Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[asal]

Dogs are always going to be property. If a dog is not my property then someone can come along take it out of my yard and use it at stud, use it to play with, kill it , race it, hunt with it,eat it etc. It was the basis of the Magna Carta where in medieval times people could literally simply take your cow or your bull your land etc and do what ever they wanted without any way of the person the animal lived with having any say etc. The AR would like them to be given the status of us being their guardians but do you want to have to clear it with the state to be able to make even the most base decisions on what you want to do for your dogs? I hand over some of my rights as a dog owner because I choose to belong to a group that tells me I cant allow it to breed with a dog they don't approve of ,that I cant sell it to a source they don't approve of etc but if I decide I want the right to do as I wish with my dog its a breach of their codes - so what ? Legally such things are my choice .If I decided that what is best for my dog is to go to God for a variety of possible reasons then that's not now nor will it ever be a criminal offence. It's O.K. To talk about changing community attitudes but the minute those changing community attitudes and law changes may impact on YOUR ability to own a dog of your choice and make choices with YOUR dogs,what activities you can participate in with them even if you always love it and never do it any harm the game changes. How do you define changing community attitudes? If you judge that based on the shouting banshees led by animal rights people how do you determine that what they say and want is representative of the community that doesn't shout and demand changes? Along the way someone has decided selling puppies in pet shops is a terrible thing based on who we are told supplies them and there is much drum banging and shouting about changing community attitudes etc but move outside of this forum and the real world where AR are not as obvious and there are still the vast majority of the whole community who do see it as a problem or an issue. Commercial breeders sell thousands of puppies each per year to members of the community who don't agree with the latest view of changing community attitudes quoted by AR. The whole world is jumping about what Oscar Laws told us was a changed community attitude where it is O.K. to restrict numbers and treat anyone who owns a fertile dog as a potential criminal. The greyhound laws in NSW have been turned around because the premier worked out that what AR present as changed community attitude is only one view of the snapshot.

This was forwarded to me by my son.

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MLC Robert Brown called on an inquiry into the RSPCA during an adjournment speech in the NSW Parliament on Tuesday evening.

"This follows a litany of debacles where the organisation has over-reached in its role, and is in the precarious position as an unsupervised judge, jury and executioner for animal cruelty issues. These matters have been examined in Western Australia and Victoria, and should be examined by an inquiry in this jurisdiction."

"[People would] be shocked to hear of a $100m industry that slaughtered 40,206 innocent animals in the period 2014 to 2015 - 30 per cent of animals under their care," he said.

"The 40,000 animals slaughtered by the RSPCA last year surprises me, especially because a figure of a similar magnitude was cited as the rationale for banning greyhound racing. The cynic in me wonders why they have not released their latest year's statistics, given this debate.

"Once a respected charity, it has now become over-zealous, drunk on power, and dominated by animal liberationists.

Mr Brown cited the case of Pilliga grazier Ruth Downey whose breeding cattle were shot by the RSPCA following disputable claims they were emaciated. He highlighted quotes of an RSPCA inspector uncovered by his office showing that the organisation preferred to euthanise this woman's cattle rather than provide material support with feeding because the organisation was low on funds.

"An organisation... cannot be summarily allowed to execute animals because it is in that organisation's financial interests, rather than providing the support the public demands and deserves. Nationally they reported a $9.34m loss in their latest financial statement. This is despite their charity status and the tax concessions that come with it."

"[The RSPCA] can either be a policing body for animal welfare or a campaign-house: but it cannot be both," Mr Brown said.

"Like Western Australia and Victoria, we urgently need an inquiry into the RSPCA in New South Wales."

Mr Brown added that the issue of the RSPCA's role in animal welfare was of significance because of their role in deciding the future regulation of the greyhound racing industry after the ban was repealed.

"The fact that [the RSPCA] is actively campaigning against the continuation of the greyhound racing industry, but is granted a seat at the table by Premier Mike Baird to examine it's future regulation is ludicrous and is fraught with danger.

"Such an appointment surely raises community suspicions that the Baird Government's reversal of the greyhound racing ban may turn out to be a disingenuous exercise - killing the industry slowly by other means."

Being the curious kind I found the Hansard copy, think it reads better than the press release actually.

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1820781676-71409

Edited November 1, 2016 by asal

[westiemum]

Dogs are always going to be property. If a dog is not my property then someone can come along take it out of my yard and use it at stud, use it to play with, kill it , race it, hunt with it,eat it etc. It was the basis of the Magna Carta where in medieval times people could literally simply take your cow or your bull your land etc and do what ever they wanted without any way of the person the animal lived with having any say etc. The AR would like them to be given the status of us being their guardians but do you want to have to clear it with the state to be able to make even the most base decisions on what you want to do for your dogs? I hand over some of my rights as a dog owner because I choose to belong to a group that tells me I cant allow it to breed with a dog they don't approve of ,that I cant sell it to a source they don't approve of etc but if I decide I want the right to do as I wish with my dog its a breach of their codes - so what ? Legally such things are my choice .If I decided that what is best for my dog is to go to God for a variety of possible reasons then that's not now nor will it ever be a criminal offence. It's O.K. To talk about changing community attitudes but the minute those changing community attitudes and law changes may impact on YOUR ability to own a dog of your choice and make choices with YOUR dogs,what activities you can participate in with them even if you always love it and never do it any harm the game changes. How do you define changing community attitudes? If you judge that based on the shouting banshees led by animal rights people how do you determine that what they say and want is representative of the community that doesn't shout and demand changes? Along the way someone has decided selling puppies in pet shops is a terrible thing based on who we are told supplies them and there is much drum banging and shouting about changing community attitudes etc but move outside of this forum and the real world where AR are not as obvious and there are still the vast majority of the whole community who do see it as a problem or an issue. Commercial breeders sell thousands of puppies each per year to members of the community who don't agree with the latest view of changing community attitudes quoted by AR. The whole world is jumping about what Oscar Laws told us was a changed community attitude where it is O.K. to restrict numbers and treat anyone who owns a fertile dog as a potential criminal. The greyhound laws in NSW have been turned around because the premier worked out that what AR present as changed community attitude is only one view of the snapshot.

