Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[Steve]

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.

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.

I think the community has a pretty fair say in what values they want. The consumer system enables them to have choices and purchase them [so far ]from a source of their choice.

There is a component of a collective feeling with in the breeding community - both within and outside of the ANKC or purebred dog world of feeling as if we are the victims of an ever increasing onslaught from animal rights.

Dog breeding is certainly not the only "industry" or hobby under attack but there are various pushes to remove people's property rights and freedom to trade equally for reasons given which are not justified and are based on anything other than science and facts, beaten up by sensationalism and propaganda so when the focus starts to switch to accusations of yet more cruelty issues its understandable if they are saying poor me.

However, whilst some things which we have come under attack for , so far, are making us feel battered they are pretty trivial in comparison to this one and they pale into insignificance.

I am 100% sure that there is a valid case to make that some dogs suffer due to their conformation. There may be some debate over what causes that and one group may be pushed as the cause more than another but that doesn't change the base issue

It is cruel to breed dogs which have less quality of life and greater welfare issues due to the way they are selected.

Pedigreed dogs exposed movement and so far all welfare articles target the registered purebred dog community as the absolute cause - that is the show ring / the standards [which they own] and anyone else who is breeding them is seen as a by product caused by and less guilty and less likely to perpetuate the problem.

Doesn't really matter if we agree with them or not THIS is the one that the war will be fought on. For now its sort of like someone being told they should stop hitting someone and rather than see that as a problem they think they will do other stuff right such as making their bed all is O.K. and no one will care or notice they are still hitting someone. THEY dont see that hitting someone is a problem and a large chunk - certainly from an administrative perspective don't get that making people adhere to all sorts of crazy new restrictions and rules and regs to get prefixes and breed more than average numbers with finger pointing and extra inspections etc to see how your poo pick up is operating - that this is not going to help because its not the issue that will actually have the ability to shut them down. Will it be the breeding of certain characteristics or will it be the show ring - or both ?

even if it never gets to a legislative issue like we see in the greys we should be learning that all is not well and start to work on being seen to be taking it seriously as a cruelty issue.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Steve

[Sheridan]

There are two precedents for taking away someone's property and handing it over: Royal Domain and Squatter's Rights. Not sure how much the latter could apply as it depends on state law regarding squatting but certainly Royal Domain is similar.

[Sheridan]

Ah, Steve, true colours come shining through.

yes yours are so pretty, well to you anyway

Breeders who have sold to pet shops are a contributing factor in pedigree dogs PR problem. I don't think I can say it more plainly.

[Steve]

What is happening now with the greys is because by joining the GRNSW they agreed to hand over their property rights just as when someone is a member of the ANKC .They get to tell you what you can and cant do with your dog -some more extreme than others -which you have the ability to do if you are not a member.

If I own a dog and I'm not a member of DogsNSW I can let it have sex to every girl it meets, I can sell my puppies to anyone and anywhere, I can participate in any event etc. I dont have to register my puppies with them nor do I have to give out certified pedigrees.

When we join we also agree that we understand that they get to change these things at any time.

The GRNSW has a situation where if anyone want to race greys in their events they have to be a member of their organisation - they have a monopoly on those who want to participate because they are the only ones who can run these events.

THE ANKC has a situation where if anyone wants to show dogs or breed dogs recognised by the FCI they have to be a member of their organisation - they have a monopoly on those who want to participate because they are the only ones who can run these events.

If someone wants to retire or has had enough and resign their membership they get their basic property rights back but they dont have any ability to participate as they did have whilst a member.

As a member of GRNSW now you cant simply decide what to do with your dog - you have to have their approval to give it away, sell it, transport it or PTS but so far state law allows you to do all of these things

Eg. Its perfectly legal for someone who owns 100 dogs to get the vet in or someone skilled at killing animals by shooting them and humanely killing them without needing permission but as a member its a no go.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Steve

[Sheridan]

There doesn't seem to be any benefit to being a member of GRNSW right now and certainly, the disadvantages appear to be retrospective given even though if someone resigns membership they're still going to lose their dogs. I don't know what the GRNSW regulations say but I don't see how joining ensures a loss of property rights and I wonder if members knew that was in the small print.

