Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[dougal]

The NSW government is now running a taxpayer funded advertisement to justify their position. If Baird is so convinced he is right, why the need for a publicity campaign. What a waste of government funds. When it first came on I thought it would be endorsed by PETA or the like, was surprised to see it was a govt funded ad.

[Maddy]

Maddy, it's more about the fact that Premier Baird is trying to be a dictator, not the fact that he banned greyhound racing. If he was genuinely concerned about the welfare issues and was a fair Premier, I wouldn't fight so hard against the decision.

It's the fact that we in NSW are allowing this Premier to make harsh Hitler-like decisions on everything that he thinks he doesn't like. Look at the Lock Out laws he created, look at the deals he did with developers to ruin people's lives in Sydney, look at what he's doing to the disability schemes, etc etc He feels he is above the law and won't listen to his colleagues and does things on his own without having to discuss it in Parliament.

Is this the sort of Premier we want??? I know I am getting off topic in discussing politics, but this is the point I'm trying to make. It all will backfire on the Premier very soon, and it will backfire all the Greenies' and animal activists' purpose.... because they had a purpose to push for a ban on greyhound racing yet did not foresee the implications of allowing the Premier to get away with slandering people and stealing from taxpayers fund....

But they will soon find out that the Premier will be targeting the pedigree dog breeders next, wiping them out. Because the extreme animal libbers are already saying

they do not want people to have pet dogs or cats, they believe (same as PETA) that people shouldn't own pets. (have a look at PETA's creed)

He has proposed a ban, it will still have to go through parliament, just like everything else. If the majority supports it, it will pass. The guy might be generally unpopular but a history of proposing unpopular laws doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong on this one. And like I said elsewhere (or maybe here? I forget), while I personally don't think the ban and the way it's being done are quite the right answer, no better alternative has been proposed. And by that, I mean actual alternatives that would actually fix the problem- not just more empty promises from the industry to change.

As for pedigree dog breeders.. *zips up flame suit* in my opinion, there are some changes that need to be made there. There was a thread about brachy breeds not long ago and the expected defense of "not my dogs" came up almost straight away. #NotAllPugs is not much different to #NotAllGreyhoundTrainers and as we're learning, if a group refuses to clean their own house, the government might just step in and burn the whole thing down. Avoiding the AR nutters will never be possible but as long as your practices seem reasonable to the average person, you've got nothing to worry about.

[Sheridan]

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

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

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

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

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

No doubt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[m-j]

alternatives that would actually fix the problem- not just more empty promises from the industry to change.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done???

[asal]

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

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

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

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

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

No doubt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have no trouble understanding what moosesmum said? everyone can be likened to a byb and a puppyfarmer, as it is all the true puppy farms are licensed and literally factory built, hundreds of square metres of concrete and shedding aka any modern piggery all equally legal, those who have them at home with out the factory complex,

all it takes is the accusation by someone who thinks they are better than you, few bother to question is it true, where animals are concerned its guilty until trial by media, online and gossip has run out of steam and ceased. I noticed all the headlines about the chihuahua breeder in vic suddenly went silent and how many weeks or months is it now since they and a neighbor were smothered in tar? the rage about the dead bodies was the neighbors property and a different breed but few noticed that minor hiccup in detail? as to charges laid the silence is deafening? charges sure were laid and frogmarched to court for that lady with the debarked tibetan spaniels as I recall she was facing some 60 years jail there were so many charges, furtunately for her although the chargeees said they had to seize the dogs and take her to court as their hands were tied, the legislation clearly stated she cannot show a dog in victoria if it was debarked in another state. no problem if its just a pet, but show it and your toast. lucky for her and her dogs the magistrate threw it out. thanks goodness that mans hands werent tied even though it was law even if a pretty incredibly stupid one. is it still there or been repealed?

as for the two tarred and feathered long before facing a day in court, doesn't really matter if they are guilty or innocent does it, murderers are treated so differently, they actually have rights of innocent UNTIL proven guilty, for some weird reason?

but no matter even if no charges are ever laid their reputation is mud and the stuff rarely washes off successfully, the majority so targeted dissappear due to the distress and the finger pointer is satisfied, reminds me of the salem witch trials actually

Edited August 10, 2016 by asal

[Steve]

they have presented some pretty good alternatives [yesterday] which are worth at least looking at in my opinion.

