Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[Sheridan]

Definitely happy with this news but trying to wrap my head around the logistics of it all. There are going to be a lot of dogs destroyed or shipped interstate.

Hopefully the government has a good plan in place to support rescues and the community gets out there and adopts as many of these dogs as possible (*looks at how we can squeeze another one in*)

Very happy about this yet your next sentence is lots of dogs are going to be destroyed.

[moosmum]

So, pedigree breeders should get into bed with commercial puppyfarmers because only a few puppyfarmers are bad? Uh, no thanks.

Umm, You don't have to sleep with them.

There IS NO Separation of breeder practices by group. No group can ever be exempt from poor practice.

No group can ever say sh*t doesn't happen in 'My' space.

To insist Pedigree breeders have a 'different' space will see pedigree dogs ( and others) eventualy, go the same way as as the greyhound industry.

No doubt.

In accepting that all DOGS and BREEDERS have equal legitimacy to Man and his communities, the focus shifts from 'Groups' or environments, back to individuals and their own practices, where it belongs. Does this PERSON live up to the expectations of our community? Forget your 'own' space for that. Doesn't matter if a person lives up to K.C expectations if they are not also community expectations.

With SHARED environment, conversation can shift to those values and practices, ( not groups ) that bring bring best results for Dogs and the communities they live in.

Bringing shared responsibility of communities, A better educated and informed public.

Puppy farms would fail on the expectations of a more responsible and informed public.

Its the way to ensure puppy farms DON"T succeed hobby/enthusiast breeders.

The way its going ATM, Puppy farms and commercial breeders have all the advantage available.

Its a matter of Saving pedigree dogs, and domestic dogs in general.

I find it very hard to respect a group that would rather 'die' and destroy a welcoming, valued space for dogs for every one, than change a belief that only a 'pedigree' can give a dog, a breeder or an owner validity. That superiority of pedigrees is a given, regardless of practice and environmental purpose.

Thats what it amounts to. Any body claiming to be FOR dogs has a responsibility to shape and form those expectations. For dogs. Or they fail dogs at the most basic level.

Its very unlikely puppy farms would ever have become an issue if the premier Breeder bodies had accepted in the 1st place that they are not THE environment for dog breeders, just one of many with a responsibility to the communities that support them to demonstrate value.

A responsibility to a healthier environment than whats been left in their wake with a belief superiority is in a pedigree, not a dog or its purpose and values to its own space .

You think your 'Group space' can single handedley meet community expectations, for all of us, go for it, But you will be judged by the worst, as a group.

You fail my expectations. I have lost hope for my breed, along with most anyone who valued them for their purpose.

Oh, right, your incomprehensible posts have actually been about you. Gee, sorry about not wanting to be likened to BYBs and puppyfarmers. Guess your expectations were always going to be dashed on the rocks of other people's ethics.

So who coined those terms to be used as a comparison of 'Group"?

You want to be seen as some thing 'Other' then don't complain when you are seen and judged as some thing 'Other'.

Like the greyhound racing industry. Some thing 'Other', so its loss won't be missed by most.

My breed means nothing to you. The value buyers look to find in breeds means nothing to you.

Only the 'standard' minus any value that might be sought out side a show ring.

Yes, thats the point isn't it? That the environmental expectations that drive development of a species (or breed) are always going to be dashed on the rocks of some 'OTHER' ethics, while those are defined by pedigrees, not practices. Or purpose.

Not realities out side a show or trial ring.

No value in that for me, and increasingly, no value in that for any one else either.

A reduction to the lowest common denominator. The Standard alone, not the values it was built on. Till collapse.

But you cling to this idea you are victims of your environment, Some thing 'Other' So you don't have to take responsibility for what the environment IS, or what it throws at you.

IN ENGLISH.

Get a dictionary.

Edited August 11, 2016 by moosmum

[Rebanne]

I understand that all greyhounds born after 1st July 2017 will automatically be allowed to be muzzle free. Disaster waiting to happen. Once a few unsuitable greyhounds rip apart a few small fluffies they will go the way of the pitbull here in Vic and be banned totally. BSL at it's finest.

[Rebanne]

Definitely happy with this news but trying to wrap my head around the logistics of it all. There are going to be a lot of dogs destroyed or shipped interstate.

Hopefully the government has a good plan in place to support rescues and the community gets out there and adopts as many of these dogs as possible (*looks at how we can squeeze another one in*)

Very happy about this yet your next sentence is lots of dogs are going to be destroyed.

