huge influence even if pedigree doesn't. Breeds and pedigrees are inextricably linked.

I think the pure bred marketing would come from the simple fact that the majority of dedicated and knowledgeable mentors would be from the ranks of pedigree breeders. That those people and orgs. in general would be the ones contributing most to dogs in our communities.

Demonstration of value is the best sales pitch.

I think it would lead to better quality of members as well as less sniping ( and therefore attrition) within the orgs.

It would be less about who is realy just a BYBer, a puppy farmer or whatever, and more about what dedication they bring to the foundations of good breeding practices and the purpose behind their individual breeding programs. The idea that there must BE a purpose to breeding practices, but it doesn't have to fit a single mold to have value to a section of the community.

We need to accept that to some degree, or we caught up in this elimination of what doesn't suit our own standards, then complaining when we are the next victims. Because what we are realy doing is eliminating standards, or values.

A body that can do those things has got to be a damn good brand.

Edited July 19, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

The environment does not respond.

BUT- It IS shaped by what it contains. Its our collective responsibility to shape it so it favors our purpose.

Here is a hypothetical.

What if the Grey racing industry were not exclusive?

What if, way back when it began, it was a racing DOG interest? Greys would still be the best and fastest. Greys would still be raced against other greys because anything else would be ridiculous.

But if each country race meet at least,there were novelty races held for pet owners. A fun day out for the family and their pet.

I assume those who took up on that service would learn a lot about dogs, training, husbandry etc and racing specificly from the industry leaders. Those people would have accepted a lot of things that a greyhound breeder or sportsman does for the purpose of racing dogs. A lot of them might have enjoyed it so much they would turn to the sport and trying to breed train or race their own Greys.

Some practices would have changed along with community expectations. Maybe more dogs chosen for a love of running in front of a pack, or pleasing their owners than for a prey drive.

The world we have would would be a different shape now. How much we we will never know.

We shape the space we occupy collectively. We cant do it exclusively. A shared purpose is essential. Dogs are the purpose. The values that add to dogs depend on an INDIVIDUALS purpose in keeping them, but they are all dogs.

Edited July 19, 2016 by moosmum

[Sheridan]

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.

If they just wanted to stop greyhound racing it wouldn't be this detailed.

[Salukifan]

The environment does not respond.

BUT- It IS shaped by what it contains. Its our collective responsibility to shape it so it favors our purpose.

Here is a hypothetical.

What if the Grey racing industry were not exclusive?

What if, way back when it began, it was a racing DOG interest? Greys would still be the best and fastest. Greys would still be raced against other greys because anything else would be ridiculous.

But if each country race meet at least,there were novelty races held for pet owners. A fun day out for the family and their pet.

I assume those who took up on that service would learn a lot about dogs, training, husbandry etc and racing specificly from the industry leaders. Those people would have accepted a lot of things that a greyhound breeder or sportsman does for the purpose of racing dogs. A lot of them might have enjoyed it so much they would turn to the sport and trying to breed train or race their own Greys.

Some practices would have changed along with community expectations. Maybe more dogs chosen for a love of running in front of a pack, or pleasing their owners than for a prey drive.

The world we have would would be a different shape now. How much we we will never know.

We shape the space we occupy collectively. We cant do it exclusively. A shared purpose is essential. Dogs are the purpose. The values that add to dogs depend on an INDIVIDUALS purpose in keeping them, but they are all dogs.

And what if a handful of ignorant callous trainers used live baiting to attempt to get their dogs to chase better? Like has happened?

Do you think novelty race meets (which, by the way have occurred for a range of breeds) would change the AR agenda?

There is an infant sport in NSW called lure coursing. All breeds and crosses of dog can participate. The dogs chase plastic bags The GR Commission report has roped it in with Greyhound racing calling for any pet who participates to be registered as a "coursing dog" and criminalising ownership of small animals by LC dog owners.

The reason dogs chase ANYTHING is prey drive. It shouldn't be demonised and it can be managed. We have a bunch of people who know sweet FA about dogs and care even less driving the rhetoric. They are shaping the space and dogs are NOT their purpose. The fact that many dog owners are being duped by them is a real and genuine issue.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Haredown Whippets

[Steve]

Well its a nice discussion on philosophy biology and sociology but Im sorry, its not doing anything to give me hope that all will be well.

