Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[Steve]

Greyhound Racing Regulation 2016

Written by: Greyhound Racing NSW

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

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

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

• to another registered owner, or

• to an RSPCA approved greyhound adoption program.

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

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

• retiring a greyhound from racing;

• exporting a greyhound overseas;

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

• destroying a greyhound.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Lhok

\

these are the people they joined and trusted to look after them. By joining them and being part of the monopoly all it dis was ensure they have nowhere to go .

If they simply resign from GRNSW they can then do what they want - there is no new laws in yet and if they arent members they have no method of putting on fines or restricting them - but they wont like sheep to the slaughter.

Since when does some org get to dictate when and where you choose to take, sell or PTS your own property and get to keep its members?

Edited July 19, 2016 by Steve

[Lhok]

Read the regulation as a PDF from the link in the article but I am confused by this wording. Does the bolded bit below mean you are still beholded to the regulation even if you are no longer a member of GRNSW?

Disciplinary action by GRNSW

(1)

If a person contravenes clause 4 or 5 (1), GRNSW may, in accordance with the rules,

do either or both of the following:

(a)

disqualify the person,

(b)

prohibit the person from participating in or associating with greyhound racing

in any specified capacity.

(2)

Any such action may be taken in respect of a person even though the person is no

longer registered under the rules.

(3)

This clause does not limit any other disciplinary action that may be taken by GRNSW

in accordance with the rules.

--Lhok

[Steve]

Read the regulation as a PDF from the link in the article but I am confused by this wording. Does the bolded bit below mean you are still beholded to the regulation even if you are no longer a member of GRNSW?

Disciplinary action by GRNSW

(1)

If a person contravenes clause 4 or 5 (1), GRNSW may, in accordance with the rules,

do either or both of the following:

(a)

disqualify the person,

(b)

prohibit the person from participating in or associating with greyhound racing

in any specified capacity.

(2)

Any such action may be taken in respect of a person even though the person is no

longer registered under the rules.

(3)

This clause does not limit any other disciplinary action that may be taken by GRNSW

in accordance with the rules.

--Lhok

Surely not - I think its about people who get fines when they are a members and then chuck it in or get chucked out still have to pay the fines. I think .

[Rebanne]

Read the regulation as a PDF from the link in the article but I am confused by this wording. Does the bolded bit below mean you are still beholded to the regulation even if you are no longer a member of GRNSW?

Disciplinary action by GRNSW

(1)

If a person contravenes clause 4 or 5 (1), GRNSW may, in accordance with the rules,

do either or both of the following:

(a)

disqualify the person,

(b)

prohibit the person from participating in or associating with greyhound racing

in any specified capacity.

(2)

Any such action may be taken in respect of a person even though the person is no

longer registered under the rules.

(3)

This clause does not limit any other disciplinary action that may be taken by GRNSW

in accordance with the rules.

--Lhok

Surely not - I think its about people who get fines when they are a members and then chuck it in or get chucked out still have to pay the fines. I think .

Who would really know what they mean Where do the pet greyhound owners stand? Are they even owners anymore?

[Steve]

Read the regulation as a PDF from the link in the article but I am confused by this wording. Does the bolded bit below mean you are still beholded to the regulation even if you are no longer a member of GRNSW?

Disciplinary action by GRNSW

(1)

If a person contravenes clause 4 or 5 (1), GRNSW may, in accordance with the rules,

do either or both of the following:

(a)

disqualify the person,

(b)

prohibit the person from participating in or associating with greyhound racing

in any specified capacity.

(2)

Any such action may be taken in respect of a person even though the person is no

longer registered under the rules.

(3)

This clause does not limit any other disciplinary action that may be taken by GRNSW

in accordance with the rules.

--Lhok

Surely not - I think its about people who get fines when they are a members and then chuck it in or get chucked out still have to pay the fines. I think .

Who would really know what they mean Where do the pet greyhound owners stand? Are they even owners anymore?

Well what happens if you have a couple that have been racing and you simply want to keep them and not race them - seems to be blocked. Its just so hard to believe that your right to decide what happens to you own animals is removed from you.

[Rebanne]

Well what happens if you have a couple that have been racing and you simply want to keep them and not race them - seems to be blocked. Its just so hard to believe that your right to decide what happens to you own animals is removed from you.

I think the "owners" are now just the caretakers. I think the greyhound board now has taken ownership of all greyhounds registered with them.

[dog_fan]

Well what happens if you have a couple that have been racing and you simply want to keep them and not race them - seems to be blocked. Its just so hard to believe that your right to decide what happens to you own animals is removed from you.

I think the "owners" are now just the caretakers. I think the greyhound board now has taken ownership of all greyhounds registered with them.

This seems unlawful. I spend my money purchasing goods therefore the goods are my property. What law allows a third party to take control of my goods without my consent?

[_PL_]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a suggestion, they could stop selling their rejects to backyard breeders and puppy farmers. I speak to a lot of people who believe that pedigree dogs are inherently sick so they fall for the people who don't breed as pedigree (papered ANKC).

One 'rescuer' currently breeds a small fortune worth of brachy she got as registered breeder rejects and people line up to get a popular breed they believe are healthier because they aren't 'show dogs'.

It disturbs me to think that people believe handing pet ownership over to rescue and welfare is the solution. We squawk about regulations but can't even regulate ourselves.

Off topic slightly. Sorry. But some registered breeders are busily undoing generations of work, same as some within the greyhound industry brought about it's end in NSW.

[Sheridan]

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

The ban affects NSW only. At this stage.

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

I thought there had only been one.

[Sheridan]

Well what happens if you have a couple that have been racing and you simply want to keep them and not race them - seems to be blocked. Its just so hard to believe that your right to decide what happens to you own animals is removed from you.