There is no plan in place as yet. Maybe in 3 months according to the Government. What happens to all the greys in Vic, for example, waiting their turn to go into GAP or rescue? Will they be displaced by NSW dogs? Are all the bleeding hearts a suitable home for a greyhound? I'd suggest no. It's not as if they couldn't have adopted a greyhound previously so why didn't they? Cause they don't want one. The homes aren't there. The ANKC world had better hope eyes aren't turned their way, after all they have a few bad eggs who do the wrong thing, much like the greyhound world. And look at what has happened to Greyhounds NSW.

[asal]

Definitely happy with this news but trying to wrap my head around the logistics of it all. There are going to be a lot of dogs destroyed or shipped interstate.

Hopefully the government has a good plan in place to support rescues and the community gets out there and adopts as many of these dogs as possible (*looks at how we can squeeze another one in*)

Very happy about this yet your next sentence is lots of dogs are going to be destroyed.

think the logic is they die for the greater good?

Edited August 11, 2016 by asal

[asal]

Definitely happy with this news but trying to wrap my head around the logistics of it all. There are going to be a lot of dogs destroyed or shipped interstate.

Hopefully the government has a good plan in place to support rescues and the community gets out there and adopts as many of these dogs as possible (*looks at how we can squeeze another one in*)

Very happy about this yet your next sentence is lots of dogs are going to be destroyed.

There is no plan in place as yet. Maybe in 3 months according to the Government. What happens to all the greys in Vic, for example, waiting their turn to go into GAP or rescue? Will they be displaced by NSW dogs? Are all the bleeding hearts a suitable home for a greyhound? I'd suggest no. It's not as if they couldn't have adopted a greyhound previously so why didn't they? Cause they don't want one. The homes aren't there. The ANKC world had better hope eyes aren't turned their way, after all they have a few bad eggs who do the wrong thing, much like the greyhound world. And look at what has happened to Greyhounds NSW.

think is pretty obvious answer. The precendent is set.

some bad eggs mean the rest go too.

was wondering why no questions in the censis asked if a household had pets , what species and how many? now that would have let the cat out of the bag as to how many there actually are

would have been seriously interesting to have accurate instead of estimate figures

well apparently some in the farming sector think they will be next under the spotlight

Perhaps some of the comments on the farming forum re this photo sum up the problems actually, " But cows only eat one meal a day. One, incredibly long meal.

consider how long it has been since an actual farmer had a hand in writing laws.."

The same applies to even the so called code of ethics the the ankc's have adopted. My vet commented "no repro vet could have agreed with the one litter per year rule, bitches were intended by nature to have their litters one after the other while young, then retired early in their life, the older the bitch the same problems arise as in older women, the more mutations in the aged eggs".

What I found particularly interesting was the speaker was a long serving vet at RSPCA Victoria and left because of the increasing influence of AR activists

Edited August 11, 2016 by asal

[Rebanne]

Definitely happy with this news but trying to wrap my head around the logistics of it all. There are going to be a lot of dogs destroyed or shipped interstate.

Hopefully the government has a good plan in place to support rescues and the community gets out there and adopts as many of these dogs as possible (*looks at how we can squeeze another one in*)

Very happy about this yet your next sentence is lots of dogs are going to be destroyed.

There is no plan in place as yet. Maybe in 3 months according to the Government. What happens to all the greys in Vic, for example, waiting their turn to go into GAP or rescue? Will they be displaced by NSW dogs? Are all the bleeding hearts a suitable home for a greyhound? I'd suggest no. It's not as if they couldn't have adopted a greyhound previously so why didn't they? Cause they don't want one. The homes aren't there. The ANKC world had better hope eyes aren't turned their way, after all they have a few bad eggs who do the wrong thing, much like the greyhound world. And look at what has happened to Greyhounds NSW.

think is pretty obvious answer. The precendent is set.

some bad eggs mean the rest go too.

was wondering why no questions in the censis asked if a household had pets , what species and how many? now that would have let the cat out of the bag as to how many there actually are

would have been seriously interesting to have accurate instead of estimate figures

well apparently some in the farming sector think they will be next under the spotlight

Yes I think so and I very much fear that if NSW wins then the rest of the country will fold within 10 years and what becomes of my beloved breed then?

[Sheridan]

So, pedigree breeders should get into bed with commercial puppyfarmers because only a few puppyfarmers are bad? Uh, no thanks.

