Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[asal]

Given their reputation for behaving ethically I can see why you'd want to give them the benefit of the doubt...

The reality is that any industry which does not behave ethically as a whole unit will have its rights taken away. No it's not fair for those who do the right thing but in this day and age lack of decisive action against those who do the wrong thing is viewed as complicity.

It's all well and good to say that it takes time to change but how long should they be given? How many lives must be lost in cruel circumstances before it's too many? How much suffering is acceptable during the "transition period"? You are braver and wiser than I if you can quantify such things.

It only takes a heartbeat to take away people's rights - people who have never shown any sign of being party to any of this - thats 80% of them and how do you justify them having the right to find them new homes or sell them interstate rather than killing them as better for the dogs?

can only wonder if its a case of don't care, as long is its not your rights that have been signed away. Then the fat would fly but same scenario here, those unaffected will just look on and say hey they brought it on themselves then too.

As someone who owns and loves animals I do care very much, and I worry that my right to own them wil be taken away, but that doesn't negate the reality, nor does it make it ok for others to abuse animals while I sat back. I do what I can but it takes a majority, so I try to convince people that this is all our responsibility. Each of us every time we hear about someone doing the wrong thing but are afraid to speak up because they are more powerful, they are more respected, but they are the ones who will bring us all down so now is the time to act against them.

but you do feel that the 80% are just collateral damage for the good of the bigger picture. Continue to pander to Peta no matter what name they are under you will be next, divide and conquer is what is happening.

Watch Landline today especially the Sheep farmer in England. He loves his sheep, his job but as he said the city is so distanced from the farm they have no idea whats going on, the quest for cheap food means the small caring farmers cant survive, the farmers arent the only losers, their stock living a quality of life they will never experience once the whole thing is replaced by factory farms.

his comment about the australian and NZ dairy industry was spot on. gone are the family farms where the cattle had paddocks and crops to graze and play in with people who knew every animals name. There were over 17,000 in new south wales alone, until as he pointed out politicans went the deregulation road, family farms fell and continue to fall like ninepin's and now even the factory farms are struggling to survive and whats at the bottom of the cutting costs chain? the cows.

Edited July 24, 2016 by asal

[The Spotted Devil]

I wonder what the story is about the greyhounds that Baird was suppose to have a media presentation with? Seems like they didn't want the media to talk to the man at all since they were all moved inside.

There really shouldn't be outrage that the RSPCA will euth quite a high number of them, they have been saying that from the outset of the announcement.

People can't see the forest for the trees.

--Lhok

Well Im not outraged but why is it better for the RSPCA to take them and put them down when the breeders are perfectly capable of taking them to their own vets and doing the same thing?

Apparently many aren't since the discovery of mass graves etc. A bullet is only humane if it's well aimed, and a bludgeoning certainly isn't humane.

Mass graves dont prove anything except that they chose one spot to bury them.

Actually there was a forensic report done on how the animals were euth'd. Dogs lined up in groups of 2,3 or 4. Killed by gunshots or blunt force trauma.

Oh come on just because they want to say they have evidence that some were killed inhumanely that's no reason to take away someone else's right to humanely kill them or have someone of their choice do it if they want.

I was at the vet about a year ago and a grey trainer came in with 8 dogs in his dog trailer to be PTS BY THE VET and when it was done they took the bods home to bury them because its cheaper than having the vet dispose of the bodies.

I was at a breeders house once who killed her's by locking them in a crate and not feeding them or giving them any water - does that mean we should all have our rights taken off us?

Steve you're taking my point too far. My comment was only in response to you saying that "mass graves don't prove anything..."

Edited July 24, 2016 by The Spotted Devil

[Sheridan]

Woof, I've seen this 'police our own' comment come up quite a lot in relation to the greyhound industry and with pedigree dogs. Somehow every greyhound trainer and breeder is supposed to know what everyone else is doing. Same with ANKC breeders. If like to know how I, as a dog owner, is supposed to know what someone I see once in a while at a dog show, that I don't know personally, does with their dogs. The idea of policing our own is so full of holes that it should be instantly dismissed by anyone with a brain.

[asal]

Woof, I've seen this 'police our own' comment come up quite a lot in relation to the greyhound industry and with pedigree dogs. Somehow every greyhound trainer and breeder is supposed to know what everyone else is doing. Same with ANKC breeders. If like to know how I, as a dog owner, is supposed to know what someone I see once in a while at a dog show, that I don't know personally, does with their dogs. The idea of policing our own is so full of holes that it should be instantly dismissed by anyone with a brain.

excellent point. look at the wonderful job the churches has done to "police our own" on the pedophile front. about time they were shut down too.