None of this addresses for me what I believe to be the current most significant threat and no matter how exclusive or otherwise the ANKC is or should be or how the environment interacts etc changes the fact that within our current culture across the board whether people are breeding as ANKC members or having one litter of pets with no papers or puppy farming or BY breeding with or without papers dogs are being bred which suffer due to the conformational characteristics.

For just a minute forget about what group you belong to or what breeds you love ,forget about pedigrees, and show rings - see that what has happened in the grey world was able to happen because almost everyone who wasn't part of the problem could see that what they were doing was cruel. they couldn't see it and never ever believed that what has happened could happen. No matter what they said, no matter what crazy new regs and restrictions on paperwork or picking up poo and accountability addressed the cruelty issues those who were calling for it to be shut down could see.

Animal rights groups, animal welfare groups and ordinary every day people who become educated on how these things [such as brachy heads ] affect quality of life have been warning those breeding them they are coming.Pedigree dogs exposed, the Bateson report, changes all over the world to mandatory breeding protocols [except in Australia] studies, papers, white papers, propaganda, sensationalism, and very few within the environment who could change it have said - "we see it we get it and we agree ,this is what we are doing to fix it and these are the results we have to show you. You don't need to legislate against this because we are on top of it. " Because just as the grey people didn't see it nor do we . Right the way up to now some are still saying the craziest things to try to justify why its O.K. to breed dogs that cant breath - big fat lies are told to make out that its better than it was.

The individuals can go out and do what they can to improve their results but no one will notice because unless you get a big bunch of individuals yelling about what they have done and their great results - nothing. If you do happen to get a group together that can show they get it and they are doing something about it the group that has decided to do nothing but deny they are being cruel go to war with them.

So as far as I can see sooner or later unless we all flee from the group that is denying it and excusing it and behaving just the way the grey people did we all go down.

I get it - the whole pedigree thing environment etc but the red hot headline is that the world has changed and almost anything can be changed and legislated out of existence if the activity includes acts which are considered cruel.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Steve

[Jed]

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.

If they just wanted to stop greyhound racing it wouldn't be this detailed.

My thoughts are perhaps they intend wiping out greyhounds - and anything which chases anything else. ie, lure coursing. The above is pure animal rights speak.

Am I wrong?

Lure coursing bans are an additional problem now.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Jed

[Sheridan]

The environment does not respond.

BUT- It IS shaped by what it contains. Its our collective responsibility to shape it so it favors our purpose.

Here is a hypothetical.

What if the Grey racing industry were not exclusive?

What if, way back when it began, it was a racing DOG interest? Greys would still be the best and fastest. Greys would still be raced against other greys because anything else would be ridiculous.

But if each country race meet at least,there were novelty races held for pet owners. A fun day out for the family and their pet.

I assume those who took up on that service would learn a lot about dogs, training, husbandry etc and racing specificly from the industry leaders. Those people would have accepted a lot of things that a greyhound breeder or sportsman does for the purpose of racing dogs. A lot of them might have enjoyed it so much they would turn to the sport and trying to breed train or race their own Greys.

Some practices would have changed along with community expectations. Maybe more dogs chosen for a love of running in front of a pack, or pleasing their owners than for a prey drive.

The world we have would would be a different shape now. How much we we will never know.

We shape the space we occupy collectively. We cant do it exclusively. A shared purpose is essential. Dogs are the purpose. The values that add to dogs depend on an INDIVIDUALS purpose in keeping them, but they are all dogs.

And what if a handful of ignorant callous trainers used live baiting to attempt to get their dogs to chase better? Like has happened?

Do you think novelty race meets (which, by the way have occurred for a range of breeds) would change the AR agenda?

There is an infant sport in NSW called lure coursing. All breeds and crosses of dog can participate. The dogs chase plastic bags The GR Commission report has roped it in with Greyhound racing calling for any pet who participates to be registered as a "coursing dog" and criminalising ownership of small animals by LC dog owners.

The reason dogs chase ANYTHING is prey drive. It shouldn't be demonised and it can be managed. We have a bunch of people who know sweet FA about dogs and care even less driving the rhetoric. They are shaping the space and dogs are NOT their purpose. The fact that many dog owners are being duped by them is a real and genuine issue.