[Steve]

There doesn't seem to be any benefit to being a member of GRNSW right now and certainly, the disadvantages appear to be retrospective given even though if someone resigns membership they're still going to lose their dogs. I don't know what the GRNSW regulations say but I don't see how joining ensures a loss of property rights and I wonder if members knew that was in the small print.

They wont resign now because they don't know what's coming - they expect that if the industry does survive and they can participate that they will need to still be members. If ever they want to race their dogs they just have to do as they are told. Just as ANKC members would need to do as they are told if they want to participate in ANKC shows. There isn't anything saying right now that if they are not members they will loose their dogs. Many would not want to keep them but if they did want to keep them rather than have the RSPCA find them new homes or PTS it would be hard to imagine that anything legally could compel them to simply hand them over. their properties are licenced for them and as long as they tick all the boxes I cant see how the state could demand they go to god or the RSPCA. Owning a grey isn't illegal. Breeding a grey isnt illegal, selling a grey to someone in another state isnt illegal either but just as the ANKC controls the registrations so do they so their dogs are no longer worth anything if they are not a member to sell.

[Steve]

Also they cant just pack up and move them and their dogs to another state where they can continue because even though they own the dogs the GRNSW own the paperwork and they simply won't transfer them if they don't want to so the dogs can never participate in racing anywhere - not done via laws but policy and rules within the organisation they are a member of.

[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.

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.

I think the community has a pretty fair say in what values they want. The consumer system enables them to have choices and purchase them [so far ]from a source of their choice.

There is a component of a collective feeling with in the breeding community - both within and outside of the ANKC or purebred dog world of feeling as if we are the victims of an ever increasing onslaught from animal rights.

Dog breeding is certainly not the only "industry" or hobby under attack but there are various pushes to remove people's property rights and freedom to trade equally for reasons given which are not justified and are based on anything other than science and facts, beaten up by sensationalism and propaganda so when the focus starts to switch to accusations of yet more cruelty issues its understandable if they are saying poor me.

>>>>>>.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We will have to agree to disagree. I understand what you are saying, and it does makes sense.

Because These issues are all predictable according to biophysical/evolutionary science. Right down to being a victim of an an environment you reject, and the disconnect of the environment from the process. Devaluation. The lot.

The community may have a fair say in what they DON'T want.

They have very little understanding of what they could have, or what possibilities they could reach for.

Responsibility for that understanding is held in reservation by one monopoly or another.

ie; A choice in where they purchase from = one or another monopoly with little understanding how any of them work or why.

The de-sex debate is an example. Instead of encouraging people to understand the issues that come with breeding dogs, its in every monopolies interest to simply say spey or neuter is THE responsible course to take. Then we wonder why people have no understanding of a dogs reproductive cycle and can't TAKE responsibility for it. The information has to be freely given for people to take responsibility for using it. People don't know what they don't know. If you have the attitude people aren't responsible enough to handle some thing, you see to it they never will be.

You bring about what you claim. You create the reality you believe.

Seems this may be where the confusion is now.

Yes the community has the choice.

But it hasn't directed evolution of those choices. None of those choices are responsible to the demands and needs of the community. An environment conditioned to place responsibility else where.

Commercial breeders come closest, but are the result of an ailing or sick environments last ditch attempt to support the species according to community needs and demands. Its not support from a healthy environment. Its else where.

The values and foundations pedigrees were built on have been lost to the environment because they aren't demonstrated to the environment for it TO favor those values.

The pedigree has been demonstrated instead and found wanting.

Standards are demonstrated.

Our choices haven't evolved to the needs of an expanding and healthy environment.

An environment that limits response, limits response-ability.

In the culture of breeders AND in the dogs bred. A Bulldog looks like this (insert standard) A responsible owner looks like this(insert standard)

Yes the community environment decides what it will favor or reject. But ultimately it will reject whats presented, if it must come from 'else where'. Its a foreign body. It will be rejected.