[Pjrt]

In relation to 'policing our own' 'we' as in the general membership of whatever pursuit, need to keep our eyes and our minds open, but most importantly we need to have clear well set out paths to places to air our concerns, and know they will be taken seriously, investigated and acted upon, without fear or favour. So often this is not how it goes. That needs serious consideration.

[Sheridan]

In relation to 'policing our own' 'we' as in the general membership of whatever pursuit, need to keep our eyes and our minds open, but most importantly we need to have clear well set out paths to places to air our concerns, and know they will be taken seriously, investigated and acted upon, without fear or favour. So often this is not how it goes. That needs serious consideration.

True in all facets.

[Steve]

80% of people doing the right thing leaves 20% of people doing the wrong thing and not enough being done by anyone to fix that, I don't justify anything but to me if a problem is so endemic that to effectively address it would decimate the industry to a point that it is no longer viable as an industry (as indicated by the report) then it's not really surprising that it was decided they are not capable of self regulation.

Clearly the public and the community has decided that the industry's actions (or lack thereof) are unjustifiable, so to them at least 20% of participants doing the wrong thing is the line in the sand.

Said it before and I will say it again, the writing has been on the wall for a long time, for ALL animal industries. When you are part of a community you have rights taken away all the time, everyone has the right to apply for a drivers license, they lose that right when they show they are not capable of the responsibility. Same thing is now happening at an industry level.

The question is not, why should good people have their rights taken away, but why should good people keep their rights when they do nothing about the bad ones? Everyone in the industry knew about the "bad eggs", as a whole they had the power to stop it but didn't.

Everyone does have the right to a drivers L but I don't have my right removed because someone else shows they are not capable of the responsibility. You assume that the other 80% had enough information and evidence to do something about it or that if THEY did try to do something about it that the governing body would respond. I can front up right now to the ANKC and tell them someone is breeding dogs with conformation so bad that their dogs are suffering and they will laugh at me.i can say this here on this forum and I will be told that its O.K. because the breed wasn't meant to run around the block.

You can place this type of evaluation onto any group which has little or no or little outside accountability.

[moosmum]

Woof, I've seen this 'police our own' comment come up quite a lot in relation to the greyhound industry and with pedigree dogs. Somehow every greyhound trainer and breeder is supposed to know what everyone else is doing. Same with ANKC breeders. If like to know how I, as a dog owner, is supposed to know what someone I see once in a while at a dog show, that I don't know personally, does with their dogs. The idea of policing our own is so full of holes that it should be instantly dismissed by anyone with a brain.

excellent point. look at the wonderful job the churches has done to "police our own" on the pedophile front. about time they were shut down too.

I think its the whole idea of 'our own' Vs 'theirs' Multiple environments rather than shared environment.

That environment can go, Its standard identity is foreign to 'our own'.

Theres IS no common identity to account. Its all 'Other' to 'standards' of identity.

Edited July 24, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

In relation to 'policing our own' 'we' as in the general membership of whatever pursuit, need to keep our eyes and our minds open, but most importantly we need to have clear well set out paths to places to air our concerns, and know they will be taken seriously, investigated and acted upon, without fear or favour. So often this is not how it goes. That needs serious consideration.

Yes because often its the institution that encourages it and covers it either because they dont see it as a bad thing or because they protect their brand.

[WoofnHoof]

I'm not a fan of industry self regulation, I think it would be exponentially better to have an independent external regulatory body, but the reality is that it isn't going to happen. The public aren't interested in paying for regulation and the government has no interest in regulation of industry, and I don't see any way forward from there.

Personally I do what I can in my sphere of influence and ability, I'm working in an area of animal welfare research, I promote good ethical breeders and breeding practices, I call out unethical practices where I see them and I support the development of inclusive industry bodies which are working towards development of codes of practice and industry wide policies on welfare. For example the horse industry council which seeks to unite the fragmented horse industry (even more fragmented than companion animals IMO). Is it perfect? No but it's what we currently have and all we really have to work with. It is bloody hard trying to unite a very diverse industry, akin to herding cats, especially when some have more power and influence than others, and some have more ethical behaviour than others, but as far as I can tell it MUST be done if any of us are to survive in the future.

[Diva]

I wonder what we as the general membership of lure coursing did to have a recommendation made against us that our rights be removed? We didn't do anything wrong, the report concedes that. We have no ability to influence greyhound racing, different community. We are just 'collateral damage'. The day that kind of scope creep becomes acceptable in regulation is the day no rights in pet ownership are beyond arbitrary removal.

