Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[asal]

to speak up against banning is to be accused of defending the 20%

I feel so sad for the 80%

they do have a point in this link

http://ngru.org/nsw-gloucester-shire-council-caught-disposing-dead-dogs-at-tip/

[Lhok]

That link isn't very constructive, instead of focusing on the good of the sport and promoting that way they are lashing out all over the place and doing the job of the AR groups.

--Lhok

[Tempus Fugit]

Yeah but why? There is nothing more potentially unethical about the hobby than there is about ANY amateur dog sport. Nothing. They chase plastic bags. They KNOW they are plastic bags. Why should we change hobbies for a deeply flawed regulatory proposal. Instead, why shouldn't the proposal be howled down as the embarrassing stupidity it is?

The only logic in this regulation is as a step to banning all pets. It has zero logic otherwise. It is not about preventing cruelty. There is no cruelty.

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

Well here are relevant extracts from Vol 1 of the report:

(Note CAA = NSW Companion Animals Act; CAR = NSW Companion Animals Regulations; POCTAA = NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act)

8.61 The Commission did not receive any information suggesting that live baiting isoccurring in relation to lure coursing. Those who engage in lure coursing donot do so for financial gain .

According to Dogs NSW: Lure coursing aims to preserve and develop the coursing skills inherent insighthounds and to demonstrate that they can perform the functions for which they were originally bred. The hounds chase plastic bags on a course laid out to simulate escaping game. The plastic bags are pulled around on a nylon string course, propelled by a hand controlled motor.666

8.62 The Commission accepts, nevertheless,that, because the lures used in lure coursing are meant to simulate live prey,there is a risk that dogs which participate in the sport may be trained or trialled using small, live animals. However, the trigger point for the lawful keeping of small animals on a property which houses or kennels coursing dogs other than greyhounds cannot be registration under the CAA. Coursing dogs other thangreyhounds are not exempted from registration whilst they are involved in the sport.

8.63 The Commission considers that there should be a mandatory requirement that dogs which engage in the sport of lure coursing are registered as such on the Companion Animals Register, at least during such period or periods of time as they are involved in lure coursing. A failure to register them as coursing dogs should be a criminal offence under the CAA. The penalty should be the same as that which applies in respect of a failure to register a companion animal (discussed below). Because coursing dogs may engage in lure coursing at various times during theirlifecycle, notification under s. 11 of the CAA should be adopted as the meansby which a coursing dog obtains the status of a coursing dog under the CAA. The owner of a coursing dog which no longer engages in lure coursing should also be required to give notice pursuant to s. 11 of the CAA. The CAR will require amendment to make each of these events a "notifiable event" under the CAR. If this recommendation is accepted by Government then it may wish to consult with ANKC Ltd. As the regulator of the sport ANKC Ltd may consider it appropriate to ensure that coursing dogs that are involved in lure coursing do not trial, train, or race unless they have the status of a registered coursing dog .

8.66 The recommended amendments to s. 21(1) to 21(1)(E) of the POCTAA appear below:

(1) A person who: … (d) uses an animal, live or dead, as a lure or kill for the purpose of blooding greyhounds or in connection with the trialling, training or racing of any coursing dog, or (e) keeps or is in charge of a live animal at a any place used for the housing or kennelling, trialling, training or racing of any coursing dog, is guilty of an offence .

Maximum Penalty: 1,000 penalty units in the case of a corporation or 200 penalty unitsor imprisonment for 2 years, or both , in the case of an individual .

(1A)For the purpose of subsection 1(e) coursing dog means: (a) a greyhound which is registered in accordance with the rules made in relation to greyhound racing under the GreyhoundRacing Act 2009; and (b) any other coursing dog which is registered, or should have been registered, as required by (1B) .

(1B)A coursing dog, other than a greyhound, must be registered under the [Actgoverning the regulator] prior to any, trialling, training or racing .

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units .

(1C)The owner of a coursing dog which fails to register it as required by subsection (1B) is guilty of an offence .

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units .

(1D)A person shall not trial, train or race any coursing dog, other than agreyhound, unless it is registered in accordance with the [Act governing the regulator] .

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units .

(1E)For the purpose of subsection 1(e) and (2B) animal means an animal which is capable of being used as a bait, quarry, or lure to entice, excite or encouragea coursing dog to chase .