Good post Steve - and good discussion on the legalities. Dogs will always be property - but I suspect can be defined ina different way (category?) under the legal 'property' banner. No I don't pretend to know how that could happen - will take a legal brain better than me - but I expect that can happen in line with community expectations and still avoid many of the problems you discuss.

Legal reform is happening all the time as community attitudes/norms evolve ahead of it - and community attitudes are important and definable. And yes legislative change often lags years behind - but yes it does happen. Part of the problem with the greyhound industry is that community attitudes and norms seem to have evolved at a far faster rate than greyhound industry attitudes - and thats where the gap, dressed up as class warfare, is huge. The industry has a lot of catching up to do if it wants to survive.

[westiemum]

This was forwarded to me by my son.

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MLC Robert Brown called on an inquiry into the RSPCA during an adjournment speech in the NSW Parliament on Tuesday evening.

"This follows a litany of debacles where the organisation has over-reached in its role, and is in the precarious position as an unsupervised judge, jury and executioner for animal cruelty issues. These matters have been examined in Western Australia and Victoria, and should be examined by an inquiry in this jurisdiction."

"[People would] be shocked to hear of a $100m industry that slaughtered 40,206 innocent animals in the period 2014 to 2015 - 30 per cent of animals under their care," he said.

"The 40,000 animals slaughtered by the RSPCA last year surprises me, especially because a figure of a similar magnitude was cited as the rationale for banning greyhound racing. The cynic in me wonders why they have not released their latest year's statistics, given this debate.

"Once a respected charity, it has now become over-zealous, drunk on power, and dominated by animal liberationists.

Mr Brown cited the case of Pilliga grazier Ruth Downey whose breeding cattle were shot by the RSPCA following disputable claims they were emaciated. He highlighted quotes of an RSPCA inspector uncovered by his office showing that the organisation preferred to euthanise this woman's cattle rather than provide material support with feeding because the organisation was low on funds.

"An organisation... cannot be summarily allowed to execute animals because it is in that organisation's financial interests, rather than providing the support the public demands and deserves. Nationally they reported a $9.34m loss in their latest financial statement. This is despite their charity status and the tax concessions that come with it."

"[The RSPCA] can either be a policing body for animal welfare or a campaign-house: but it cannot be both," Mr Brown said.

"Like Western Australia and Victoria, we urgently need an inquiry into the RSPCA in New South Wales."

Mr Brown added that the issue of the RSPCA's role in animal welfare was of significance because of their role in deciding the future regulation of the greyhound racing industry after the ban was repealed.

"The fact that [the RSPCA] is actively campaigning against the continuation of the greyhound racing industry, but is granted a seat at the table by Premier Mike Baird to examine it's future regulation is ludicrous and is fraught with danger.

"Such an appointment surely raises community suspicions that the Baird Government's reversal of the greyhound racing ban may turn out to be a disingenuous exercise - killing the industry slowly by other means."

Being the curious kind I found the Hansard copy, think it reads better than the press release actually.

https://www.parliame...820781676-71409

Probably surprise you asal but I actually don't disagree with Senator Brown - there are many of us here who have believed this for years - that the RSPCA has become a disgusting self-promoting marketing exercise where animal welfare comes a poor second. Paws walk my foot. It's run by a complete bunch of incompetents who wouldn't understand 'conflict of interest' if it stood up and bit them.

[asal]

Westimum, you never want to learn first hand what I know.

Most I know who learn that way are being treated for PTSD as a result. The reason so many are advocating for and calling for an ombudsman to be appointed for the only untouchable organisation in this country, the calls began in the 1990's as what you refer too began to morph but so far the govt is deaf as a doornail

[westiemum]

Westimum, you never want to learn first hand what I know.

Most I know who learn that way are being treated for PTSD as a result. The reason so many are advocating for and calling for an ombudsman to be appointed for the only untouchable organisation in this country, the calls began in the 1990's as what you refer too began to morph but so far the govt is deaf as a doornail

I'm sure I don't want to know The problem is that that their marketing is so slick and they work government networks and the public so well its going to be very hard to change.

[Steve]

Westimum, you never want to learn first hand what I know.

Most I know who learn that way are being treated for PTSD as a result. The reason so many are advocating for and calling for an ombudsman to be appointed for the only untouchable organisation in this country, the calls began in the 1990's as what you refer too began to morph but so far the govt is deaf as a doornail

I'm sure I don't want to know The problem is that that their marketing is so slick and they work government networks and the public so well its going to be very hard to change.

Do you reckon Oscars law animal lib and animals Australia are any different ?

[Maddy]

Westimum, you never want to learn first hand what I know.

Most I know who learn that way are being treated for PTSD as a result. The reason so many are advocating for and calling for an ombudsman to be appointed for the only untouchable organisation in this country, the calls began in the 1990's as what you refer too began to morph but so far the govt is deaf as a doornail

What the RSPCA does or doesn't do, does not excuse the issues in the greyhound racing industry.

The RSPCA certainly have a lot to answer for but it's an entirely different issue. We can't say "Ah, but the RSPCA also kills dogs, so there!" because that is not even an argument, it's just distracting from some very real and very serious problems that must be addressed.

If you think the RSPCA is bad, you'd be horrified by some of the things I've seen or heard in the racing industry.

[westiemum]

Westimum, you never want to learn first hand what I know.

Most I know who learn that way are being treated for PTSD as a result. The reason so many are advocating for and calling for an ombudsman to be appointed for the only untouchable organisation in this country, the calls began in the 1990's as what you refer too began to morph but so far the govt is deaf as a doornail

I'm sure I don't want to know The problem is that that their marketing is so slick and they work government networks and the public so well its going to be very hard to change.

Do you reckon Oscars law animal lib and animals Australia are any different ?

Only in the sense that they don't kill 100's of thousands of animals a year for financial/economic reasons and then put their hands out to a gullible public for more money 'for rescue'.

[westiemum]

Westimum, you never want to learn first hand what I know.

Most I know who learn that way are being treated for PTSD as a result. The reason so many are advocating for and calling for an ombudsman to be appointed for the only untouchable organisation in this country, the calls began in the 1990's as what you refer too began to morph but so far the govt is deaf as a doornail

What the RSPCA does or doesn't do, does not excuse the issues in the greyhound racing industry.