[WoofnHoof]

80% of people doing the right thing leaves 20% of people doing the wrong thing and not enough being done by anyone to fix that, I don't justify anything but to me if a problem is so endemic that to effectively address it would decimate the industry to a point that it is no longer viable as an industry (as indicated by the report) then it's not really surprising that it was decided they are not capable of self regulation.

Clearly the public and the community has decided that the industry's actions (or lack thereof) are unjustifiable, so to them at least 20% of participants doing the wrong thing is the line in the sand.

Said it before and I will say it again, the writing has been on the wall for a long time, for ALL animal industries. When you are part of a community you have rights taken away all the time, everyone has the right to apply for a drivers license, they lose that right when they show they are not capable of the responsibility. Same thing is now happening at an industry level.

The question is not, why should good people have their rights taken away, but why should good people keep their rights when they do nothing about the bad ones? Everyone in the industry knew about the "bad eggs", as a whole they had the power to stop it but didn't.

Everyone does have the right to a drivers L but I don't have my right removed because someone else shows they are not capable of the responsibility. You assume that the other 80% had enough information and evidence to do something about it or that if THEY did try to do something about it that the governing body would respond. I can front up right now to the ANKC and tell them someone is breeding dogs with conformation so bad that their dogs are suffering and they will laugh at me.i can say this here on this forum and I will be told that its O.K. because the breed wasn't meant to run around the block.

You can place this type of evaluation onto any group which has little or no or little outside accountability.

Actually it does happen with licenses, Ls and Ps are placed on restrictions, they can't have I think it's 8 cylinder vehicles in some states, the same rules don't apply, so yes their rights are restricted by the actions of a few which amounted to a critical mass, not every P plater can't handle the power of a V8 but enough of them couldn't that it was decided they all shouldn't drive one until they have sufficient experience.

As a group they behave and as a group they are judged, as they say, no one ever said that life was fair.

And it's as a group we have the power, the 80% can and do have the power to change things.

I see it all the time in dressage, high level riders yanking and kicking and basically showing off the worst of the sport for the world to see, and the rest of us tut tut and say "what can we do?", they are at the top we are at the bottom, but without us paying our fees and supporting our little comps and buying the products with their names on them they are nothing, nobodies. We do have power.

[Sheridan]

Woof, I've seen this 'police our own' comment come up quite a lot in relation to the greyhound industry and with pedigree dogs. Somehow every greyhound trainer and breeder is supposed to know what everyone else is doing. Same with ANKC breeders. If like to know how I, as a dog owner, is supposed to know what someone I see once in a while at a dog show, that I don't know personally, does with their dogs. The idea of policing our own is so full of holes that it should be instantly dismissed by anyone with a brain.

excellent point. look at the wonderful job the churches has done to "police our own" on the pedophile front. about time they were shut down too.

I think its the whole idea of 'our own' Vs 'theirs' Multiple environments rather than shared environment.

That environment can go, Its standard identity is foreign to 'our own'.

Theres IS no common identity to account. Its all 'Other' to 'standards' of identity.

See, this is why I failed as an academic. I don't write like ^.

[Steve]

In the case of the greys those who have been found to be being cruel have been charged. Those using live lures and those who have been found to killing them cruelly.

But there is nothing illegal in breeding more dogs than you need for a given purpose or who fail to make the grade nor is there anything illegal in having your dogs PTS and burying them in the one spot.

If it is such a terrible thing to breed animals which may need to be culled because they don't fit the criteria for being kept then make it a law. A sheep farmer kills sheep that don't make the grade and eat them for lunch - so is eating an animal better and less cruel than killing it and burying it?

It is clearly a community perception but its still not against the law.

They are about to put mad dogs on a small island with the express intent of ripping goats to pieces - playing tug of war with their babies and that's not cruel? But it doesn't matter because that's not against the law either.

So if its not against the law how can we call for the rights of dog owners to be removed because part of their group used live lures ?

If the industry is banned then at least give them the choice to be responsible for their own animals if they want to be.

[Steve]

80% of people doing the right thing leaves 20% of people doing the wrong thing and not enough being done by anyone to fix that, I don't justify anything but to me if a problem is so endemic that to effectively address it would decimate the industry to a point that it is no longer viable as an industry (as indicated by the report) then it's not really surprising that it was decided they are not capable of self regulation.

Clearly the public and the community has decided that the industry's actions (or lack thereof) are unjustifiable, so to them at least 20% of participants doing the wrong thing is the line in the sand.