Our political system is based on a premise that before any person who has clearly become rather fanatical and unreasonable gets to change laws and get his own way that this needs to be tested by a parliamentary process - not manipulated as it has been to get it done without enough discussion or debate.

If this goes through before the court case is heard and they win in court them we will have laws based on facts that are proven not to be facts in a court of law.

Maddy for you to say that as long as our practices are reasonable to the average person we wont have any problem simply isn't true .In this day and age everyone remotely involved in an activity where EVERYTHING they do passes as reasonable will still be judged by the actions of the sensationalised few.

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

No doubt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have no trouble understanding what moosesmum said? everyone can be likened to a byb and a puppyfarmer, as it is all the true puppy farms are licensed and literally factory built, hundreds of square metres of concrete and shedding aka any modern piggery all equally legal, those who have them at home with out the factory complex,

all it takes is the accusation by someone who thinks they are better than you, few bother to question is it true, where animals are concerned its guilty until trial by media, online and gossip has run out of steam and ceased. I noticed all the headlines about the chihuahua breeder in vic suddenly went silent and how many weeks or months is it now since they and a neighbor were smothered in tar? the rage about the dead bodies was the neighbors property and a different breed but few noticed that minor hiccup in detail? as to charges laid the silence is deafening? charges sure were laid and frogmarched to court for that lady with the debarked tibetan spaniels as I recall she was facing some 60 years jail there were so many charges, furtunately for her although the chargeees said they had to seize the dogs and take her to court as their hands were tied, the legislation clearly stated she cannot show a dog in victoria if it was debarked in another state. no problem if its just a pet, but show it and your toast. lucky for her and her dogs the magistrate threw it out. thanks goodness that mans hands werent tied even though it was law even if a pretty incredibly stupid one. is it still there or been repealed?

but no matter even if no charges are ever laid their reputation is mud and the stuff rarely washes off successfully, the majority so targeted dissappear due to the distress and the finger pointer is satisfied, reminds me of the salem witch trials actually

The magistrate didn't throw it out and the law is still there.

[asal]

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

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

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

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

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

No doubt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have no trouble understanding what moosesmum said? everyone can be likened to a byb and a puppyfarmer, as it is all the true puppy farms are licensed and literally factory built, hundreds of square metres of concrete and shedding aka any modern piggery all equally legal, those who have them at home with out the factory complex,

all it takes is the accusation by someone who thinks they are better than you, few bother to question is it true, where animals are concerned its guilty until trial by media, online and gossip has run out of steam and ceased. I noticed all the headlines about the chihuahua breeder in vic suddenly went silent and how many weeks or months is it now since they and a neighbor were smothered in tar? the rage about the dead bodies was the neighbors property and a different breed but few noticed that minor hiccup in detail? as to charges laid the silence is deafening? charges sure were laid and frogmarched to court for that lady with the debarked tibetan spaniels as I recall she was facing some 60 years jail there were so many charges, furtunately for her although the chargeees said they had to seize the dogs and take her to court as their hands were tied, the legislation clearly stated she cannot show a dog in victoria if it was debarked in another state. no problem if its just a pet, but show it and your toast. lucky for her and her dogs the magistrate threw it out. thanks goodness that mans hands werent tied even though it was law even if a pretty incredibly stupid one. is it still there or been repealed?

but no matter even if no charges are ever laid their reputation is mud and the stuff rarely washes off successfully, the majority so targeted dissappear due to the distress and the finger pointer is satisfied, reminds me of the salem witch trials actually

The magistrate didn't throw it out and the law is still there.

so what eventually happened? I was told she got them back and wasn't sent to jail? think was did my head in was anyone from another state with their debarked dog can go to Victoria and show it and its not a chargeable offense, as its not illegal to show a debarked dog just illegal if its born in vic , debarked in another state and then exhibited in Victoria by a Victorian, ?