The choices presented haven't been in response to the health of the environment (or the dogs).

There has to be demonstrated value to needs TO favor. Not chosen from another place to fill gaps . Values IN and selected BY the environment- Not choices selected by organizations that benefit from a monopoly on set standards for breeding identities..

Values selected for success or favor will be those that can adapt to the various conditions the ENVIRONMENT might present, as it presents them.

So if conditions now favor puppy farms and commercial breeders, its because values haven't been taught or demonstrated worth favor. Only "Standards" which are fixed and not adaptive. Puppy farms can do standard.

The foundation values that brought us pedigree dogs are still good ones.

Its "standards" that fix a place in time. For the breeds as identities, or the organization as an identity. Standards are demands ON the community/environment.

The values and purpose that gave rise to the breeds and organizations are replaced by 'standards' and held as a 'property' of those orgs. Property of that environment. Only another environment, ( commercial ) can predictably adhere to such predictable "standards".

The Environment can't accept that demand with out value to support it.

The environment as a whole shapes what it holds, to procure what it needs. It rejects what belongs 'else where'- from another environment. That arrangement is too unstable to last.

See above,Marked below >>>>>>>>> and posted within Steves quote by accident.

Standards- Set a time, in place. Stagnation

Values- expand a place, in time. Growth

Its O.K to set standards for 'A Place'. Just not Every place.

Its already different from other spaces by those standards. They can contribute to the environment and shape its values.

But if those standards are to replace values every where, Theres nothing left to define or support them.

Standards have no purpose without the values that support them. The values are the whole purpose of 'Standards'

Value and purpose is discarded. You only have to look as far as the attrition to K.C members who try to alter the shape and space of the K.Cs. Discarded.

Early or mandatory desexing etc. don't support values that contribute to any purpose for dogs. They are a result of an imploding environment, imposing standards and not sharing values.

The space can only reduce value to achieve a purpose of standards for all.

Values and standards are not the same thing.

Values are brought by the identity to its environment in response to its challenges.

When a Standard is set, there is no need for the values that brought it. Its an environmental condition of its place. It brings nothing. Its the just the way it is.

We can never share 'standards' of an exclusive environment. The more we try, the more we exclude. And The K.Cs must exclude us anyway, and find new ways to do it. because they are exclusive. Our values can never match their Standards.

Edited July 22, 2016 by moosmum

[asal]

I just realised something odd.

Baird is going to save greyhound "wastage" by shutting down the racing in nsw right?

Tb breeders are heading for the same micromanagement to shut down "wastage"

this this same government wants to shoot 5,000 brumbies in Kosiosko National park. Not allow their capture and rehoming, just blast em with high power rifles because its more humane?

is it just me who is confused by this, are some less equal than others somehow?

[dogbesotted]

I just realised something odd.

Baird is going to save greyhound "wastage" by shutting down the racing in nsw right?

Tb breeders are heading for the same micromanagement to shut down "wastage"

this this same government wants to shoot 5,000 brumbies in Kosiosko National park. Not allow their capture and rehoming, just blast em with high power rifles because its more humane?

is it just me who is confused by this, are some less equal than others somehow?

logic????? there is none in the current trend of various governments haste to respond to whatever they need to do to be seen to be doing something without affecting their voter base too badly...

or perhaps i am becoming totally cynical.

H

[Lhok]

I just realised something odd.

Baird is going to save greyhound "wastage" by shutting down the racing in nsw right?

Tb breeders are heading for the same micromanagement to shut down "wastage"

this this same government wants to shoot 5,000 brumbies in Kosiosko National park. Not allow their capture and rehoming, just blast em with high power rifles because its more humane?

is it just me who is confused by this, are some less equal than others somehow?

If I had to guess, it could be that he has done a deal with the shooters party for something or he might have drank the AR cool aid and believe they would be better off dead than alive and being "exploited" by humans. However I am very cynical about things these days.

--Lhok

Edited July 20, 2016 by Lhok

[Steve]

I just realised something odd.

Baird is going to save greyhound "wastage" by shutting down the racing in nsw right?