8.67 Section21(2B) of the POCTAA should be amended to read as follows: In any proceedings under subsection 1(d) evidence that the defendant was in charge of a live animal or in possession of a dead animal that appeared to have been used as a lure or kill in the manner referred to in that subsection is prima facieevidence that the defendant used the animal as a lure or kill in that manner .

8.68 Section21(2C) of the POCTAA should be amended to read as follows: 21(2C)In any proceedings under subsection 1(e), evidence that the defendant kept or was in charge of a live animal at any place used for the trialling, training or racing of any coursing dog which animal was capable of being used as a bait,quarry or lure to entice, excite or encourage the coursing dog to chase it is prima facie evidence that the defendant kept or was in charge of an animal for use as a lure or kill for the purpose referred to in that subsection .

[Kavik]

Thanks for including that! I didn't know where to find it and my husband did not believe that they would target lure coursing.

[Sheridan]

I didn't say that the sport of lure coursing is the same as racing from the human perspective, just the drive that the dog is working with to enable you to compete in the sport is, which is why I was assuming the law of not being able to have bait animals on your property has been extended to lure coursers. If the rule has been extended to people who own sighthounds well that is also ridiculous. Especially if you had seen my Greyhound the other day at the vet several days ago completely ignoring a rabbit in a cage right next to her and the cat on the counter above her and the cats and rabbit in the cages at the pet shop today, yet she is more than happy to chase a toy.

The whole thing only has the status of a recommendation right now. If the NSW Government has half a brain it will not adopt these Recommendations given the shaky basis on which they were made (no consultation, no understanding of the sport).

But remember that the NSW RSPCA did want it to extend to all sighthounds. The Commission didn't go that far, but it is a warning shot from the RSPCA about how far it wants to intrude into people's pet owning. I note also tho' that both the QLD and Vic RSPCA run lure coursing at their public days including the MPW in Victoria. So, left hand, right hand...

I think the key words are 'If the NSW government has half a brain.' I've not yet seen evidence of this. They seem to be swallowing the RSPCA line wholesale. And the RSPCA doesn't like dogs.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Sheridan

[asal]

That link isn't very constructive, instead of focusing on the good of the sport and promoting that way they are lashing out all over the place and doing the job of the AR groups.

--Lhok

agree, the trouble is those who have pets, any form of livestock for that matter, have had their heads in the sand for over 20 years meanwhile peta n co have been totally focused and have been 'educating' from the school to the universities with well thought out agenda.

the rest who don't agree with their agenda have done zilch to work together and address the campaign. so divided with the long as Im ok mentality so few seem to see the big picture includes them all, just as long as the attacks are done section by section, thus the targets continue to think its someone else in the sights until its too late and be surprised when eventually the henhouse is empty.

Edited August 1, 2016 by asal

[asal]

I didn't say that the sport of lure coursing is the same as racing from the human perspective, just the drive that the dog is working with to enable you to compete in the sport is, which is why I was assuming the law of not being able to have bait animals on your property has been extended to lure coursers. If the rule has been extended to people who own sighthounds well that is also ridiculous. Especially if you had seen my Greyhound the other day at the vet several days ago completely ignoring a rabbit in a cage right next to her and the cat on the counter above her and the cats and rabbit in the cages at the pet shop today, yet she is more than happy to chase a toy.

The whole thing only has the status of a recommendation right now. If the NSW Government has half a brain it will not adopt these Recommendations given the shaky basis on which they were made (no consultation, no understanding of the sport).

But remember that the NSW RSPCA did want it to extend to all sighthounds. The Commission didn't go that far, but it is a warning shot from the RSPCA about how far it wants to intrude into people's pet owning. I note also tho' that both the QLD and Vic RSPCA run lure coursing at their public days including the MPW in Victoria. So, left hand, right hand...

I think the key words are 'If the NSW government has half a brain.' I've not yet seen evidence of this. They seem to be swallowing the RSPCA line wholesale. And the RSPCA doesn't like dogs.

Pollies dont have a brain, they live and breathe stats, whatever stats they are fed that will win votes, wins their focus.

whatever will win them the most in election donations wins their votes in legislation , who pays the most gets the largess, look at the donations from mining and so where is australia's agricultural land going, to mining leases and csg wells.

once its all toxic waste dumps , agriculture will be either in giant hothouses like spain or our food will be imported instead. Its not just pet owners under seige

[corvus]

But remember that the NSW RSPCA did want it to extend to all sighthounds. The Commission didn't go that far, but it is a warning shot from the RSPCA about how far it wants to intrude into people's pet owning. I note also tho' that both the QLD and Vic RSPCA run lure coursing at their public days including the MPW in Victoria. So, left hand, right hand...