Edited August 10, 2016 by asal

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

No doubt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have no trouble understanding what moosesmum said? everyone can be likened to a byb and a puppyfarmer, as it is all the true puppy farms are licensed and literally factory built, hundreds of square metres of concrete and shedding aka any modern piggery all equally legal, those who have them at home with out the factory complex,

all it takes is the accusation by someone who thinks they are better than you, few bother to question is it true, where animals are concerned its guilty until trial by media, online and gossip has run out of steam and ceased. I noticed all the headlines about the chihuahua breeder in vic suddenly went silent and how many weeks or months is it now since they and a neighbor were smothered in tar? the rage about the dead bodies was the neighbors property and a different breed but few noticed that minor hiccup in detail? as to charges laid the silence is deafening? charges sure were laid and frogmarched to court for that lady with the debarked tibetan spaniels as I recall she was facing some 60 years jail there were so many charges, furtunately for her although the chargeees said they had to seize the dogs and take her to court as their hands were tied, the legislation clearly stated she cannot show a dog in victoria if it was debarked in another state. no problem if its just a pet, but show it and your toast. lucky for her and her dogs the magistrate threw it out. thanks goodness that mans hands werent tied even though it was law even if a pretty incredibly stupid one. is it still there or been repealed?

but no matter even if no charges are ever laid their reputation is mud and the stuff rarely washes off successfully, the majority so targeted dissappear due to the distress and the finger pointer is satisfied, reminds me of the salem witch trials actually

The magistrate didn't throw it out and the law is still there.

so what eventually happened? I was told she got them back and wasn't sent to jail? think was did my head in was anyone from another state with their debarked dog can go to Victoria and show it and its not a chargeable offense, as its not illegal to show a debarked dog just illegal if its born in vic , debarked in another state and then exhibited in Victoria by a Victorian, ?

Guilty and a fine -details were kept quiet. It is crazy and still hard to see how its possible.

[asal]

n the sheeple don't believe they are being targeted, that its just bad people and the disgusting puppy farmers?

Edited August 10, 2016 by asal

[Maddy]

alternatives that would actually fix the problem- not just more empty promises from the industry to change.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done???

50% of way the hell too many is still too many.

When you're breeding so many dogs that it would be impossible, even with pouring money into GAP, to rehome even a quarter that were bred per year, a reduction is not good enough.

Getting vet verification to euth will be no issue for the less scrupulous. I foresee an increase in "paddock accidents".

And the hundreds of thousands spent on research? Like the study that they spent $250,000 on, that was (according to leaked emails) nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to get the public off their backs?

If the above is what the industry considers sufficient change, the ban can't really have come of that much of a surprise?

[corvus]

alternatives that would actually fix the problem- not just more empty promises from the industry to change.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done???

50% of way the hell too many is still too many.

When you're breeding so many dogs that it would be impossible, even with pouring money into GAP, to rehome even a quarter that were bred per year, a reduction is not good enough.

Getting vet verification to euth will be no issue for the less scrupulous. I foresee an increase in "paddock accidents".

And the hundreds of thousands spent on research? Like the study that they spent $250,000 on, that was (according to leaked emails) nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to get the public off their backs?

If the above is what the industry considers sufficient change, the ban can't really have come of that much of a surprise?

Ahem. That is my research you are talking about that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on. Obviously I can't be objective on this issue seeing as I lost a lot of sleep over securing that tender and getting the project off the ground, and it seems like it might all be for nothing if other states don't pitch in to keep the study going. Nonetheless, I can assure you that it's not expensive smoke and mirrors. There are actual research agreements with milestones that must be met for the funding to keep flowing, and I don't get paid if the funding stops. The folks at GRNSW that I have been liaising with are serious about change. I am disappointed that I won't get the chance to help them and see it through. The wastage issue is not going to go away, though. The same problem exists in the horse racing industry, and in stock dogs as well. Anywhere the payoff to breed a lot of animals to get a few good ones is higher than it is to figure out how to breed good ones is going to have this problem to varying degrees. They might have reduced it to something more bearable, but likely it would have had a significant impact on the industry's financial viability. I still don't believe this is an animal welfare decision, though. Those really do not get money thrown at them as a rule, or risk upsetting a lot of voters. Be that as it may, it can be passed off as an animal welfare decision, and that seems to be how Baird wants to play it. Other industries facing similar controversy should be worried IMO.