Tb breeders are heading for the same micromanagement to shut down "wastage"

this this same government wants to shoot 5,000 brumbies in Kosiosko National park. Not allow their capture and rehoming, just blast em with high power rifles because its more humane?

is it just me who is confused by this, are some less equal than others somehow?

If I had to guess, it could be that he has done a deal with the shooters party for something or he might have drank the AR cool aid and believe they would be better off dead than alive and being "exploited" by humans. However I am very cynical about things these days.

--Lhok

If this does go ahead wait until the rescue groups start screaming because the RSPCA have been given the job of rehoming and too many are PTS that could be helped in finding a home if other rescue was able to be involved.

[Steve]

I just realised something odd.

Baird is going to save greyhound "wastage" by shutting down the racing in nsw right?

Tb breeders are heading for the same micromanagement to shut down "wastage"

this this same government wants to shoot 5,000 brumbies in Kosiosko National park. Not allow their capture and rehoming, just blast em with high power rifles because its more humane?

is it just me who is confused by this, are some less equal than others somehow?

logic????? there is none in the current trend of various governments haste to respond to whatever they need to do to be seen to be doing something without affecting their voter base too badly...

or perhaps i am becoming totally cynical.

H

Yep and its all about who yells the loudest and who piddles in who's pocket

SA introduced mandatory desexing of baby puppies which I consider much more cruel than many other things but thats O.K.

Norway says it cruel and its against the law SA says who cares it how we will stop dumped dogs.

[Sheridan]

I just realised something odd.

Baird is going to save greyhound "wastage" by shutting down the racing in nsw right?

Tb breeders are heading for the same micromanagement to shut down "wastage"

this this same government wants to shoot 5,000 brumbies in Kosiosko National park. Not allow their capture and rehoming, just blast em with high power rifles because its more humane?

is it just me who is confused by this, are some less equal than others somehow?

logic????? there is none in the current trend of various governments haste to respond to whatever they need to do to be seen to be doing something without affecting their voter base too badly...

or perhaps i am becoming totally cynical.

H

Yep and its all about who yells the loudest and who piddles in who's pocket

SA introduced mandatory desexing of baby puppies which I consider much more cruel than many other things but thats O.K.

Norway says it cruel and its against the law SA says who cares it how we will stop dumped dogs.

It won't.

[_PL_]

It will cut down on the amount of unwanted pups. Rural pounds in particular, dependant on area - certain breeds are over represented in impound and euthanasia rates. All have med-large litters and are so easy to come by that when you don't want one anymore you just get rid of it and get another later. Or get rid of the whole lot incl mum, and keep one pup. I'm referring to bull arab and pigging types, stag types, camp dogs, working breed crosses, staffy crosses. No idea how they are going to police it though. If it's anything like microchipping then the same dogs I refer to aren't chipped either.

I forgot to add that the populations of these dogs are a harbour for parvo and heartworm. Parvo regularly sweeping through towns and pounds with litters as they are sold through the community or end up left at the pound gate.

Sorry but as usual govt steps with harsh reform because they don't enforce existing legislation and people won't take up the opportunity for low cost desexing.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Powerlegs

[Salukifan]

It will cut down on the amount of unwanted pups. Rural pounds in particular, dependant on area - certain breeds are over represented in impound and euthanasia rates. All have med-large litters and are so easy to come by that when you don't want one anymore you just get rid of it and get another later. Or get rid of the whole lot incl mum, and keep one pup. I'm referring to bull arab and pigging types, stag types, camp dogs, working breed crosses, staffy crosses. No idea how they are going to police it though. If it's anything like microchipping then the same dogs I refer to aren't chipped either.

I forgot to add that the populations of these dogs are a harbour for parvo and heartworm. Parvo regularly sweeping through towns and pounds with litters as they are sold through the community or end up left at the pound gate.

Sorry but as usual govt steps with harsh reform because they don't enforce existing legislation and people won't take up the opportunity for low cost desexing.

I doubt it. Only about 50% of dogs in this country are registered, vaccinated or microchipped. What on earth makes people think that a law (which won't be resourced for enforcement) will make an ounce of difference to people who don't obey the laws now.