No, they didn't exactly. They suggested it apply to "coursing dogs". The exact wording is:

"(1) A person who:

…

(e) keeps or is in charge of any animal of a prescribed species at any place used for the housing or kennelling, training, trialing, training or racing of coursing dogs, is guilty of an offence."

They did not define what they meant by "coursing dogs", which is problematic, as the Commission report flagged. My guess would be they didn't define a breed because they didn't want to leave an exploitable loophole whereby dubious racing activities could shift to another breed (e.g. whippets are bred for racing in other countries). They did not suggest this apply to all sighthounds and did not even mention the sport of lure coursing. The wording is broad probably because there are many ways people can find to get around very specific laws. It is probably too broad, and the Commission has acknowledged that.

Seriously, has anyone ever actually spoken to management and scientists at the RSPCA? I have. They love dogs. Most of them own dogs. I don't know where people got this idea that the RSPCA doesn't like dogs or people that own or breed dogs. I am only going to say this once because I doubt it will change any minds so it is just for the record. The RSPCA are not against dog ownership. They have not attacked sighthounds. They are not campaigning towards the end of dog breeding or purebred dogs or dog ownership. They are FOR dogs. They just want them to be safe and well cared for and not exploited. They are responding to what has been revealed in the greyhound racing industry by making proposals that they hope will protect both dogs and other animals that may be cruelly exploited in dog-related activities. It is a shame they have to do this and I'm sure they would rather not, but this is their role - to provide advice in issues pertaining to animal welfare. This coursing dog recommendation is not part of some bigger plan to legislate the life out of the pet dog industry. They are heavily supportive of initiatives to boost pet ownership and dog-friendly environments and housing, and some of the money they have at their disposal goes towards those goals.

[Sheridan]

Yet the RSPCA is becoming stridently anti-dog in its literature. You'd think it was pro-dog it would support ethical pedigree dog breeders but nope, pedigree dogs are sick and deformed. Just because the people you've spoken to love their dogs doesn't mean the organisation is pro-dog. They've not demonstrated they're pro-dog and this lure coursing stance was pushed by them, wasn't it? Not a pro-dog stance.

Oh, ETA to say that doyen of the AR whacko movement Peter Singer will be on Q&A tonight. The ad apparently suggests they'll discuss the ethics of pet ownership. SBS has been publishing anti-breeding articles for some time, too.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Sheridan

[Tempus Fugit]

.

They did not define what they meant by "coursing dogs",

From my understanding a 'coursing dog' for the purposes of the POCTAA would include a dog used for lure coursing, registered as a 'coursing dog' in accordance with the recommended changes to the CAA.

I'm surprised the proposed changes to the POCTAA regarding the keeping of bait animals for blooding would only apply to 'coursing dogs'. I would have thought such a provision would include persons keeping hunting dogs as well.

Also, if the commission thinks lure coursers blood their dogs, then theoretically the muzzling laws and green collar tests that currently apply to greyhounds should also apply to lure coursing dogs.

[BarbedWire]

Seriously, has anyone ever actually spoken to management and scientists at the RSPCA? I have. They love dogs. Most of them own dogs. I don't know where people got this idea that the RSPCA doesn't like dogs or people that own or breed dogs. I am only going to say this once because I doubt it will change any minds so it is just for the record. The RSPCA are not against dog ownership. They have not attacked sighthounds. They are not campaigning towards the end of dog breeding or purebred dogs or dog ownership. They are FOR dogs. They just want them to be safe and well cared for and not exploited. They are responding to what has been revealed in the greyhound racing industry by making proposals that they hope will protect both dogs and other animals that may be cruelly exploited in dog-related activities. It is a shame they have to do this and I'm sure they would rather not, but this is their role - to provide advice in issues pertaining to animal welfare. This coursing dog recommendation is not part of some bigger plan to legislate the life out of the pet dog industry. They are heavily supportive of initiatives to boost pet ownership and dog-friendly environments and housing, and some of the money they have at their disposal goes towards those goals.

I agree with the above. Also RSPCA shelters don't all have the same policies. NSW for example has eight separate shelters and they would all have their own policies re the everyday management of their shelters. My only contact with the RSPCA has been in Canberra and I have always found them ethical and reputable.