The RSPCA certainly have a lot to answer for but it's an entirely different issue. We can't say "Ah, but the RSPCA also kills dogs, so there!" because that is not even an argument, it's just distracting from some very real and very serious problems that must be addressed.

If you think the RSPCA is bad, you'd be horrified by some of the things I've seen or heard in the racing industry.

Absolutely.

[m-j]

Having done major change programmes in big organisations - both the 'slow excruciating tooth pulling' version and the 'short sharp, get in and get out, blood on the floor' version' i prefer the latter - while its bloody in the short term I think its less painful in the long term -

So are you saying that the short sharp version closed the organisations down completely or they went OS, or was it that the participants just had to change their culture, no compromises, so the industry could survive?

The latter m-j usually - it usually involves rapid down-sizing and sophisticated management of change and people - and that so ain't going to happen here. Management by attrition usually takes a long time, and while it works in some situations I doubt it will work here given the public and political pressure.

So yes - I have seen absolutely nothing here to suggest that genuine sustainainble change will happen so this industry will survive in a form that is acceptable to the general public. In fact this decision has probably ensured the slow 'death by a thousand cuts' for this industry, unless it happens again. And yes I'm certain it will all happen again and next time it will be a brutal shutdown.

Look the truth is that the days of using animals for gambling and entertainment are severely numbered - its only a matter of time given its a toxic mix that brings out the worst in human beings. So this industry can evolve to shutdown under its own control or have it done to it eventually. They can take their pick which route they take - but they are going to end up in the same place. Bookmark it.

Thank you for your reply. As I have said before you are probably right except it will be a pity for the good folk in the industry and they do exist and they have complained but it has fallen on deaf ears.

The entertainment and gambling factor of the industry are not to blame for this it is the "win at all cost" mentality. Unfortunately it isn't only in the greyhounds it is across the board in all sports, it is why human athletes get drug tested and are being found positive. Gone are the days when sport was just that sport, now it is business, pity. One example of this is country football/cricket they are paying players from other places to play for them so now the kids that don't make the grade instead of being at the footy or the cricket on Saturday they are entertaining themselves in other ways and not all of them are wholesome.

Generally m-j I think we are in agreement - I just don't believe so much in 'the good people' - not one public whistle blower I'm aware of in all the years of greyhound racing? But anyway, yes it is a pity that what might have been a good clean fun hobby has now become 'business' - and when it involves animals you can absolutely bet that greed will overrule any sense of animal welfare and decrease our collective humanity. I think this is why I'm so angry with this industry - as it not only reflects on them, it reflects on all of us. And I wonder if the huge outcry over greyhounds is because they are closer to us than, say horses. The are a companion animal species who live in our homes - and while some people have horses as well most of us don't. So it hits hard.

And yes absolutely agree - the moment sport becomes 'business' it moves to a different plane. I'm a great AFL supporter - and sooooo angry with Essendon for the disrepute that they have brought to the game through their 'whatever it takes' 'supplements' program. They are a case study for everything m_j talks about. I've seriously considered going back to supporting grass roots footie through the SANFL - and I might still. And no I won't be watching or betting on 'the race that stops the nation' either.

They are out there :) the vet that went onto the ABC show (there is a link at the beginning of this thread) is one example and look what it achieved, nothing. There are many people out there that could tell stories and some have but it got them nowhere. It seems that a certain few of the industry appear to have it sown up so this is why I was hoping legislation would sort it out. I'm not going to hold my breath though the GBOTA put reforms on the table I'm guessing to enhance their chance of keeping the industry and some of those reforms got taken off 3-4 days after the ban was lifted, which really peeved me, same ..... different day. I just hope when the next push to close it comes there will be more thought put into what is going to happen to the dogs.

[PossumCorner]

.... the moment sport becomes 'business' it moves to a different plane. I'm a great AFL supporter - and sooooo angry with Essendon for the disrepute that they have brought to the game through their 'whatever it takes' 'supplements' program. They are a case study for everything m_j talks about. I've seriously considered going back to supporting grass roots footie through the SANFL - and I might still. And no I won't be watching or betting on 'the race that stops the nation' either.

Catching up with this thread and noticed these views. Yes we are some disillusioned - feel like dropping the AFL interest I have had, and only following the new womens' AFL teams, see if they have a different ethic. And no, I didn't turn on the TV on Cup Day or watch the news on Tuesday night. And the nastiness in cricket - I just can't handle what used to be my favourite spectator sport - used to be so quietly theatrical and is now borderline unpleasant. All for the reasons you have mentioned.

[asal]

.... the moment sport becomes 'business' it moves to a different plane. I'm a great AFL supporter - and sooooo angry with Essendon for the disrepute that they have brought to the game through their 'whatever it takes' 'supplements' program. They are a case study for everything m_j talks about. I've seriously considered going back to supporting grass roots footie through the SANFL - and I might still. And no I won't be watching or betting on 'the race that stops the nation' either.

Catching up with this thread and noticed these views. Yes we are some disillusioned - feel like dropping the AFL interest I have had, and only following the new womens' AFL teams, see if they have a different ethic. And no, I didn't turn on the TV on Cup Day or watch the news on Tuesday night. And the nastiness in cricket - I just can't handle what used to be my favourite spectator sport - used to be so quietly theatrical and is now borderline unpleasant. All for the reasons you have mentioned.

And if the new Victorian laws being pushed get through everyone with just one fertile female dog will be what? A registered "business" and we all know now that when animals become a "business" as said above ".... the moment sport becomes 'business' it moves to a different plane." Which is exactly what AR want to happen. then everyone caught up will forfeit their right to freedom of choice even to keeping their retired oldies, and who is the most dispised? those puppyfarmers who get rid of their retired dogs, as well no longer entitled to be innocent until proven guilty. How many have forgotten already 80% of greyhound owners were not believed to be doing the wrong thing, yet to stop the 20% who where doing the wrong thing the other 80% were considered acceptable collateral damage.

all with a fertile female will become disreputable and therefore the enemy to be eliminated, same game, same pack drill.

neat re-branding isn't it? No wonder they have no respect for the dog owners, sheep would be harder to set up for the slaughter, at least they run when they sense danger, even as they are being torn to shreds as they run. Have to admire the slight of hand.

shows who is the smart player in this game. Pet owners need to start getting a lot smarter a LOT FASTER to have any possible hope to get off the back foot before its too late, well if it isnt already too late, in this mind game

Edited November 7, 2016 by asal

[Maddy]

Having done major change programmes in big organisations - both the 'slow excruciating tooth pulling' version and the 'short sharp, get in and get out, blood on the floor' version' i prefer the latter - while its bloody in the short term I think its less painful in the long term -

So are you saying that the short sharp version closed the organisations down completely or they went OS, or was it that the participants just had to change their culture, no compromises, so the industry could survive?

