Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[m-j]

I'm still confused as to how a government can force people to lose their livelihoods through the application of legislation but not force them to change by applying legislation so the industry can die slowly to allow rescue organisations to cope with the dogs that are going to made redundant.

How is it that they can appoint an administrator to close the industry but not to change it???

If it is such a concern why aren't the other states following suit???

What plans did they have in place for the poor dogs whose welfare is now very compromised..... the RSPCA who can't cope with the wastage from the pet industry???

[mystify]

Fact sheet from Canberra Greyhounds

http://canberragreyhoundfacts.com.au/the-facts

If this 'fact sheet' is the best they can come up with I don't think they will convince anyone! Just the first few things to jump out at me are

'We already know injuries and litters are just a fraction of what was guessed during the Inquiry'

Since when is 'We already know' evidence of anything? Who already knows, how do they already know? What evidence is there that "they" know anything? What "fraction" was it? The fraction could be 99% of what was guessed, it is still a fraction. This isn't a fact at all yet they have it listed on a fact sheet. Anyone can read a report and say 'I already know this is wrong', that doesn't prove anything as fact.

'The figure of "50-70%" of greyhound pups being euthanised is a fabrication, with less than one-tenth of that number being the actual figure - and most of that figure is for illness, old age and other'

Even if they were going to prove that the actual figure is less than one-tenth... they have just claimed that some of the greyhound PUPS euthanised were done so for reason of old age. Not a great way to state something as fact.

'Many rehomed greyhounds were previously counted as part of 'wastage' when they were actually healthy and happy pets'

How many is 'many'? 1,000? 15? It's just a meaningless thing to say, the word 'many' is completely subjective.

Looks like you can't read. They're saying that most greyhounds have died of old age, they were not killed. I have heaps of old greyhounds here, I am like most people in the industry, we prefer to keep our old greyhounds for ourselves as pets, we don't like giving away older greyhounds to rehoming groups. Plus, when people try to give older greyhounds to rehoming groups (I know for a fact, because I've been trying to save other trainer's retired greyhounds by helping to rehome them and their older greyhounds were always knocked back by these rehoming groups apparently because people don't want old greyhounds, they want cute puppies or young greyhounds. Just yesterday I asked a rescuer group if they could help my mum rehome 7 of the pet greyhounds (aged between 5 to 11) because the owner died 2 weeks ago of lung cancer and my mum is too ill to take them on herself due to her age, and the rescuer group said they can only help with the younger greys because they find them easier to rehome.)

If you look on my FB page friends list, you would see hundreds of them posting on their own walls, pics of their old greys lazing about on their lounge in the house. Most of these friends have between 1 to 18 pet greyhounds EACH. They've never given them away to be rehomed. This is why you don't see many older greyhounds in full sight, because trainers don't generally take them all out for walks in public. I certainly have never taken any of my 8 retired greys out in public as I don't trust the off leash/uncontrolled dogs (esp pitbull types, staffy types, doberman types, german shepherd types etc ) as so many pet owners are just plain irresponsible and don't care about training their pet dogs to be good dogs.

Years ago a unleashed Doberman took off from his owners while walking along a highway and he crossed the highway to charge at me walking my 3 greyhounds and it was only my frantic screams while I was trying to get the muzzles off my greys so they could defend themselves against this raving 50kgs monster, that brought a passerby to my rescue with a big stick to beat off the Doberman. He was still trying to mouth at my little grey's throat and I was screaming at the stupid owners to pull the dog off, they finally managed to pull him off but told me off for having greyhounds even though mine were on leads and muzzled.They didn't see anything wrong with their dog charging at my dogs unprovoked.

This is just one of the few incidents that's happened to me so 10 years ago I quit taking my greyhounds out in public and just preferred to let them potter on my acreage and gallop about in my paddock. They're happy and safe. And certainly living a longer life not being mauled every day by irresponsible owners' dogs.

[~Lisa~]

Fact sheet from Canberra Greyhounds

http://canberragreyhoundfacts.com.au/the-facts

If this 'fact sheet' is the best they can come up with I don't think they will convince anyone! Just the first few things to jump out at me are

'We already know injuries and litters are just a fraction of what was guessed during the Inquiry'

Since when is 'We already know' evidence of anything? Who already knows, how do they already know? What evidence is there that "they" know anything? What "fraction" was it? The fraction could be 99% of what was guessed, it is still a fraction. This isn't a fact at all yet they have it listed on a fact sheet. Anyone can read a report and say 'I already know this is wrong', that doesn't prove anything as fact.

'The figure of "50-70%" of greyhound pups being euthanised is a fabrication, with less than one-tenth of that number being the actual figure - and most of that figure is for illness, old age and other'

Even if they were going to prove that the actual figure is less than one-tenth... they have just claimed that some of the greyhound PUPS euthanised were done so for reason of old age. Not a great way to state something as fact.