[Jed]

Corvus

Seriously, has anyone ever actually spoken to management and scientists at the RSPCA? I have. They love dogs. Most of them own dogs. I don't know where people got this idea that the RSPCA doesn't like dogs or people that own or breed dogs. I am only going to say this once because I doubt it will change any minds so it is just for the record. The RSPCA are not against dog ownership. They have not attacked sighthounds. They are not campaigning towards the end of dog breeding or purebred dogs or dog ownership. They are FOR dogs. They just want them to be safe and well cared for and not exploited. They are responding to what has been revealed in the greyhound racing industry by making proposals that they hope will protect both dogs and other animals that may be cruelly exploited in dog-related activities. It is a shame they have to do this and I'm sure they would rather not, but this is their role - to provide advice in issues pertaining to animal welfare. This coursing dog recommendation is not part of some bigger plan to legislate the life out of the pet dog industry. They are heavily supportive of initiatives to boost pet ownership and dog-friendly environments and housing, and some of the money they have at their disposal goes towards those goals.

Do you have any basis for making that statement? Any proof?

Perhaps management and "scientists" at the RSPCA have no idea what is happening

However, not being privy to the upper echelon of the RSPCA, I can only judge their intentions by their stated aims - on their sites, on their printed matter, and on how they deal with pets particularly dogs.

Thinking there is NO problem is an exercise of head in the sand. AR now is very vocal on various sites - about banning pet ownership, banning breeders, etc etc etc - and the carriage horses in Melbourne are also a focus of their attention. The RSPCA committee was once a stronghold of AR - whether it still is, I have no idea but I suspect so.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

But remember that the NSW RSPCA did want it to extend to all sighthounds. The Commission didn't go that far, but it is a warning shot from the RSPCA about how far it wants to intrude into people's pet owning. I note also tho' that both the QLD and Vic RSPCA run lure coursing at their public days including the MPW in Victoria. So, left hand, right hand...

No, they didn't exactly. They suggested it apply to "coursing dogs". The exact wording is:

"(1) A person who:

…

(e) keeps or is in charge of any animal of a prescribed species at any place used for the housing or kennelling, training, trialing, training or racing of coursing dogs, is guilty of an offence."

They did not define what they meant by "coursing dogs", which is problematic, as the Commission report flagged. My guess would be they didn't define a breed because they didn't want to leave an exploitable loophole whereby dubious racing activities could shift to another breed (e.g. whippets are bred for racing in other countries).

Without an alternative definition, coursing dogs are sighthounds and the relevant crosses (long dogs and lurchers). There isn't any other way to slice it, especially given the historical context the report uses. If you don't have a sighthound it's easy to be relaxed about definitions, of course.

Edited to add - one of the reasons for getting on the front foot with this is precisely because murkiness about definitions could end up being legislated. Then we're all in a mess.

Edited August 1, 2016 by SkySoaringMagpie

[Diva]

I read 8.63 as meaning that 'coursing dogs' are dogs that engage in the sport of lure coursing, regardless of breed? They could have said sighthounds that engage in lure coursing, but they left it at dogs.

[corvus]

But remember that the NSW RSPCA did want it to extend to all sighthounds. The Commission didn't go that far, but it is a warning shot from the RSPCA about how far it wants to intrude into people's pet owning. I note also tho' that both the QLD and Vic RSPCA run lure coursing at their public days including the MPW in Victoria. So, left hand, right hand...

No, they didn't exactly. They suggested it apply to "coursing dogs". The exact wording is:

"(1) A person who:

…

(e) keeps or is in charge of any animal of a prescribed species at any place used for the housing or kennelling, training, trialing, training or racing of coursing dogs, is guilty of an offence."

They did not define what they meant by "coursing dogs", which is problematic, as the Commission report flagged. My guess would be they didn't define a breed because they didn't want to leave an exploitable loophole whereby dubious racing activities could shift to another breed (e.g. whippets are bred for racing in other countries).

Without an alternative definition, coursing dogs are sighthounds and the relevant crosses (long dogs and lurchers). There isn't any other way to slice it, especially given the historical context the report uses. If you don't have a sighthound it's easy to be relaxed about definitions, of course.

Edited to add - one of the reasons for getting on the front foot with this is precisely because murkiness about definitions could end up being legislated. Then we're all in a mess.