The latter m-j usually - it usually involves rapid down-sizing and sophisticated management of change and people - and that so ain't going to happen here. Management by attrition usually takes a long time, and while it works in some situations I doubt it will work here given the public and political pressure.

So yes - I have seen absolutely nothing here to suggest that genuine sustainainble change will happen so this industry will survive in a form that is acceptable to the general public. In fact this decision has probably ensured the slow 'death by a thousand cuts' for this industry, unless it happens again. And yes I'm certain it will all happen again and next time it will be a brutal shutdown.

Look the truth is that the days of using animals for gambling and entertainment are severely numbered - its only a matter of time given its a toxic mix that brings out the worst in human beings. So this industry can evolve to shutdown under its own control or have it done to it eventually. They can take their pick which route they take - but they are going to end up in the same place. Bookmark it.

Thank you for your reply. As I have said before you are probably right except it will be a pity for the good folk in the industry and they do exist and they have complained but it has fallen on deaf ears.

The entertainment and gambling factor of the industry are not to blame for this it is the "win at all cost" mentality. Unfortunately it isn't only in the greyhounds it is across the board in all sports, it is why human athletes get drug tested and are being found positive. Gone are the days when sport was just that sport, now it is business, pity. One example of this is country football/cricket they are paying players from other places to play for them so now the kids that don't make the grade instead of being at the footy or the cricket on Saturday they are entertaining themselves in other ways and not all of them are wholesome.

Generally m-j I think we are in agreement - I just don't believe so much in 'the good people' - not one public whistle blower I'm aware of in all the years of greyhound racing? But anyway, yes it is a pity that what might have been a good clean fun hobby has now become 'business' - and when it involves animals you can absolutely bet that greed will overrule any sense of animal welfare and decrease our collective humanity. I think this is why I'm so angry with this industry - as it not only reflects on them, it reflects on all of us. And I wonder if the huge outcry over greyhounds is because they are closer to us than, say horses. The are a companion animal species who live in our homes - and while some people have horses as well most of us don't. So it hits hard.

And yes absolutely agree - the moment sport becomes 'business' it moves to a different plane. I'm a great AFL supporter - and sooooo angry with Essendon for the disrepute that they have brought to the game through their 'whatever it takes' 'supplements' program. They are a case study for everything m_j talks about. I've seriously considered going back to supporting grass roots footie through the SANFL - and I might still. And no I won't be watching or betting on 'the race that stops the nation' either.

They are out there :) the vet that went onto the ABC show (there is a link at the beginning of this thread) is one example and look what it achieved, nothing. There are many people out there that could tell stories and some have but it got them nowhere. It seems that a certain few of the industry appear to have it sown up so this is why I was hoping legislation would sort it out. I'm not going to hold my breath though the GBOTA put reforms on the table I'm guessing to enhance their chance of keeping the industry and some of those reforms got taken off 3-4 days after the ban was lifted, which really peeved me, same ..... different day. I just hope when the next push to close it comes there will be more thought put into what is going to happen to the dogs.

Can you honestly say you were surprised by this?

I don't want to see the breed disappear through the complete banning of racing but it seems like the arrogance of those involved is just.. incredible. As soon as they believed they had won, it was back to business as usual. Apparently they'd already reformed enough and everything is fine. A greyhound trainer in Sydney was charged with live baiting the day before the ban was lifted but that's okay because reform, reviews, some paid "research", a liberal application of smoke and mirrors and.. everything is fine. The public can stop looking now, back to business.

[asal]

Having done major change programmes in big organisations - both the 'slow excruciating tooth pulling' version and the 'short sharp, get in and get out, blood on the floor' version' i prefer the latter - while its bloody in the short term I think its less painful in the long term -

So are you saying that the short sharp version closed the organisations down completely or they went OS, or was it that the participants just had to change their culture, no compromises, so the industry could survive?

The latter m-j usually - it usually involves rapid down-sizing and sophisticated management of change and people - and that so ain't going to happen here. Management by attrition usually takes a long time, and while it works in some situations I doubt it will work here given the public and political pressure.

So yes - I have seen absolutely nothing here to suggest that genuine sustainainble change will happen so this industry will survive in a form that is acceptable to the general public. In fact this decision has probably ensured the slow 'death by a thousand cuts' for this industry, unless it happens again. And yes I'm certain it will all happen again and next time it will be a brutal shutdown.

Look the truth is that the days of using animals for gambling and entertainment are severely numbered - its only a matter of time given its a toxic mix that brings out the worst in human beings. So this industry can evolve to shutdown under its own control or have it done to it eventually. They can take their pick which route they take - but they are going to end up in the same place. Bookmark it.

Thank you for your reply. As I have said before you are probably right except it will be a pity for the good folk in the industry and they do exist and they have complained but it has fallen on deaf ears.

The entertainment and gambling factor of the industry are not to blame for this it is the "win at all cost" mentality. Unfortunately it isn't only in the greyhounds it is across the board in all sports, it is why human athletes get drug tested and are being found positive. Gone are the days when sport was just that sport, now it is business, pity. One example of this is country football/cricket they are paying players from other places to play for them so now the kids that don't make the grade instead of being at the footy or the cricket on Saturday they are entertaining themselves in other ways and not all of them are wholesome.

Generally m-j I think we are in agreement - I just don't believe so much in 'the good people' - not one public whistle blower I'm aware of in all the years of greyhound racing? But anyway, yes it is a pity that what might have been a good clean fun hobby has now become 'business' - and when it involves animals you can absolutely bet that greed will overrule any sense of animal welfare and decrease our collective humanity. I think this is why I'm so angry with this industry - as it not only reflects on them, it reflects on all of us. And I wonder if the huge outcry over greyhounds is because they are closer to us than, say horses. The are a companion animal species who live in our homes - and while some people have horses as well most of us don't. So it hits hard.