I was going to take my wheaten to the first lure coursing day in the ACT but didn't cos I had something else on. Guess I won't be bothered now.

[Salukifan]

The environment does not respond.

BUT- It IS shaped by what it contains. Its our collective responsibility to shape it so it favors our purpose.

Here is a hypothetical.

What if the Grey racing industry were not exclusive?

What if, way back when it began, it was a racing DOG interest? Greys would still be the best and fastest. Greys would still be raced against other greys because anything else would be ridiculous.

But if each country race meet at least,there were novelty races held for pet owners. A fun day out for the family and their pet.

I assume those who took up on that service would learn a lot about dogs, training, husbandry etc and racing specificly from the industry leaders. Those people would have accepted a lot of things that a greyhound breeder or sportsman does for the purpose of racing dogs. A lot of them might have enjoyed it so much they would turn to the sport and trying to breed train or race their own Greys.

Some practices would have changed along with community expectations. Maybe more dogs chosen for a love of running in front of a pack, or pleasing their owners than for a prey drive.

The world we have would would be a different shape now. How much we we will never know.

We shape the space we occupy collectively. We cant do it exclusively. A shared purpose is essential. Dogs are the purpose. The values that add to dogs depend on an INDIVIDUALS purpose in keeping them, but they are all dogs.

And what if a handful of ignorant callous trainers used live baiting to attempt to get their dogs to chase better? Like has happened?

Do you think novelty race meets (which, by the way have occurred for a range of breeds) would change the AR agenda?

There is an infant sport in NSW called lure coursing. All breeds and crosses of dog can participate. The dogs chase plastic bags The GR Commission report has roped it in with Greyhound racing calling for any pet who participates to be registered as a "coursing dog" and criminalising ownership of small animals by LC dog owners.

The reason dogs chase ANYTHING is prey drive. It shouldn't be demonised and it can be managed. We have a bunch of people who know sweet FA about dogs and care even less driving the rhetoric. They are shaping the space and dogs are NOT their purpose. The fact that many dog owners are being duped by them is a real and genuine issue.

I was going to take my wheaten to the first lure coursing day in the ACT but didn't cos I had something else on. Guess I won't be bothered now.

The ban affects NSW only. At this stage.

The last LC day in the ACT was cancelled due to lack of numbers

[Salukifan]

I think by starting with a DOG. Not a standard for a breed. I think we should start at the beginning, not the end.

When I got into horses, I found great mentor and better friend. I thought I understood conformation.

We looked at horse after horse. Picture after picture. We went to shows and critiqued for our selves. I was asked " What is wrong with this picture" . It didn't matter what breed of horse it was. They all depend on straight legs, good angles of shoulder and rump etc.to be fit for purpose. They can be little dumpy ponies or sleek Arabians or heavy draft animals. They all depend on rounded barrels for lung and heart room. Pasterns neither too straight or sloped, croups neither too long or short.

When people show dedication to the SPECIES, then encourage those people to a breed, tho' they will not likely need any by then. Every one is going to have preferences of what type of dog the prefer and think they can contribute to.

As for the radicals. They are small in numbers, just loud. If we can be united behind the SPECIES and our desire to keep them, that voice won't have so much volume or gain so much support.

So we start with a dog. It will have a particular size, shape and coat type. It will have different levels of drive, bite inhibition, bite threshold, reactivity, trainability, yada yada.

We mate it to another dog. It will have all those features (as all dogs do). We've focussed on structural soundness and haven't worried to much about the other stuff.

Along comes a family. They have kids. They don't have two hours a day to exercise a dog and it probably won't get any formal obedience training. They'll be looking for a pretty quiet dog that has strong bite inhibition, low levels of reactivity and isn't much of a barker.

How are you going to pick a pup from two sound randomly bred dogs that suits those requirements for them. They may all be sound but that won't be enough.

You're not being revolutionary if you think all dogs should have basic structural soundness regardless of breed. Pat Hastings and others have been teaching and preaching it for years. Some of us have been listening.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Haredown Whippets

[Lhok]

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.

If they just wanted to stop greyhound racing it wouldn't be this detailed.

Indeed that and what it means I have been fearing since this has been announced. The precedent I believe has been set.

--Lhok