Umm, You don't have to sleep with them.

There IS NO Separation of breeder practices by group. No group can ever be exempt from poor practice.

No group can ever say sh*t doesn't happen in 'My' space.

To insist Pedigree breeders have a 'different' space will see pedigree dogs ( and others) eventualy, go the same way as as the greyhound industry.

No doubt.

In accepting that all DOGS and BREEDERS have equal legitimacy to Man and his communities, the focus shifts from 'Groups' or environments, back to individuals and their own practices, where it belongs. Does this PERSON live up to the expectations of our community? Forget your 'own' space for that. Doesn't matter if a person lives up to K.C expectations if they are not also community expectations.

With SHARED environment, conversation can shift to those values and practices, ( not groups ) that bring bring best results for Dogs and the communities they live in.

Bringing shared responsibility of communities, A better educated and informed public.

Puppy farms would fail on the expectations of a more responsible and informed public.

Its the way to ensure puppy farms DON"T succeed hobby/enthusiast breeders.

The way its going ATM, Puppy farms and commercial breeders have all the advantage available.

Its a matter of Saving pedigree dogs, and domestic dogs in general.

I find it very hard to respect a group that would rather 'die' and destroy a welcoming, valued space for dogs for every one, than change a belief that only a 'pedigree' can give a dog, a breeder or an owner validity. That superiority of pedigrees is a given, regardless of practice and environmental purpose.

Thats what it amounts to. Any body claiming to be FOR dogs has a responsibility to shape and form those expectations. For dogs. Or they fail dogs at the most basic level.

Its very unlikely puppy farms would ever have become an issue if the premier Breeder bodies had accepted in the 1st place that they are not THE environment for dog breeders, just one of many with a responsibility to the communities that support them to demonstrate value.

A responsibility to a healthier environment than whats been left in their wake with a belief superiority is in a pedigree, not a dog or its purpose and values to its own space .

You think your 'Group space' can single handedley meet community expectations, for all of us, go for it, But you will be judged by the worst, as a group.

You fail my expectations. I have lost hope for my breed, along with most anyone who valued them for their purpose.

Oh, right, your incomprehensible posts have actually been about you. Gee, sorry about not wanting to be likened to BYBs and puppyfarmers. Guess your expectations were always going to be dashed on the rocks of other people's ethics.

So who coined those terms to be used as a comparison of 'Group"?

You want to be seen as some thing 'Other' then don't complain when you are seen and judged as some thing 'Other'.

Like the greyhound racing industry. Some thing 'Other', so its loss won't be missed by most.

My breed means nothing to you. The value buyers look to find in breeds means nothing to you.

Only the 'standard' minus any value that might be sought out side a show ring.

Yes, thats the point isn't it? That the environmental expectations that drive development of a species (or breed) are always going to be dashed on the rocks of some 'OTHER' ethics, while those are defined by pedigrees, not practices. Or purpose.

Not realities out side a show or trial ring.

No value in that for me, and increasingly, no value in that for any one else either.

A reduction to the lowest common denominator. The Standard alone, not the values it was built on. Till collapse.

But you cling to this idea you are victims of your environment, Some thing 'Other' So you don't have to take responsibility for what the environment IS, or what it throws at you.

IN ENGLISH.

Get a dictionary.

Oh just stop it. You write in this stupid academic claptrap, whine on about people not wanting to get into bed with BYB and puppyfarmers and when you're called on both, start talking about how it's all about your breed. Why do you even bother. No, don't answer because if you wanted people to follow your crap you'd have written it without all the stupid 'OTHER, 'environment', and 'value' nonsense. I really don't care anymore which is a pity because I actually think you're trying to say something.

[Sheridan]

Definitely happy with this news but trying to wrap my head around the logistics of it all. There are going to be a lot of dogs destroyed or shipped interstate.

Hopefully the government has a good plan in place to support rescues and the community gets out there and adopts as many of these dogs as possible (*looks at how we can squeeze another one in*)

Very happy about this yet your next sentence is lots of dogs are going to be destroyed.

There is no plan in place as yet. Maybe in 3 months according to the Government. What happens to all the greys in Vic, for example, waiting their turn to go into GAP or rescue? Will they be displaced by NSW dogs? Are all the bleeding hearts a suitable home for a greyhound? I'd suggest no. It's not as if they couldn't have adopted a greyhound previously so why didn't they? Cause they don't want one. The homes aren't there. The ANKC world had better hope eyes aren't turned their way, after all they have a few bad eggs who do the wrong thing, much like the greyhound world. And look at what has happened to Greyhounds NSW.