And yes absolutely agree - the moment sport becomes 'business' it moves to a different plane. I'm a great AFL supporter - and sooooo angry with Essendon for the disrepute that they have brought to the game through their 'whatever it takes' 'supplements' program. They are a case study for everything m_j talks about. I've seriously considered going back to supporting grass roots footie through the SANFL - and I might still. And no I won't be watching or betting on 'the race that stops the nation' either.

They are out there :) the vet that went onto the ABC show (there is a link at the beginning of this thread) is one example and look what it achieved, nothing. There are many people out there that could tell stories and some have but it got them nowhere. It seems that a certain few of the industry appear to have it sown up so this is why I was hoping legislation would sort it out. I'm not going to hold my breath though the GBOTA put reforms on the table I'm guessing to enhance their chance of keeping the industry and some of those reforms got taken off 3-4 days after the ban was lifted, which really peeved me, same ..... different day. I just hope when the next push to close it comes there will be more thought put into what is going to happen to the dogs.

Can you honestly say you were surprised by this?

I don't want to see the breed disappear through the complete banning of racing but it seems like the arrogance of those involved is just.. incredible. As soon as they believed they had won, it was back to business as usual. Apparently they'd already reformed enough and everything is fine. A greyhound trainer in Sydney was charged with live baiting the day before the ban was lifted but that's okay because reform, reviews, some paid "research", a liberal application of smoke and mirrors and.. everything is fine. The public can stop looking now, back to business.

The arrogance of some is incredible.

the question is, do you destroy all? including the 80% the report said are the honest, the caring in the quest to destroy the arrogant? In war it is called "collateral damage" there are a few million survivors of that fleeing that horror and the loss of their homes and way of life, according to the news, many are drowning in the attempt.

those to have tried it to get to australia are locked up for longer sentences than pedophiles, rapists and murderers.

now add those who have pets for whatever purpose to eliminate the arrogant

[westiemum]

Good posts.

Patience everyone - as I keep saying it will sort itself out - it will just be a slower death to the industry now, given I believe it's completely incapable of change - and it would seem the 'business as usual' since the removal of the bans just proves my point.

And I'm sorry for any 'collateral damage' - but so many of these people stood by and did nothing making them as culpable as the perpetrators of such abject cruelty and misery. asal the paedophile analogy is a good one as exactly the same thing happened there - similarly so many people actively covered it up or turned a blind eye and it took a number of Royal Commissions sadly to get to the bottom it (and sadly I suspect we haven't seen the end of that ) - and those who 'turned a blind eye' are now being seen as culpable as the perpetrators - and the same will happen here - sexual assault of children and young people, abject cruelty to animals - all deserve to have the key thrown away IMO.

I don't believe there is one person - not one - on DOL who in the same position as the majority of this industry who would have stood by and done nothing. We are a great community and set high standards for ourselves and our members - and we expect the same from others.

Edited November 7, 2016 by westiemum

[moosmum]

Having done major change programmes in big organisations - both the 'slow excruciating tooth pulling' version and the 'short sharp, get in and get out, blood on the floor' version' i prefer the latter - while its bloody in the short term I think its less painful in the long term -

So are you saying that the short sharp version closed the organisations down completely or they went OS, or was it that the participants just had to change their culture, no compromises, so the industry could survive?

The latter m-j usually - it usually involves rapid down-sizing and sophisticated management of change and people - and that so ain't going to happen here. Management by attrition usually takes a long time, and while it works in some situations I doubt it will work here given the public and political pressure.

So yes - I have seen absolutely nothing here to suggest that genuine sustainainble change will happen so this industry will survive in a form that is acceptable to the general public. In fact this decision has probably ensured the slow 'death by a thousand cuts' for this industry, unless it happens again. And yes I'm certain it will all happen again and next time it will be a brutal shutdown.

Look the truth is that the days of using animals for gambling and entertainment are severely numbered - its only a matter of time given its a toxic mix that brings out the worst in human beings. So this industry can evolve to shutdown under its own control or have it done to it eventually. They can take their pick which route they take - but they are going to end up in the same place. Bookmark it.

Thank you for your reply. As I have said before you are probably right except it will be a pity for the good folk in the industry and they do exist and they have complained but it has fallen on deaf ears.

The entertainment and gambling factor of the industry are not to blame for this it is the "win at all cost" mentality. Unfortunately it isn't only in the greyhounds it is across the board in all sports, it is why human athletes get drug tested and are being found positive. Gone are the days when sport was just that sport, now it is business, pity. One example of this is country football/cricket they are paying players from other places to play for them so now the kids that don't make the grade instead of being at the footy or the cricket on Saturday they are entertaining themselves in other ways and not all of them are wholesome.

Generally m-j I think we are in agreement - I just don't believe so much in 'the good people' - not one public whistle blower I'm aware of in all the years of greyhound racing? But anyway, yes it is a pity that what might have been a good clean fun hobby has now become 'business' - and when it involves animals you can absolutely bet that greed will overrule any sense of animal welfare and decrease our collective humanity. I think this is why I'm so angry with this industry - as it not only reflects on them, it reflects on all of us. And I wonder if the huge outcry over greyhounds is because they are closer to us than, say horses. The are a companion animal species who live in our homes - and while some people have horses as well most of us don't. So it hits hard.

And yes absolutely agree - the moment sport becomes 'business' it moves to a different plane. I'm a great AFL supporter - and sooooo angry with Essendon for the disrepute that they have brought to the game through their 'whatever it takes' 'supplements' program. They are a case study for everything m_j talks about. I've seriously considered going back to supporting grass roots footie through the SANFL - and I might still. And no I won't be watching or betting on 'the race that stops the nation' either.

They are out there :) the vet that went onto the ABC show (there is a link at the beginning of this thread) is one example and look what it achieved, nothing. There are many people out there that could tell stories and some have but it got them nowhere. It seems that a certain few of the industry appear to have it sown up so this is why I was hoping legislation would sort it out. I'm not going to hold my breath though the GBOTA put reforms on the table I'm guessing to enhance their chance of keeping the industry and some of those reforms got taken off 3-4 days after the ban was lifted, which really peeved me, same ..... different day. I just hope when the next push to close it comes there will be more thought put into what is going to happen to the dogs.