[m-j]

alternatives that would actually fix the problem- not just more empty promises from the industry to change.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done???

50% of way the hell too many is still too many.

When you're breeding so many dogs that it would be impossible, even with pouring money into GAP, to rehome even a quarter that were bred per year, a reduction is not good enough.

Getting vet verification to euth will be no issue for the less scrupulous. I foresee an increase in "paddock accidents".

And the hundreds of thousands spent on research? Like the study that they spent $250,000 on, that was (according to leaked emails) nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to get the public off their backs?

If the above is what the industry considers sufficient change, the ban can't really have come of that much of a surprise?

That is a good effort in such a short time. Put other regulations in place with policing things can change and as I have said in the past and as Corvus just said it won't be viable for the industry to keep going but at least it would wind down slowly to enable the rescuers cope with the dogs, this way I hate to think what is going to happen to the existing dogs.

Re paddock injuries, if there are as many unscrupulous people as you give the impression that you think there are, that's a lot of corrupt vets you're talking about....do you really think it would be possible to happen in large numbers? I don't.

[Maddy]

alternatives that would actually fix the problem- not just more empty promises from the industry to change.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done???

50% of way the hell too many is still too many.

When you're breeding so many dogs that it would be impossible, even with pouring money into GAP, to rehome even a quarter that were bred per year, a reduction is not good enough.

Getting vet verification to euth will be no issue for the less scrupulous. I foresee an increase in "paddock accidents".

And the hundreds of thousands spent on research? Like the study that they spent $250,000 on, that was (according to leaked emails) nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to get the public off their backs?

If the above is what the industry considers sufficient change, the ban can't really have come of that much of a surprise?

Ahem. That is my research you are talking about that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on. Obviously I can't be objective on this issue seeing as I lost a lot of sleep over securing that tender and getting the project off the ground, and it seems like it might all be for nothing if other states don't pitch in to keep the study going. Nonetheless, I can assure you that it's not expensive smoke and mirrors. There are actual research agreements with milestones that must be met for the funding to keep flowing, and I don't get paid if the funding stops. *snip*

It's expensive when it was never intended to really be used in any meaningful way.

You, and whoever else was involved, were paid to make it look like the industry cared and wanted to fix all its problems. And this is not just my opinion, it's all public record now.

That doesn't mean the research can't be applied elsewhere but let's not pretend that GRNSW were actually looking to make meaningful changes.

Re paddock injuries, if there are as many unscrupulous people as you give the impression that you think there are, that's a lot of corrupt vets you're talking about....do you really think it would be possible to happen in large numbers? I don't.

I'm not suggesting vets would be as stupid as to falsify paperwork, I'm suggesting that faced with the prospect of having to hold dogs for GAP placements (or private rehoming)- something that would take up kennel space, time and money- that instead, dogs might come in to vets injured from "paddock accidents". Paddock accidents that weren't really accidents, if you're catching my drift?

And before anyone throws their hands up in the air and starts wailing about how ludicrous that is, bear in mind that a trainer who wants to destroy a young, healthy (and potentially rehomeable) dog is exactly the sort of person that the policy was introduced for. And they will find loopholes or ways to break the rules without risk of getting caught because that is what shitty people do.

[corvus]

alternatives that would actually fix the problem- not just more empty promises from the industry to change.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done???

50% of way the hell too many is still too many.

When you're breeding so many dogs that it would be impossible, even with pouring money into GAP, to rehome even a quarter that were bred per year, a reduction is not good enough.