'Many rehomed greyhounds were previously counted as part of 'wastage' when they were actually healthy and happy pets'

How many is 'many'? 1,000? 15? It's just a meaningless thing to say, the word 'many' is completely subjective.

Looks like you can't read. They're saying that most greyhounds have died of old age, they were not killed. I have heaps of old greyhounds here, I am like most people in the industry, we prefer to keep our old greyhounds for ourselves as pets, we don't like giving away older greyhounds to rehoming groups. Plus, when people try to give older greyhounds to rehoming groups (I know for a fact, because I've been trying to save other trainer's retired greyhounds by helping to rehome them and their older greyhounds were always knocked back by these rehoming groups apparently because people don't want old greyhounds, they want cute puppies or young greyhounds. Just yesterday I asked a rescuer group if they could help my mum rehome 7 of the pet greyhounds (aged between 5 to 11) because the owner died 2 weeks ago of lung cancer and my mum is too ill to take them on herself due to her age, and the rescuer group said they can only help with the younger greys because they find them easier to rehome.)

If you look on my FB page friends list, you would see hundreds of them posting on their own walls, pics of their old greys lazing about on their lounge in the house. Most of these friends have between 1 to 18 pet greyhounds EACH. They've never given them away to be rehomed. This is why you don't see many older greyhounds in full sight, because trainers don't generally take them all out for walks in public. I certainly have never taken any of my 8 retired greys out in public as I don't trust the off leash/uncontrolled dogs (esp pitbull types, staffy types, doberman types, german shepherd types etc ) as so many pet owners are just plain irresponsible and don't care about training their pet dogs to be good dogs.

Years ago a unleashed Doberman took off from his owners while walking along a highway and he crossed the highway to charge at me walking my 3 greyhounds and it was only my frantic screams while I was trying to get the muzzles off my greys so they could defend themselves against this raving 50kgs monster, that brought a passerby to my rescue with a big stick to beat off the Doberman. He was still trying to mouth at my little grey's throat and I was screaming at the stupid owners to pull the dog off, they finally managed to pull him off but told me off for having greyhounds even though mine were on leads and muzzled.They didn't see anything wrong with their dog charging at my dogs unprovoked.

This is just one of the few incidents that's happened to me so 10 years ago I quit taking my greyhounds out in public and just preferred to let them potter on my acreage and gallop about in my paddock. They're happy and safe. And certainly living a longer life not being mauled every day by irresponsible owners' dogs.

Ahh, I'm actually quite glad you explained that to me. I thought I was pointing out what nonsense it was that they used the term 'greyhound PUPS' (a pup being a young dog) and then said they had died of old age. But you must be right, the actual problem is that I don't know how to read. What a terrible shame it is that my illiteracy has stopped me from bothering with the utter drivel that was the rest of your post

[Sheridan]

Fact sheet from Canberra Greyhounds

http://canberragreyhoundfacts.com.au/the-facts

If this 'fact sheet' is the best they can come up with I don't think they will convince anyone! Just the first few things to jump out at me are

'We already know injuries and litters are just a fraction of what was guessed during the Inquiry'

Since when is 'We already know' evidence of anything? Who already knows, how do they already know? What evidence is there that "they" know anything? What "fraction" was it? The fraction could be 99% of what was guessed, it is still a fraction. This isn't a fact at all yet they have it listed on a fact sheet. Anyone can read a report and say 'I already know this is wrong', that doesn't prove anything as fact.

'The figure of "50-70%" of greyhound pups being euthanised is a fabrication, with less than one-tenth of that number being the actual figure - and most of that figure is for illness, old age and other'

Even if they were going to prove that the actual figure is less than one-tenth... they have just claimed that some of the greyhound PUPS euthanised were done so for reason of old age. Not a great way to state something as fact.

'Many rehomed greyhounds were previously counted as part of 'wastage' when they were actually healthy and happy pets'

How many is 'many'? 1,000? 15? It's just a meaningless thing to say, the word 'many' is completely subjective.

Looks like you can't read. They're saying that most greyhounds have died of old age, they were not killed. I have heaps of old greyhounds here, I am like most people in the industry, we prefer to keep our old greyhounds for ourselves as pets, we don't like giving away older greyhounds to rehoming groups. Plus, when people try to give older greyhounds to rehoming groups (I know for a fact, because I've been trying to save other trainer's retired greyhounds by helping to rehome them and their older greyhounds were always knocked back by these rehoming groups apparently because people don't want old greyhounds, they want cute puppies or young greyhounds. Just yesterday I asked a rescuer group if they could help my mum rehome 7 of the pet greyhounds (aged between 5 to 11) because the owner died 2 weeks ago of lung cancer and my mum is too ill to take them on herself due to her age, and the rescuer group said they can only help with the younger greys because they find them easier to rehome.)