Said it before and I will say it again, the writing has been on the wall for a long time, for ALL animal industries. When you are part of a community you have rights taken away all the time, everyone has the right to apply for a drivers license, they lose that right when they show they are not capable of the responsibility. Same thing is now happening at an industry level.

The question is not, why should good people have their rights taken away, but why should good people keep their rights when they do nothing about the bad ones? Everyone in the industry knew about the "bad eggs", as a whole they had the power to stop it but didn't.

Everyone does have the right to a drivers L but I don't have my right removed because someone else shows they are not capable of the responsibility. You assume that the other 80% had enough information and evidence to do something about it or that if THEY did try to do something about it that the governing body would respond. I can front up right now to the ANKC and tell them someone is breeding dogs with conformation so bad that their dogs are suffering and they will laugh at me.i can say this here on this forum and I will be told that its O.K. because the breed wasn't meant to run around the block.

You can place this type of evaluation onto any group which has little or no or little outside accountability.

Actually it does happen with licenses, Ls and Ps are placed on restrictions, they can't have I think it's 8 cylinder vehicles in some states, the same rules don't apply, so yes their rights are restricted by the actions of a few which amounted to a critical mass, not every P plater can't handle the power of a V8 but enough of them couldn't that it was decided they all shouldn't drive one until they have sufficient experience.

As a group they behave and as a group they are judged, as they say, no one ever said that life was fair.

And it's as a group we have the power, the 80% can and do have the power to change things.

I see it all the time in dressage, high level riders yanking and kicking and basically showing off the worst of the sport for the world to see, and the rest of us tut tut and say "what can we do?", they are at the top we are at the bottom, but without us paying our fees and supporting our little comps and buying the products with their names on them they are nothing, nobodies. We do have power.

No one is suggesting that groups do not or should not have restrictions and obviously there should be restrictions on how they kill them and who does it but as they have not broken the law they should still have their basic property rights in tact to make a decision on what is the fate of their dogs.

[Steve]

I'm not a fan of industry self regulation, I think it would be exponentially better to have an independent external regulatory body, but the reality is that it isn't going to happen. The public aren't interested in paying for regulation and the government has no interest in regulation of industry, and I don't see any way forward from there.

Personally I do what I can in my sphere of influence and ability, I'm working in an area of animal welfare research, I promote good ethical breeders and breeding practices, I call out unethical practices where I see them and I support the development of inclusive industry bodies which are working towards development of codes of practice and industry wide policies on welfare. For example the horse industry council which seeks to unite the fragmented horse industry (even more fragmented than companion animals IMO). Is it perfect? No but it's what we currently have and all we really have to work with. It is bloody hard trying to unite a very diverse industry, akin to herding cats, especially when some have more power and influence than others, and some have more ethical behaviour than others, but as far as I can tell it MUST be done if any of us are to survive in the future.

Sounds great except that ethical is not an objective judgement. Who gets to say what that is?

[WoofnHoof]

I'm not a fan of industry self regulation, I think it would be exponentially better to have an independent external regulatory body, but the reality is that it isn't going to happen. The public aren't interested in paying for regulation and the government has no interest in regulation of industry, and I don't see any way forward from there.

Personally I do what I can in my sphere of influence and ability, I'm working in an area of animal welfare research, I promote good ethical breeders and breeding practices, I call out unethical practices where I see them and I support the development of inclusive industry bodies which are working towards development of codes of practice and industry wide policies on welfare. For example the horse industry council which seeks to unite the fragmented horse industry (even more fragmented than companion animals IMO). Is it perfect? No but it's what we currently have and all we really have to work with. It is bloody hard trying to unite a very diverse industry, akin to herding cats, especially when some have more power and influence than others, and some have more ethical behaviour than others, but as far as I can tell it MUST be done if any of us are to survive in the future.

Sounds great except that ethical is not an objective judgement. Who gets to say what that is?

The community.

The view of the community will depend on what they see, and what they consider acceptable. Killing animals for food or medical research is different to killing animals for entertainment or testing cosmetics for example, one is (largely) considered necessary, one is considered frivolous and unnecessary. The goalposts change over time but that is why we must stay ahead of it, develop ethical principles which are in line with community expectations and enforce them, and continually review them. And make them known, as I've said before PETA is heard because they are the loudest voice, and they have a point when they show people the 20% and ask "why is this allowed to happen?", we have to work together to eliminate the 20%, and show that we are doing it on an ongoing basis.