Getting vet verification to euth will be no issue for the less scrupulous. I foresee an increase in "paddock accidents".

And the hundreds of thousands spent on research? Like the study that they spent $250,000 on, that was (according to leaked emails) nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to get the public off their backs?

If the above is what the industry considers sufficient change, the ban can't really have come of that much of a surprise?

Ahem. That is my research you are talking about that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on. Obviously I can't be objective on this issue seeing as I lost a lot of sleep over securing that tender and getting the project off the ground, and it seems like it might all be for nothing if other states don't pitch in to keep the study going. Nonetheless, I can assure you that it's not expensive smoke and mirrors. There are actual research agreements with milestones that must be met for the funding to keep flowing, and I don't get paid if the funding stops. *snip*

It's expensive when it was never intended to really be used in any meaningful way.

You, and whoever else was involved, were paid to make it look like the industry cared and wanted to fix all its problems. And this is not just my opinion, it's all public record now.

That doesn't mean the research can't be applied elsewhere but let's not pretend that GRNSW were actually looking to make meaningful changes.

There was an e-mail leak last year where management was talking about sinking some money into research to make everyone feel a bit more confident in the industry. By the time the research tender was put together, new people were in charge. If they just wanted to make people think they would change, they would not have sunk so much money into the research. There are two post-docs being funded by GRNSW at the moment, and post-docs cost three times more than PhD students, which is what the Working Dog Alliance report suggested. I like to think the best of people, but that doesn't mean I'm an idiot. I have spoken at length with those in charge now, and I am confident they are there precisely because they intend to drag the industry kicking and screaming if need be into the light.

[Maddy]

alternatives that would actually fix the problem- not just more empty promises from the industry to change.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done???

50% of way the hell too many is still too many.

When you're breeding so many dogs that it would be impossible, even with pouring money into GAP, to rehome even a quarter that were bred per year, a reduction is not good enough.

Getting vet verification to euth will be no issue for the less scrupulous. I foresee an increase in "paddock accidents".

And the hundreds of thousands spent on research? Like the study that they spent $250,000 on, that was (according to leaked emails) nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to get the public off their backs?

If the above is what the industry considers sufficient change, the ban can't really have come of that much of a surprise?

Ahem. That is my research you are talking about that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on. Obviously I can't be objective on this issue seeing as I lost a lot of sleep over securing that tender and getting the project off the ground, and it seems like it might all be for nothing if other states don't pitch in to keep the study going. Nonetheless, I can assure you that it's not expensive smoke and mirrors. There are actual research agreements with milestones that must be met for the funding to keep flowing, and I don't get paid if the funding stops. *snip*

It's expensive when it was never intended to really be used in any meaningful way.

You, and whoever else was involved, were paid to make it look like the industry cared and wanted to fix all its problems. And this is not just my opinion, it's all public record now.

That doesn't mean the research can't be applied elsewhere but let's not pretend that GRNSW were actually looking to make meaningful changes.

There was an e-mail leak last year where management was talking about sinking some money into research to make everyone feel a bit more confident in the industry. By the time the research tender was put together, new people were in charge. If they just wanted to make people think they would change, they would not have sunk so much money into the research. There are two post-docs being funded by GRNSW at the moment, and post-docs cost three times more than PhD students, which is what the Working Dog Alliance report suggested. I like to think the best of people, but that doesn't mean I'm an idiot. I have spoken at length with those in charge now, and I am confident they are there precisely because they intend to drag the industry kicking and screaming if need be into the light.

Why not? They had lost public trust and were facing intervention from the government. When you consider what the government's decision actually was, GRNSW didn't spend anywhere near what they should have and now, they stand to lose everything.

[corvus]

alternatives that would actually fix the problem- not just more empty promises from the industry to change.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done???

50% of way the hell too many is still too many.

When you're breeding so many dogs that it would be impossible, even with pouring money into GAP, to rehome even a quarter that were bred per year, a reduction is not good enough.