Can you honestly say you were surprised by this?

I don't want to see the breed disappear through the complete banning of racing but it seems like the arrogance of those involved is just.. incredible. As soon as they believed they had won, it was back to business as usual. Apparently they'd already reformed enough and everything is fine. A greyhound trainer in Sydney was charged with live baiting the day before the ban was lifted but that's okay because reform, reviews, some paid "research", a liberal application of smoke and mirrors and.. everything is fine. The public can stop looking now, back to business.

The arrogance of some is incredible.

the question is, do you destroy all? including the 80% the report said are the honest, the caring in the quest to destroy the arrogant? In war it is called "collateral damage" there are a few million survivors of that fleeing that horror and the loss of their homes and way of life, according to the news, many are drowning in the attempt.

those to have tried it to get to australia are locked up for longer sentences than pedophiles, rapists and murderers.

now add those who have pets for whatever purpose to eliminate the arrogant

But Asal! ( sarcasm alert)

It may well be that 20 percent of animal owners over all are not responsible, depending on what response we are expecting. Don't obey leash laws, don't spey or neuter, don't health test etc.

But the ones eager to see an end to this industry are a superior type to Greyhound racing identities, whos loss is for the greater good. Other dog enthusiasts will be an even better type if they lose this portion. The standard will be better.(not)

If you are always going to make the negative standards your focus, where do people learn about alternatives that are working? What demonstrations are YOU making available to drive BETTER standards?

Or maybe the ones who CAN provide them are being targeted within their own group identity, for not conforming to it?

Like say a pedigree breeder who breeds for a longer nose or smaller head on a Brachy Dog?

The proposed Vic. Legislation and what may still happen to the grey hound industry should be a wake up call to all Companion animal keepers. Your responsibility isn't to the indentity standard you choose, but to the community and playing your OWN part in shaping what people will come to expect.

Edited November 7, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

Good posts.

Patience everyone - as I keep saying it will sort itself out - it will just be a slower death to the industry now, given I believe it's completely incapable of change - and it would seem the 'business as usual' since the removal of the bans just proves my point.

And I'm sorry for any 'collateral damage' - but so many of these people stood by and did nothing making them as culpable as the perpetrators of such abject cruelty and misery. asal the paedophile analogy is a good one as exactly the same thing happened there - similarly so many people actively covered it up or turned a blind eye and it took a number of Royal Commissions sadly to get to the bottom it (and sadly I suspect we haven't seen the end of that ) - and those who 'turned a blind eye' are now being seen as culpable as the perpetrators - and the same will happen here - sexual assault of children and young people, abject cruelty to animals - all deserve to have the key thrown away IMO.

I don't believe there is one person - not one - on DOL who in the same position as the majority of this industry who would have stood by and done nothing. We are a great community and set high standards for ourselves and our members - and we expect the same from others.

Westiemum,

Re paedophilia: The society we lived in in the days when paedophilia was routinely covered up was a different world. The expectations of the community were not as they are today.

Because it was an issue that was taboo for discussion- Sexuality and expectations of sexuality were not discussed. Even families of the victims, or victims themselves often covered up the abuse because sexuality was for behind closed doors and to discuss these matters left people feeling exposed and vulnerable.Dirty. Even to consider the issues.

Its open discussion that has lead to the change.

Recognition. That human beings are sexual animals with diverse aspects to their sexuality. Recognition of our sexuality and its diverse aspects. THAT has enabled us to form common expectations- That a persons sexuality is their own business, as it should be, until it harms some one else. What constitutes 'harm'.

We Recognize the diversity. We accept it AS PART of the HUMAN condition. Unless someone forces another to accept what they can't. Forces their diverse sexuality on another, who is unable for any reason to accept that 'Type' of sexuality. As in a minor who hasn't the maturity, or an adult who simply chooses not to.

The same people being pilloried for holding their silence back then, would likely react to the allegations differently today. Because the expectations of the community are better understood. Their responsibility to those expectations are better understood.

Such abuses today are less likely to occurr, far more likely to be reported, and far more likely to be acted on. Not because people are better, but because they are more able to respond to the expectations we hold in common. Because the issues were recognized as community or human issue. We discussed the issues to reach agreement.

Its not perfect and never will be because we can't control the environment and how it will affect people, based on their diversity.But it keeps improving as our recognition of the common problems does. Through discussion.

It didn't happen overnight. Its taken a generation. That seems to be normal in changing expectations. But the average generation of a greyhound racing identity, or a pedigree dog breeder is shorter than that humans life span.

The recognition and discussion tho' are needed before anything at all can be done to form to the common expectations, and then for people to respond to them when they are clear.

Sadly for the Greyhound industry, dog racing is no longer a common pursuit. Its limited to Greyhound owners.

I think change would come given time, but it will still always be out of step with the community, so not viable.

Because theres no common expectation to be reached when its always going to be type of dog 1st for the identities involved. That doesn't include the community in the disscussion. Only one type is acceptable to the industries purpose, A greyhound owner type.

Pedigree breeders are in the same boat. They recognize a few more types, but they are still not inclusive of community expectations for their purpose. Only pedigree types.

Theres no recognition that any one else could share their purpose, so go off on their own and wonder at backlash.

Edited November 8, 2016 by moosmum

[Maddy]

Having done major change programmes in big organisations - both the 'slow excruciating tooth pulling' version and the 'short sharp, get in and get out, blood on the floor' version' i prefer the latter - while its bloody in the short term I think its less painful in the long term -

So are you saying that the short sharp version closed the organisations down completely or they went OS, or was it that the participants just had to change their culture, no compromises, so the industry could survive?

The latter m-j usually - it usually involves rapid down-sizing and sophisticated management of change and people - and that so ain't going to happen here. Management by attrition usually takes a long time, and while it works in some situations I doubt it will work here given the public and political pressure.