The AR whackadoodles don't care if all the greyhounds get euthed. I've seen that in posts on Twitter.

[Rebanne]

The AR whackadoodles don't care if all the greyhounds get euthed. I've seen that in posts on Twitter.

Yep, best to kill them all now so none are euthed in the future.

[Maddy]

Okay, because that was obviously my strongest argument. And you know, why would I understand the motivation behind my funding. The question in the research community when the tenders were released was "Why are they funding post-docs and not PhDs?" Generally, industry funds post-docs when they want results. They cost a whole lot more, but there's less risk, and the quality of the research is more reliable. And, funnily enough, that's just about exactly what I was told when I was discussing with GRNSW the possibility of students. That is not common knowledge, really. The public wouldn't know the difference. *shrug* It all checks out to me. If the public doesn't know the difference, there is no point allocating funds to support fewer projects, or investing more than an independent body (WDA) has recommended. You wouldn't waste money if you thought you would survive the near future, and I do think they believed they would survive. The funding pool wasn't lucrative by any means. It was very challenging to stretch the budget to cover the costs of the research. They have thrown money at a problem, but not blindly or recklessly IMO. I doubt throwing more money at it would have changed anything unless they had done it a fair bit sooner. At the end of the day, I do not feel I have been negotiating over something that doesn't matter to the industry that is funding it. It is pretty obvious when this is occurring. I used to be an environmental consultant. I know ticking irritating and expensive boxes when I see it. GRNSW have been surprisingly honest with me, so either they are expert liars in person and their cunning plan to trick the scientist (why, I cannot fathom - I don't have the luxury to let my sensibilities dictate the work I take) is to feed them enough unsavoury truths to gain their trust, or I perhaps know what the goal of my funding is.

Quite a few points here that really aren't worth addressing, for a number of reasons. If you want to believe that you were hired to do research that would actually be applied, that's your business You assume that you know the industry well enough to judge their intentions and I can assure you, you very obviously don't.

[corvus]

Okay, because that was obviously my strongest argument. And you know, why would I understand the motivation behind my funding. The question in the research community when the tenders were released was "Why are they funding post-docs and not PhDs?" Generally, industry funds post-docs when they want results. They cost a whole lot more, but there's less risk, and the quality of the research is more reliable. And, funnily enough, that's just about exactly what I was told when I was discussing with GRNSW the possibility of students. That is not common knowledge, really. The public wouldn't know the difference. *shrug* It all checks out to me. If the public doesn't know the difference, there is no point allocating funds to support fewer projects, or investing more than an independent body (WDA) has recommended. You wouldn't waste money if you thought you would survive the near future, and I do think they believed they would survive. The funding pool wasn't lucrative by any means. It was very challenging to stretch the budget to cover the costs of the research. They have thrown money at a problem, but not blindly or recklessly IMO. I doubt throwing more money at it would have changed anything unless they had done it a fair bit sooner. At the end of the day, I do not feel I have been negotiating over something that doesn't matter to the industry that is funding it. It is pretty obvious when this is occurring. I used to be an environmental consultant. I know ticking irritating and expensive boxes when I see it. GRNSW have been surprisingly honest with me, so either they are expert liars in person and their cunning plan to trick the scientist (why, I cannot fathom - I don't have the luxury to let my sensibilities dictate the work I take) is to feed them enough unsavoury truths to gain their trust, or I perhaps know what the goal of my funding is.

Quite a few points here that really aren't worth addressing, for a number of reasons. If you want to believe that you were hired to do research that would actually be applied, that's your business You assume that you know the industry well enough to judge their intentions and I can assure you, you very obviously don't.

Ah, of course. I am the one that is ignorant about what my job is and why I am doing it. Silly me. It couldn't be you, who hasn't the faintest idea what my job actually is until I hinted at it just last night. It's not the industry I have faith in, for the record. It's the people that are currently leading GRNSW. I know it is difficult for you, but consider just for a moment that I might be a rational, thinking being with a mountain of cynicism and I actually need evidence before I believe something. Your evidence seems to consist of a leaked e-mail from someone that no longer works at GRNSW. Could my information be more current? Surely not.