I think the "owners" are now just the caretakers. I think the greyhound board now has taken ownership of all greyhounds registered with them.

This seems unlawful. I spend my money purchasing goods therefore the goods are my property. What law allows a third party to take control of my goods without my consent?

Some would call that theft.

[Salukifan]

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

The ban affects NSW only. At this stage.

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

I thought there had only been one.

it should have been last weekend.

[asal]

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

depends on whose holding the gun and pulling the trigger.

when its a Special Constable its called euthanasia.

[moosmum]

The environment does not respond.

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

Here is a hypothetical.

What if the Grey racing industry were not exclusive?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) I think in that case the closer ties of community to the purpose would have made that a topic for more open discussion and resolution with steady change to the sports culture to reflect the communities expectations. Thats the purpose of inclusion. To take the best of what works for all parties.

2) Yeah. You lose purpose if you don't be inclusive. And every one loses a bit of value. We reduce dogs.

3) Then why is that not being taught and demonstrated by those who profess to know best? why are you allowing others to shape the world? Why can you not appeal to others who value dogs enough to object for a common cause? Who else has the organization to stand as a unit?

[moosmum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sociology and philosophy to some one who can't understand it when its explained in terms of physics and biology. So much for using more familiar language :laugh:

I Don't give any single problem to any single group. I have said the environments as a whole are inseparable. What affects one affects all. But fleeing the group denying it, unless it happens overnight, is too slow, and risks bringing that culture with it unless the cause is openly addressed. It is inherent in the pedigree system.

Any other philosophy needs to be spelt out. Clearly and directly.

That requirements for issue of pedigree registration papers apply only to issue of those papers, and any endorsement from that body. That a breeders 1st responsibility is to a purpose for the community. Not to a philosophy.

The world has changed and every thing can be legislated out of existence if the activity includes acts which can be considered cruel.

Even if only a portion of those undertaking the activity are abusing their rights. Because people are disconnected from the activity today.

A reconnect needs to be more deliberate and clear than new protocols and rules for those already aware of the need.

Edited July 19, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't say it was revolutionary. Or that no one was concerned with it. Or that it was the only concern. Just that its a shared one. There are too many to list.

I HAVE said purpose is central to it all. Theres nothing random about purpose, so why should your selection be random just because I singled out conformation as one common value in a dog. Out of many?

Edited July 19, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sociology and philosophy to some one who can't understand it when its explained in terms of physics and biology. So much for using more familiar language :laugh:

I Don't give any single problem to any single group. I have said the environments as a whole are inseparable. What affects one affects all. But fleeing the group denying it, unless it happens overnight, is too slow, and risks bringing that culture with it unless the cause is openly addressed. It is inherent in the pedigree system.

Any other philosophy needs to be spelt out. Clearly and directly.

That requirements for issue of pedigree registration papers apply only to issue of those papers, and any endorsement from that body. That a breeders 1st responsibility is to a purpose for the community. Not to a philosophy.

The world has changed and every thing can be legislated out of existence if the activity includes acts which can be considered cruel.

I have a BA in social welfare - major in psychology and sociology and I have always been happy to avoid physics altogether. Being bogged into this type of discussion for me is way off the track we may as well have an academic discussion on the industrial revolution. Any action plan or strategy has to be about identifying the problems we must solve and looking for solutions - some will be worth looking at others wont but this constant bogging into this keeps us stuck in no action plan that is realistic when the constraints of the purebred pedigree dog world environment have to be taken into account .

The ANKC have never said a pedigree was an endorsement of anything other than a certified record of a dog's ancestors. Breeders have never said this - they have said that being a breeder member of the ANKC is an endorsement - not because of the pedigree but because of the third party accountability and codes of ethics.

A breeder's first responsibility is to their dogs and to ensure that what they bring into the world does not suffer or have less quality of life because of their decisions. I know that its not to a philosophy. Everything has always been able to be legislated out of existence if it is considered cruel - this is nothing new. However, what is perceived as cruel is being put in the spotlight so more people see it for what it is. Its clear that what I see as the major risk and what is cruel is not recognised by many within the purebred dog world environment

Edited July 19, 2016 by Steve

[asal]

not entirely on topic have to admit, but have u seen this? remember Maya the chihuahua stolen by peta from her owners verandah in 2014? this ruling was handed down this month. nice if they could now be banned on cruelty grounds too eh?

http://www.thenokillnation.org/#!Court-Documents-Show-PETA-is-Worthless-PetaIsWorthless/c1rn0/576e6b9b0cf233125dbeca4e

Edited July 20, 2016 by asal

[asal]

on second thoughts, very relevant. Considering greyhound owners are now being told as of this month thanks to Biard, they don't own their dogs they "belong" to the authority they registered them with?

Edited July 20, 2016 by asal

[asal]

Ah, Steve, true colours come shining through.

yes yours are so pretty, well to you anyway

[moosmum]

on second thoughts, very relevant. Considering greyhound owners are now being told as of this month thanks to Biard, they don't own their dogs they "belong" to the authority they registered them with?

Yeah. That just blows me away.

Great to Peta cop it , even a little. Poor owners tho', not muchconsolation.

Steve, Fair points , all of them. ( yep, The DOGS are a breeders 1st responsibility, but also the purpose)

In this case, it is about cruelty that breeders must recognize and address. Overall tho', I believe its about the costs to the community vs what value they get from it. So I think we need to do what we can to make sure the community is getting the best value from their dogs, and have more say in what those values are.

Looks like many prefer to be seen as victims than accept their 1st responsibility is to the dogs, and not the Orgs. and standards they originaly signed up to.

Edited July 20, 2016 by moosmum