So yes - I have seen absolutely nothing here to suggest that genuine sustainainble change will happen so this industry will survive in a form that is acceptable to the general public. In fact this decision has probably ensured the slow 'death by a thousand cuts' for this industry, unless it happens again. And yes I'm certain it will all happen again and next time it will be a brutal shutdown.

Look the truth is that the days of using animals for gambling and entertainment are severely numbered - its only a matter of time given its a toxic mix that brings out the worst in human beings. So this industry can evolve to shutdown under its own control or have it done to it eventually. They can take their pick which route they take - but they are going to end up in the same place. Bookmark it.

Thank you for your reply. As I have said before you are probably right except it will be a pity for the good folk in the industry and they do exist and they have complained but it has fallen on deaf ears.

The entertainment and gambling factor of the industry are not to blame for this it is the "win at all cost" mentality. Unfortunately it isn't only in the greyhounds it is across the board in all sports, it is why human athletes get drug tested and are being found positive. Gone are the days when sport was just that sport, now it is business, pity. One example of this is country football/cricket they are paying players from other places to play for them so now the kids that don't make the grade instead of being at the footy or the cricket on Saturday they are entertaining themselves in other ways and not all of them are wholesome.

Generally m-j I think we are in agreement - I just don't believe so much in 'the good people' - not one public whistle blower I'm aware of in all the years of greyhound racing? But anyway, yes it is a pity that what might have been a good clean fun hobby has now become 'business' - and when it involves animals you can absolutely bet that greed will overrule any sense of animal welfare and decrease our collective humanity. I think this is why I'm so angry with this industry - as it not only reflects on them, it reflects on all of us. And I wonder if the huge outcry over greyhounds is because they are closer to us than, say horses. The are a companion animal species who live in our homes - and while some people have horses as well most of us don't. So it hits hard.

And yes absolutely agree - the moment sport becomes 'business' it moves to a different plane. I'm a great AFL supporter - and sooooo angry with Essendon for the disrepute that they have brought to the game through their 'whatever it takes' 'supplements' program. They are a case study for everything m_j talks about. I've seriously considered going back to supporting grass roots footie through the SANFL - and I might still. And no I won't be watching or betting on 'the race that stops the nation' either.

They are out there :) the vet that went onto the ABC show (there is a link at the beginning of this thread) is one example and look what it achieved, nothing. There are many people out there that could tell stories and some have but it got them nowhere. It seems that a certain few of the industry appear to have it sown up so this is why I was hoping legislation would sort it out. I'm not going to hold my breath though the GBOTA put reforms on the table I'm guessing to enhance their chance of keeping the industry and some of those reforms got taken off 3-4 days after the ban was lifted, which really peeved me, same ..... different day. I just hope when the next push to close it comes there will be more thought put into what is going to happen to the dogs.

Can you honestly say you were surprised by this?

I don't want to see the breed disappear through the complete banning of racing but it seems like the arrogance of those involved is just.. incredible. As soon as they believed they had won, it was back to business as usual. Apparently they'd already reformed enough and everything is fine. A greyhound trainer in Sydney was charged with live baiting the day before the ban was lifted but that's okay because reform, reviews, some paid "research", a liberal application of smoke and mirrors and.. everything is fine. The public can stop looking now, back to business.

The arrogance of some is incredible.

the question is, do you destroy all? including the 80% the report said are the honest, the caring in the quest to destroy the arrogant? In war it is called "collateral damage" there are a few million survivors of that fleeing that horror and the loss of their homes and way of life, according to the news, many are drowning in the attempt.

those to have tried it to get to australia are locked up for longer sentences than pedophiles, rapists and murderers.

now add those who have pets for whatever purpose to eliminate the arrogant

Sure, allow me to rephrase that: Those with the power to make changes are incredibly arrogant.

NSW has proven that it's not an issue of just a few "bad eggs", it's a systemic problem that starts at the top and is pervasive, throughout the industry. Comparing it to war is absurd. Absolutely absurd. Bringing up asylum seekers is equally absurd because it has NOTHING to do with the issue and it is, frankly, an attempt to purposely distract the discussion off onto entirely unrelated subjects (while pointedly ignoring some very important points).

But if we're going to use analogies, let me offer you one that actually makes some sense in relation to the discussion: Let's imagine that your dog has cancer. Maybe it started in the bones or lymph nodes, it doesn't really matter too much, all that matters is your dog has cancer and that cancer has spread to many different organs. The organs might not be riddled with cancer but it's there and it damages their normal function and impacts negatively on the dog's welfare. Different treatments for the cancer were tried and although they might have killed a bit of cancer here and there, the cancer is still in every part of your dog. Your dog is in pain, your dog's days are numbered, every other avenue has been tried and has failed. And that only leaves one last option.

That option is obviously not ideal but unfortunately, it is inevitable.

But the ones eager to see an end to this industry are a superior type to Greyhound racing identities, whos loss is for the greater good. Other dog enthusiasts will be an even better type if they lose this portion. The standard will be better.(not)

No offense but we're not talking about minor things like failing to obey leash laws. There is a slight difference between walking your dog off lead and strapping a live animal to a lure arm and allowing dogs to slowly tear it to pieces.

I'm not sure how this is confusing for some people?

[asal]

Having done major change programmes in big organisations - both the 'slow excruciating tooth pulling' version and the 'short sharp, get in and get out, blood on the floor' version' i prefer the latter - while its bloody in the short term I think its less painful in the long term -

So are you saying that the short sharp version closed the organisations down completely or they went OS, or was it that the participants just had to change their culture, no compromises, so the industry could survive?

The latter m-j usually - it usually involves rapid down-sizing and sophisticated management of change and people - and that so ain't going to happen here. Management by attrition usually takes a long time, and while it works in some situations I doubt it will work here given the public and political pressure.

So yes - I have seen absolutely nothing here to suggest that genuine sustainainble change will happen so this industry will survive in a form that is acceptable to the general public. In fact this decision has probably ensured the slow 'death by a thousand cuts' for this industry, unless it happens again. And yes I'm certain it will all happen again and next time it will be a brutal shutdown.

Look the truth is that the days of using animals for gambling and entertainment are severely numbered - its only a matter of time given its a toxic mix that brings out the worst in human beings. So this industry can evolve to shutdown under its own control or have it done to it eventually. They can take their pick which route they take - but they are going to end up in the same place. Bookmark it.