Getting vet verification to euth will be no issue for the less scrupulous. I foresee an increase in "paddock accidents".

And the hundreds of thousands spent on research? Like the study that they spent $250,000 on, that was (according to leaked emails) nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to get the public off their backs?

If the above is what the industry considers sufficient change, the ban can't really have come of that much of a surprise?

Ahem. That is my research you are talking about that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on. Obviously I can't be objective on this issue seeing as I lost a lot of sleep over securing that tender and getting the project off the ground, and it seems like it might all be for nothing if other states don't pitch in to keep the study going. Nonetheless, I can assure you that it's not expensive smoke and mirrors. There are actual research agreements with milestones that must be met for the funding to keep flowing, and I don't get paid if the funding stops. *snip*

It's expensive when it was never intended to really be used in any meaningful way.

You, and whoever else was involved, were paid to make it look like the industry cared and wanted to fix all its problems. And this is not just my opinion, it's all public record now.

That doesn't mean the research can't be applied elsewhere but let's not pretend that GRNSW were actually looking to make meaningful changes.

There was an e-mail leak last year where management was talking about sinking some money into research to make everyone feel a bit more confident in the industry. By the time the research tender was put together, new people were in charge. If they just wanted to make people think they would change, they would not have sunk so much money into the research. There are two post-docs being funded by GRNSW at the moment, and post-docs cost three times more than PhD students, which is what the Working Dog Alliance report suggested. I like to think the best of people, but that doesn't mean I'm an idiot. I have spoken at length with those in charge now, and I am confident they are there precisely because they intend to drag the industry kicking and screaming if need be into the light.

Why not? They had lost public trust and were facing intervention from the government. When you consider what the government's decision actually was, GRNSW didn't spend anywhere near what they should have and now, they stand to lose everything.

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

[moosmum]

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

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

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

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

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

No doubt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only the 'standard' minus any value that might be sought out side a show or trial ring. Because thats what is happening.

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

Not realities out side a show or trial ring.

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

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

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

Edited August 11, 2016 by moosmum

[Sheridan]

alternatives that would actually fix the problem- not just more empty promises from the industry to change.

How is a 50% reduction of dogs being bred in the last 17mths due to regulations being implemented, more swabs being done, regulations changed by the GRNSW to make owners accountable for their retired dogs and unable to euth them without a vet verifying that it needed to be done, 100's of 1000's being spent on research into better racing conditions and upgrading tracks, education for owners/trainers, more funds poured into GAP be seen as nothing being done???

50% of way the hell too many is still too many.

When you're breeding so many dogs that it would be impossible, even with pouring money into GAP, to rehome even a quarter that were bred per year, a reduction is not good enough.

Getting vet verification to euth will be no issue for the less scrupulous. I foresee an increase in "paddock accidents".

And the hundreds of thousands spent on research? Like the study that they spent $250,000 on, that was (according to leaked emails) nothing more than expensive smoke and mirrors to get the public off their backs?

If the above is what the industry considers sufficient change, the ban can't really have come of that much of a surprise?

Ahem. That is my research you are talking about that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on. Obviously I can't be objective on this issue seeing as I lost a lot of sleep over securing that tender and getting the project off the ground, and it seems like it might all be for nothing if other states don't pitch in to keep the study going. Nonetheless, I can assure you that it's not expensive smoke and mirrors. There are actual research agreements with milestones that must be met for the funding to keep flowing, and I don't get paid if the funding stops. *snip*

It's expensive when it was never intended to really be used in any meaningful way.

You, and whoever else was involved, were paid to make it look like the industry cared and wanted to fix all its problems. And this is not just my opinion, it's all public record now.

That doesn't mean the research can't be applied elsewhere but let's not pretend that GRNSW were actually looking to make meaningful changes.

Because the public can never be wrong. Presumably you can never be wrong either. How nice that you're so assured about that. I smell the whiff of fanaticism.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Sheridan

[Sheridan]

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

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

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

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

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

No doubt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not realities out side a show or trial ring.

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

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

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

IN ENGLISH.