[melzawelza]

I understand that all greyhounds born after 1st July 2017 will automatically be allowed to be muzzle free. Disaster waiting to happen. Once a few unsuitable greyhounds rip apart a few small fluffies they will go the way of the pitbull here in Vic and be banned totally. BSL at it's finest.

You know that the muzzling requirements are already BSL? Why should Greyhounds be subject to Breed Specific Legislation, particularly once they will no longer be being bred for the purposes of racing and live baited?

[Sheridan]

I understand that all greyhounds born after 1st July 2017 will automatically be allowed to be muzzle free. Disaster waiting to happen. Once a few unsuitable greyhounds rip apart a few small fluffies they will go the way of the pitbull here in Vic and be banned totally. BSL at it's finest.

You know that the muzzling requirements are already BSL? Why should Greyhounds be subject to Breed Specific Legislation, particularly once they will no longer be being bred for the purposes of racing and live baited?

Isn't this legislation BSL?

[Maddy]

Okay, because that was obviously my strongest argument. And you know, why would I understand the motivation behind my funding. The question in the research community when the tenders were released was "Why are they funding post-docs and not PhDs?" Generally, industry funds post-docs when they want results. They cost a whole lot more, but there's less risk, and the quality of the research is more reliable. And, funnily enough, that's just about exactly what I was told when I was discussing with GRNSW the possibility of students. That is not common knowledge, really. The public wouldn't know the difference. *shrug* It all checks out to me. If the public doesn't know the difference, there is no point allocating funds to support fewer projects, or investing more than an independent body (WDA) has recommended. You wouldn't waste money if you thought you would survive the near future, and I do think they believed they would survive. The funding pool wasn't lucrative by any means. It was very challenging to stretch the budget to cover the costs of the research. They have thrown money at a problem, but not blindly or recklessly IMO. I doubt throwing more money at it would have changed anything unless they had done it a fair bit sooner. At the end of the day, I do not feel I have been negotiating over something that doesn't matter to the industry that is funding it. It is pretty obvious when this is occurring. I used to be an environmental consultant. I know ticking irritating and expensive boxes when I see it. GRNSW have been surprisingly honest with me, so either they are expert liars in person and their cunning plan to trick the scientist (why, I cannot fathom - I don't have the luxury to let my sensibilities dictate the work I take) is to feed them enough unsavoury truths to gain their trust, or I perhaps know what the goal of my funding is.

Quite a few points here that really aren't worth addressing, for a number of reasons. If you want to believe that you were hired to do research that would actually be applied, that's your business You assume that you know the industry well enough to judge their intentions and I can assure you, you very obviously don't.

Ah, of course. I am the one that is ignorant about what my job is and why I am doing it. Silly me. It couldn't be you, who hasn't the faintest idea what my job actually is until I hinted at it just last night. It's not the industry I have faith in, for the record. It's the people that are currently leading GRNSW. I know it is difficult for you, but consider just for a moment that I might be a rational, thinking being with a mountain of cynicism and I actually need evidence before I believe something. Your evidence seems to consist of a leaked e-mail from someone that no longer works at GRNSW. Could my information be more current? Surely not.

Cool story, bro.

[Maddy]

I understand that all greyhounds born after 1st July 2017 will automatically be allowed to be muzzle free. Disaster waiting to happen. Once a few unsuitable greyhounds rip apart a few small fluffies they will go the way of the pitbull here in Vic and be banned totally. BSL at it's finest.

You know that the muzzling requirements are already BSL? Why should Greyhounds be subject to Breed Specific Legislation, particularly once they will no longer be being bred for the purposes of racing and live baited?

Because greyhounds have a higher prey drive than many other breeds, regardless of baiting or training, and there is a percentage that will see small dogs as prey. It's not discrimination, it's a breed trait. I have owned greys with very high drive (and still do) and while they are lovely dogs with people and larger dogs, they absolutely would kill something small and fluffy if they got the chance. Part of being a responsible owner is recognising and managing breed traits- pretending they don't exist does the breed no favours.

[melzawelza]

I understand that all greyhounds born after 1st July 2017 will automatically be allowed to be muzzle free. Disaster waiting to happen. Once a few unsuitable greyhounds rip apart a few small fluffies they will go the way of the pitbull here in Vic and be banned totally. BSL at it's finest.

You know that the muzzling requirements are already BSL? Why should Greyhounds be subject to Breed Specific Legislation, particularly once they will no longer be being bred for the purposes of racing and live baited?