Well, without a clear definition of any kind, it's open to interpretation. That was my point. I could argue my podengo is a coursing dog (she seems to think she is), and I could argue that she is not. I could argue a whippet mix is a coursing dog, and I could argue it's not if it has never coursed a thing in its life. If I did lure coursing with my lapphund, I could argue he is a coursing dog or that he's not, and obviously he is not a sighthound. There is no distinction between dogs that do actually for real course on a regular basis (for competition?) and dogs that were bred once upon a time long ago for coursing-like activities, which is exactly what the report flags as problematic. It offers a solution that penalises people involved in lure coursing unfairly. I am not suggesting everyone relax because the definition the RSPCA suggested is ambiguous. I am suggesting the evidence is lacking to assert RSPCA Australia is targeting sighthounds precisely because they did not define what they meant by a coursing dog. The report does define it, though, so if you're going to assert someone is after sighthounds, that assertion should be directed at McHugh. But that doesn't bear up to scrutiny, either, because he's the one that pointed out the RSPCA's submission would penalise dogs and owners that had never had anything to do with coursing of any kind, and that some dogs of breeds that are not traditionally coursing breeds also engage in lure coursing.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

But remember that the NSW RSPCA did want it to extend to all sighthounds. The Commission didn't go that far, but it is a warning shot from the RSPCA about how far it wants to intrude into people's pet owning. I note also tho' that both the QLD and Vic RSPCA run lure coursing at their public days including the MPW in Victoria. So, left hand, right hand...

No, they didn't exactly. They suggested it apply to "coursing dogs". The exact wording is:

"(1) A person who:

…

(e) keeps or is in charge of any animal of a prescribed species at any place used for the housing or kennelling, training, trialing, training or racing of coursing dogs, is guilty of an offence."

They did not define what they meant by "coursing dogs", which is problematic, as the Commission report flagged. My guess would be they didn't define a breed because they didn't want to leave an exploitable loophole whereby dubious racing activities could shift to another breed (e.g. whippets are bred for racing in other countries).

Without an alternative definition, coursing dogs are sighthounds and the relevant crosses (long dogs and lurchers). There isn't any other way to slice it, especially given the historical context the report uses. If you don't have a sighthound it's easy to be relaxed about definitions, of course.

Edited to add - one of the reasons for getting on the front foot with this is precisely because murkiness about definitions could end up being legislated. Then we're all in a mess.

Well, without a clear definition of any kind, it's open to interpretation. That was my point. I could argue my podengo is a coursing dog (she seems to think she is), and I could argue that she is not. I could argue a whippet mix is a coursing dog, and I could argue it's not if it has never coursed a thing in its life. If I did lure coursing with my lapphund, I could argue he is a coursing dog or that he's not, and obviously he is not a sighthound. There is no distinction between dogs that do actually for real course on a regular basis (for competition?) and dogs that were bred once upon a time long ago for coursing-like activities, which is exactly what the report flags as problematic. It offers a solution that penalises people involved in lure coursing unfairly. I am not suggesting everyone relax because the definition the RSPCA suggested is ambiguous. I am suggesting the evidence is lacking to assert RSPCA Australia is targeting sighthounds precisely because they did not define what they meant by a coursing dog. The report does define it, though, so if you're going to assert someone is after sighthounds, that assertion should be directed at McHugh. But that doesn't bear up to scrutiny, either, because he's the one that pointed out the RSPCA's submission would penalise dogs and owners that had never had anything to do with coursing of any kind, and that some dogs of breeds that are not traditionally coursing breeds also engage in lure coursing.

Yes I understand all that, and my issue with McHugh is his ignorance of, and failure to consult on, lure coursing - not sighthounds. You are more confident than I am about the RSPCA. I hope you are right and I am wrong.

[~Anne~]

It's not the report that will decide anything, anyway. It's the Bill, which is due to be discussed at Cabinet this week.

[PossumCorner]

And this item from this evening's news could be used to support argument.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-03/greyhound-live-baiting-transcripts-discredit-tony-gannon-nsw/7686916

[asal]

And this item from this evening's news could be used to support argument.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-03/greyhound-live-baiting-transcripts-discredit-tony-gannon-nsw/7686916

pretty disgusting all right

[~Anne~]

The Bill goes to Cabinet today. It is expected it will pass through Cabinet and be supported (or so the media say). I think most people, unless they're racing greyhounds, are worrying over unnecessarily.