It will penalise responsible people and their dogs and do SFA to stem the flow into pounds I'd say. Time will tell.

[Steve]

It will cut down on the amount of unwanted pups. Rural pounds in particular, dependant on area - certain breeds are over represented in impound and euthanasia rates. All have med-large litters and are so easy to come by that when you don't want one anymore you just get rid of it and get another later. Or get rid of the whole lot incl mum, and keep one pup. I'm referring to bull arab and pigging types, stag types, camp dogs, working breed crosses, staffy crosses. No idea how they are going to police it though. If it's anything like microchipping then the same dogs I refer to aren't chipped either.

I forgot to add that the populations of these dogs are a harbour for parvo and heartworm. Parvo regularly sweeping through towns and pounds with litters as they are sold through the community or end up left at the pound gate.

Sorry but as usual govt steps with harsh reform because they don't enforce existing legislation and people won't take up the opportunity for low cost desexing.

It has never worked anywhere else it has been made mandatory - The ACT numbers didn't change at all. And why should everyone have the right to do what they want with their property removed because some others don't do the right thing?

Its just another scoff law those most likely to be the offenders are the ones less likely to register their dogs anyway.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Steve

[_PL_]

It will cut down on the amount of unwanted pups. Rural pounds in particular, dependant on area - certain breeds are over represented in impound and euthanasia rates. All have med-large litters and are so easy to come by that when you don't want one anymore you just get rid of it and get another later. Or get rid of the whole lot incl mum, and keep one pup. I'm referring to bull arab and pigging types, stag types, camp dogs, working breed crosses, staffy crosses. No idea how they are going to police it though. If it's anything like microchipping then the same dogs I refer to aren't chipped either.

I forgot to add that the populations of these dogs are a harbour for parvo and heartworm. Parvo regularly sweeping through towns and pounds with litters as they are sold through the community or end up left at the pound gate.

Sorry but as usual govt steps with harsh reform because they don't enforce existing legislation and people won't take up the opportunity for low cost desexing.

I doubt it. Only about 50% of dogs in this country are registered, vaccinated or microchipped. What on earth makes people think that a law (which won't be resourced for enforcement) will make an ounce of difference to people who don't obey the laws now.

It will penalise responsible people and their dogs and do SFA to stem the flow into pounds I'd say. Time will tell.

I hope people don't get stuck on sentence 1 If it only dents number slightly at first then that still counts. Just 5% would be huge!

[Diva]

There was a study done of the ACT response, can't find it now but I am pretty sure it made no difference to dumping? Someone else might have the paper

[asal]

It will cut down on the amount of unwanted pups. Rural pounds in particular, dependant on area - certain breeds are over represented in impound and euthanasia rates. All have med-large litters and are so easy to come by that when you don't want one anymore you just get rid of it and get another later. Or get rid of the whole lot incl mum, and keep one pup. I'm referring to bull arab and pigging types, stag types, camp dogs, working breed crosses, staffy crosses. No idea how they are going to police it though. If it's anything like microchipping then the same dogs I refer to aren't chipped either.

I forgot to add that the populations of these dogs are a harbour for parvo and heartworm. Parvo regularly sweeping through towns and pounds with litters as they are sold through the community or end up left at the pound gate.

Sorry but as usual govt steps with harsh reform because they don't enforce existing legislation and people won't take up the opportunity for low cost desexing.

I doubt it. Only about 50% of dogs in this country are registered, vaccinated or microchipped. What on earth makes people think that a law (which won't be resourced for enforcement) will make an ounce of difference to people who don't obey the laws now.

It will penalise responsible people and their dogs and do SFA to stem the flow into pounds I'd say. Time will tell.

time has already told, its been some 20 years since microchipping came in by now and hasnt it been mandatory to register for over 16 years now? the stats are still the same olthough far fewer are being bred by the registered traceable breeders since they have been regulated into halving how many puppies they could breed in any one year. so whats next? stop em altogether and call that drop in numbers a win and ignore the untracables?