[Sheridan]

I'm not a fan of industry self regulation, I think it would be exponentially better to have an independent external regulatory body, but the reality is that it isn't going to happen. The public aren't interested in paying for regulation and the government has no interest in regulation of industry, and I don't see any way forward from there.

Personally I do what I can in my sphere of influence and ability, I'm working in an area of animal welfare research, I promote good ethical breeders and breeding practices, I call out unethical practices where I see them and I support the development of inclusive industry bodies which are working towards development of codes of practice and industry wide policies on welfare. For example the horse industry council which seeks to unite the fragmented horse industry (even more fragmented than companion animals IMO). Is it perfect? No but it's what we currently have and all we really have to work with. It is bloody hard trying to unite a very diverse industry, akin to herding cats, especially when some have more power and influence than others, and some have more ethical behaviour than others, but as far as I can tell it MUST be done if any of us are to survive in the future.

I don't have an objection to regulation but there's an awful lot of regulation already. Other posters have pointed out that GRNSW is a NSW Government body, which automatically deletes it from the self-regulation category anyway. Where was GRNSW in this? Pedigree dog breeders belong to their state ANKC body. Has a Code of Ethics but it is not a regulatory body. Dog breeders have to comply with whatever state laws there are about dog breeding so where is self-regulation in this? State bodies are, at best, just dog clubs. They have no policing powers whatsoever.

[dogbesotted]

and yet we find it Ok to use poisons on dingos because they get in our way.

use them to fix problems we cause but implant with a time activated poison.... I am appalled. 1080 Symptoms

In humans, the symptoms of poisoning normally appear between 30 minutes and three hours after exposure. Initial symptoms typically include nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain; sweating, confusion, and agitation follow. In significant poisoning, cardiac abnormalities including tachycardia or bradycardia, hypotension, and ECG changes develop. Neurological effects include muscle twitching and seizures; consciousness becomes progressively impaired after a few hours leading to coma. Death is normally due to ventricular arrhythmias, progressive hypotension unresponsive to treatment, and secondary lung infections.[5]

Symptoms in domestic animals vary: dogs tend to show nervous system signs such as convulsions, vocalization, and uncontrollable running, whilst large herbivores such as cattle and sheep more predominantly show cardiac signs.[22]

Sub-lethal doses of sodium fluoroacetate may cause damage to tissues with high energy needs — in particular, the brain, gonads, heart, lungs, and fetus. Sub-lethal doses are typically completely metabolised and excreted within four days.[23]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-23/dingoes-set-to-become-pelorus-island-environmental-saviour/7652424

[WoofnHoof]

I'm not a fan of industry self regulation, I think it would be exponentially better to have an independent external regulatory body, but the reality is that it isn't going to happen. The public aren't interested in paying for regulation and the government has no interest in regulation of industry, and I don't see any way forward from there.

Personally I do what I can in my sphere of influence and ability, I'm working in an area of animal welfare research, I promote good ethical breeders and breeding practices, I call out unethical practices where I see them and I support the development of inclusive industry bodies which are working towards development of codes of practice and industry wide policies on welfare. For example the horse industry council which seeks to unite the fragmented horse industry (even more fragmented than companion animals IMO). Is it perfect? No but it's what we currently have and all we really have to work with. It is bloody hard trying to unite a very diverse industry, akin to herding cats, especially when some have more power and influence than others, and some have more ethical behaviour than others, but as far as I can tell it MUST be done if any of us are to survive in the future.

I don't have an objection to regulation but there's an awful lot of regulation already. Other posters have pointed out that GRNSW is a NSW Government body, which automatically deletes it from the self-regulation category anyway. Where was GRNSW in this? Pedigree dog breeders belong to their state ANKC body. Has a Code of Ethics but it is not a regulatory body. Dog breeders have to comply with whatever state laws there are about dog breeding so where is self-regulation in this? State bodies are, at best, just dog clubs. They have no policing powers whatsoever.

I don't think there is a lot of regulation, there are plenty of laws which are rarely enforced (until the shit hits the fan), there are government bodies increasingly looking to outsource these responsibilities, and there are a lot of little groups coming under the umbrella of "industry". While the dog clubs are their own entities they still come under this umbrella as far as public and government perception is concerned. Certainly there are links, some clubs are linked to some sports and showing more so than others, everyone uses the same services such as vets and products, that's what makes it an industry. Ideally we want to have an industry representative group which covers all canine pursuits, everyone contributes and everyone helps to keep the industry clean. Just as farmers contribute to their industry groups even though the way the different sectors operate may be very different and subject to very different pressures, an example of this may be something like meat and livestock Australia.