Because greyhounds have a higher prey drive than many other breeds, regardless of baiting or training, and there is a percentage that will see small dogs as prey. It's not discrimination, it's a breed trait. I have owned greys with very high drive (and still do) and while they are lovely dogs with people and larger dogs, they absolutely would kill something small and fluffy if they got the chance. Part of being a responsible owner is recognising and managing breed traits- pretending they don't exist does the breed no favours.

Prey drive is a *dog* trait, and not exclusive to any one breed. There are many breeds that have a higher potential for prey drive, and many dogs within many breeds that have a high prey drive. There are plenty of dogs of all breeds that will kill other dogs for non-prey drive reasons too. Breed Specific Legislation has been shown time and time again to be a complete failure in preventing dog attacks. Adequate and well resourced animal management and education programs are what is effective.

[Maddy]

I understand that all greyhounds born after 1st July 2017 will automatically be allowed to be muzzle free. Disaster waiting to happen. Once a few unsuitable greyhounds rip apart a few small fluffies they will go the way of the pitbull here in Vic and be banned totally. BSL at it's finest.

You know that the muzzling requirements are already BSL? Why should Greyhounds be subject to Breed Specific Legislation, particularly once they will no longer be being bred for the purposes of racing and live baited?

Because greyhounds have a higher prey drive than many other breeds, regardless of baiting or training, and there is a percentage that will see small dogs as prey. It's not discrimination, it's a breed trait. I have owned greys with very high drive (and still do) and while they are lovely dogs with people and larger dogs, they absolutely would kill something small and fluffy if they got the chance. Part of being a responsible owner is recognising and managing breed traits- pretending they don't exist does the breed no favours.

Prey drive is a *dog* trait, and not exclusive to any one breed. There are many breeds that have a higher potential for prey drive, and many dogs within many breeds that have a high prey drive. There are plenty of dogs of all breeds that will kill other dogs for non-prey drive reasons too. Breed Specific Legislation has been shown time and time again to be a complete failure in preventing dog attacks. Adequate and well resourced animal management and education programs are what is effective.

Roughly 25% of greys are not small dog safe. Let one of those dogs off lead at a park with a small dog and you'll have a dead small dog in less time than it takes you to realise what is happening. If your greyhound is muzzled and on leash, it can't chase down, grab and shake to death someone else's pet. Muzzling/leashing greyhounds is in no way similar to BSL for things like bull breeds. Muzzling/leashing is for their safety and the safety of other dogs/cats/small animals.

In a perfect world, everyone would be sensible and responsible but back here in reality, greyhounds could be at risk of actual BSL if ignorant idiots are allowed to let their greys run unmuzzled and offlead.

I know you don't understand the issue with greyhounds all that well (given you've had this same argument with Hazywal before) but if you're keen to find out for yourself, you're welcome to have one of my high drive fosters for a few weeks >.> (That is a serious offer, by the way. Nothing educates quite like the sight of your dog chasing down and destroying someone else's dog, while the attacked dog's owner screams for it to stop)

[melzawelza]

I understand that all greyhounds born after 1st July 2017 will automatically be allowed to be muzzle free. Disaster waiting to happen. Once a few unsuitable greyhounds rip apart a few small fluffies they will go the way of the pitbull here in Vic and be banned totally. BSL at it's finest.

You know that the muzzling requirements are already BSL? Why should Greyhounds be subject to Breed Specific Legislation, particularly once they will no longer be being bred for the purposes of racing and live baited?

Because greyhounds have a higher prey drive than many other breeds, regardless of baiting or training, and there is a percentage that will see small dogs as prey. It's not discrimination, it's a breed trait. I have owned greys with very high drive (and still do) and while they are lovely dogs with people and larger dogs, they absolutely would kill something small and fluffy if they got the chance. Part of being a responsible owner is recognising and managing breed traits- pretending they don't exist does the breed no favours.

Prey drive is a *dog* trait, and not exclusive to any one breed. There are many breeds that have a higher potential for prey drive, and many dogs within many breeds that have a high prey drive. There are plenty of dogs of all breeds that will kill other dogs for non-prey drive reasons too. Breed Specific Legislation has been shown time and time again to be a complete failure in preventing dog attacks. Adequate and well resourced animal management and education programs are what is effective.