Thank you for your reply. As I have said before you are probably right except it will be a pity for the good folk in the industry and they do exist and they have complained but it has fallen on deaf ears.

The entertainment and gambling factor of the industry are not to blame for this it is the "win at all cost" mentality. Unfortunately it isn't only in the greyhounds it is across the board in all sports, it is why human athletes get drug tested and are being found positive. Gone are the days when sport was just that sport, now it is business, pity. One example of this is country football/cricket they are paying players from other places to play for them so now the kids that don't make the grade instead of being at the footy or the cricket on Saturday they are entertaining themselves in other ways and not all of them are wholesome.

Generally m-j I think we are in agreement - I just don't believe so much in 'the good people' - not one public whistle blower I'm aware of in all the years of greyhound racing? But anyway, yes it is a pity that what might have been a good clean fun hobby has now become 'business' - and when it involves animals you can absolutely bet that greed will overrule any sense of animal welfare and decrease our collective humanity. I think this is why I'm so angry with this industry - as it not only reflects on them, it reflects on all of us. And I wonder if the huge outcry over greyhounds is because they are closer to us than, say horses. The are a companion animal species who live in our homes - and while some people have horses as well most of us don't. So it hits hard.

And yes absolutely agree - the moment sport becomes 'business' it moves to a different plane. I'm a great AFL supporter - and sooooo angry with Essendon for the disrepute that they have brought to the game through their 'whatever it takes' 'supplements' program. They are a case study for everything m_j talks about. I've seriously considered going back to supporting grass roots footie through the SANFL - and I might still. And no I won't be watching or betting on 'the race that stops the nation' either.

They are out there :) the vet that went onto the ABC show (there is a link at the beginning of this thread) is one example and look what it achieved, nothing. There are many people out there that could tell stories and some have but it got them nowhere. It seems that a certain few of the industry appear to have it sown up so this is why I was hoping legislation would sort it out. I'm not going to hold my breath though the GBOTA put reforms on the table I'm guessing to enhance their chance of keeping the industry and some of those reforms got taken off 3-4 days after the ban was lifted, which really peeved me, same ..... different day. I just hope when the next push to close it comes there will be more thought put into what is going to happen to the dogs.

Can you honestly say you were surprised by this?

I don't want to see the breed disappear through the complete banning of racing but it seems like the arrogance of those involved is just.. incredible. As soon as they believed they had won, it was back to business as usual. Apparently they'd already reformed enough and everything is fine. A greyhound trainer in Sydney was charged with live baiting the day before the ban was lifted but that's okay because reform, reviews, some paid "research", a liberal application of smoke and mirrors and.. everything is fine. The public can stop looking now, back to business.

The arrogance of some is incredible.

the question is, do you destroy all? including the 80% the report said are the honest, the caring in the quest to destroy the arrogant? In war it is called "collateral damage" there are a few million survivors of that fleeing that horror and the loss of their homes and way of life, according to the news, many are drowning in the attempt.

those to have tried it to get to australia are locked up for longer sentences than pedophiles, rapists and murderers.

now add those who have pets for whatever purpose to eliminate the arrogant

Sure, allow me to rephrase that: Those with the power to make changes are incredibly arrogant.

NSW has proven that it's not an issue of just a few "bad eggs", it's a systemic problem that starts at the top and is pervasive, throughout the industry. Comparing it to war is absurd. Absolutely absurd. Bringing up asylum seekers is equally absurd because it has NOTHING to do with the issue and it is, frankly, an attempt to purposely distract the discussion off onto entirely unrelated subjects (while pointedly ignoring some very important points).

But if we're going to use analogies, let me offer you one that actually makes some sense in relation to the discussion: Let's imagine that your dog has cancer. Maybe it started in the bones or lymph nodes, it doesn't really matter too much, all that matters is your dog has cancer and that cancer has spread to many different organs. The organs might not be riddled with cancer but it's there and it damages their normal function and impacts negatively on the dog's welfare. Different treatments for the cancer were tried and although they might have killed a bit of cancer here and there, the cancer is still in every part of your dog. Your dog is in pain, your dog's days are numbered, every other avenue has been tried and has failed. And that only leaves one last option.

That option is obviously not ideal but unfortunately, it is inevitable.

But the ones eager to see an end to this industry are a superior type to Greyhound racing identities, whos loss is for the greater good. Other dog enthusiasts will be an even better type if they lose this portion. The standard will be better.(not)

No offense but we're not talking about minor things like failing to obey leash laws. There is a slight difference between walking your dog off lead and strapping a live animal to a lure arm and allowing dogs to slowly tear it to pieces.

I'm not sure how this is confusing for some people?

I see the angle you are coming from but to compare the incredibly diverse people who have dogs for equally diverse reasons to being the body of a single dog with cancer that the whole dog has to die because you cant separate the cancer from the dog as an analogy that all dog owners have to be eliminated to get rid of the cancer is just as ingenuious as you accuse me of in comparing the problem with a war. This is a war, ask any AR campaigner, they think this war is in its final stages, is almost won.

[Maddy]

I see the angle you are coming from but to compare the incredibly diverse people who have dogs for equally diverse reasons to being the body of a single dog with cancer that the whole dog has to die because you cant separate the cancer from the dog as an analogy that all dog owners have to be eliminated to get rid of the cancer is just as ingenuious as you accuse me of in comparing the problem with a war. This is a war, ask any AR campaigner, they think this war is in its final stages, is almost won.

Are we talking about greyhounds here or dogs in general? Because this discussion is specifically about greyhound racing and that really narrows down the people involved. The vast majority of participants are involved to make money. If money was not the reason for their involvement, dogs wouldn't be discarded like used tissues. If they were truly in it for the love of the dogs, they wouldn't be shooting the dogs, dumping the dogs, overbeeding the dogs to the point that rehoming them all becomes impossible. If it was "just a hobby", they sure as hell wouldn't be dropping $10k on a pup or constantly looking for ways to illicitly gain an advantage.

I'm starting to think that if you're so cool with the industry, maybe YOU should try cleaning up after them. Put your money where your mouth is- you seem to think nothing much is wrong so if that's the case, becoming a greyhound rescuer should be easy work, right?