Roughly 25% of greys are not small dog safe. Let one of those dogs off lead at a park with a small dog and you'll have a dead small dog in less time than it takes you to realise what is happening. If your greyhound is muzzled and on leash, it can't chase down, grab and shake to death someone else's pet. Muzzling/leashing greyhounds is in no way similar to BSL for things like bull breeds. Muzzling/leashing is for their safety and the safety of other dogs/cats/small animals.

In a perfect world, everyone would be sensible and responsible but back here in reality, greyhounds could be at risk of actual BSL if ignorant idiots are allowed to let their greys run unmuzzled and offlead.

I know you don't understand the issue with greyhounds all that well (given you've had this same argument with Hazywal before) but if you're keen to find out for yourself, you're welcome to have one of my high drive fosters for a few weeks >.> (That is a serious offer, by the way. Nothing educates quite like the sight of your dog chasing down and destroying someone else's dog, while the attacked dog's owner screams for it to stop)

Roughly 25% of Greyhounds (trusting your stats here) are not small dog safe after coming from an industry that heavily selected them for intense prey drive, did not socialise them to small dogs in their critical socialisation period (and potentially for years after), reinforced that drive over and over again and live baited many of them. I've got lots of experience with prey driven dogs, and once they've had a live kill (catching rabbits, possums, other animals while out or in their yards) the intensity of the drive goes through the roof and becomes much more difficult to manage. I would be *very* interested to see if that 25% stays once we're dealing with dogs that have not been bred, raised and trained in the racing industry. I suspect it won't.

As far as I can tell, Australia is one of the only countries with BSL for Greyhounds, yet other countries are not suffering from rampaging Greyhounds killing every small dog in sight while being allowed to run around off leash. On top of that, plenty of non-greencollar approved greyhounds are currently owned by people who do not comply with the legislation, and yet again we are not seeing rampaging greys on the loose killing other dogs in any sort of regularity.

I am not doubting that some Greyhounds are a true safety issue around small dogs, from genetics alone. Those dogs need to be rehomed carefully to owners who take their potential seriously, just like dogs of other breeds that also pose a safety risk. Part of that is likely to be the owner muzzling/leashing them in public. If the risk is too great for that individual dog, they should not be rehomed.

"In a perfect world, everyone would be sensible and responsible" - I agree that we don't live in a perfect world but the people that aren't sensible and responsible won't muzzle and leash their greys regardless of the rules. The vast majority *are* sensible and responsible and prevent their dogs ever being an issue. Meanwhile we have 75%+ of Greys that pose no risk subject to legislation that stigmatises them and hinders their adoptability. We've also got animal management officers wasting time attempting to enforce it rather than focusing on other strategies proven to be successful.

ETA: I would genuinely love to take you up on your offer, however I can't foster adult dogs - my dog is an arsehole to them on her own property (super social off the property). Not fair on the other dog. It's a shame as given the industry shutdown I'd really love to foster some Greys over the next 12 months and beyond.

Edited August 11, 2016 by melzawelza

[Lhok]

Definitely happy with this news but trying to wrap my head around the logistics of it all. There are going to be a lot of dogs destroyed or shipped interstate.

Hopefully the government has a good plan in place to support rescues and the community gets out there and adopts as many of these dogs as possible (*looks at how we can squeeze another one in*)

Very happy about this yet your next sentence is lots of dogs are going to be destroyed.

There is no plan in place as yet. Maybe in 3 months according to the Government. What happens to all the greys in Vic, for example, waiting their turn to go into GAP or rescue? Will they be displaced by NSW dogs? Are all the bleeding hearts a suitable home for a greyhound? I'd suggest no. It's not as if they couldn't have adopted a greyhound previously so why didn't they? Cause they don't want one. The homes aren't there. The ANKC world had better hope eyes aren't turned their way, after all they have a few bad eggs who do the wrong thing, much like the greyhound world. And look at what has happened to Greyhounds NSW.

think is pretty obvious answer. The precendent is set.

some bad eggs mean the rest go too.

was wondering why no questions in the censis asked if a household had pets , what species and how many? now that would have let the cat out of the bag as to how many there actually are

would have been seriously interesting to have accurate instead of estimate figures

well apparently some in the farming sector think they will be next under the spotlight

Yes I think so and I very much fear that if NSW wins then the rest of the country will fold within 10 years and what becomes of my beloved breed then?

It becomes a shadow of its former self or it goes the way of the Turnspit dog, no longer needed so no longer around.

--Lhok