If you look on my FB page friends list, you would see hundreds of them posting on their own walls, pics of their old greys lazing about on their lounge in the house. Most of these friends have between 1 to 18 pet greyhounds EACH. They've never given them away to be rehomed. This is why you don't see many older greyhounds in full sight, because trainers don't generally take them all out for walks in public. I certainly have never taken any of my 8 retired greys out in public as I don't trust the off leash/uncontrolled dogs (esp pitbull types, staffy types, doberman types, german shepherd types etc ) as so many pet owners are just plain irresponsible and don't care about training their pet dogs to be good dogs.

Years ago a unleashed Doberman took off from his owners while walking along a highway and he crossed the highway to charge at me walking my 3 greyhounds and it was only my frantic screams while I was trying to get the muzzles off my greys so they could defend themselves against this raving 50kgs monster, that brought a passerby to my rescue with a big stick to beat off the Doberman. He was still trying to mouth at my little grey's throat and I was screaming at the stupid owners to pull the dog off, they finally managed to pull him off but told me off for having greyhounds even though mine were on leads and muzzled.They didn't see anything wrong with their dog charging at my dogs unprovoked.

This is just one of the few incidents that's happened to me so 10 years ago I quit taking my greyhounds out in public and just preferred to let them potter on my acreage and gallop about in my paddock. They're happy and safe. And certainly living a longer life not being mauled every day by irresponsible owners' dogs.

Ahh, I'm actually quite glad you explained that to me. I thought I was pointing out what nonsense it was that they used the term 'greyhound PUPS' (a pup being a young dog) and then said they had died of old age. But you must be right, the actual problem is that I don't know how to read. What a terrible shame it is that my illiteracy has stopped me from bothering with the utter drivel that was the rest of your post

The rest of the post was (a) about dogs being attacked, (b) about people keeping their old greyhounds and © about rescue groups not wanting old dogs.

[asal]

I'm still confused as to how a government can force people to lose their livelihoods through the application of legislation but not force them to change by applying legislation so the industry can die slowly to allow rescue organisations to cope with the dogs that are going to made redundant.

How is it that they can appoint an administrator to close the industry but not to change it???

If it is such a concern why aren't the other states following suit???

What plans did they have in place for the poor dogs whose welfare is now very compromised..... the RSPCA who can't cope with the wastage from the pet industry???

it was posted before they will make some $170 $200 for every one put down, nice little money earner. as for the govt all that land now free for development. thats what counts , the sale of the nsw electricty utilities to china was stopped much to bairds fury and I cant blame him, every other state has had their sales cleared even the sale of darwain port, we will be as displaced as the original land owners by the time our govts has sold or leased everything they can at this rate anyway?

[m-j]

I'm still confused as to how a government can force people to lose their livelihoods through the application of legislation but not force them to change by applying legislation so the industry can die slowly to allow rescue organisations to cope with the dogs that are going to made redundant.

How is it that they can appoint an administrator to close the industry but not to change it???

If it is such a concern why aren't the other states following suit???

What plans did they have in place for the poor dogs whose welfare is now very compromised..... the RSPCA who can't cope with the wastage from the pet industry???

it was posted before they will make some $170 $200 for every one put down, nice little money earner. as for the govt all that land now free for development. thats what counts , the sale of the nsw electricty utilities to china was stopped much to bairds fury and I cant blame him, every other state has had their sales cleared even the sale of darwain port, we will be as displaced as the original land owners by the time our govts has sold or leased everything they can at this rate anyway?

Yes! but I thought it was $550, could be wrong. Yes they tried to get Wentworth Park about 7 tears ago I been told and that didn't work for them. The AR guys did the dirty work for them. The fact that people can loose their livelihoods on anecdotal evidence, as much of the report is based on, the way it was rushed through, all the good work that has been done to clean the industry up is ignored, kind of makes you think bye bye democracy.

Edited August 13, 2016 by m-j

[moosmum]

People who have dogs for ANY reason are part of a big community, with a common interest, and responsibility.

To dogs, And the communities they live in. Its a space we all share. So we have to find common values to make that work.

Its not a bunch of little communities with nothing in common. Separated by walls in their own world.

But we treat it like it is, so when things go wrong because we have 'Different' values we say how horrified we are and how unacceptable.

And it is.

But no one can take responsibility.

The ones who should have were in their own little world of different values. They failed on community values.

WE aren't responsible. WE have different values. But WE are not part of the general community either, so its not our responsibility. WE have a different identity.

That was their space, their identity and they blew it.

The values the community holds are common ones. Ones that we encourage as individuals. If enough people say the same thing it get pretty loud and Govt. has to listen.

Its ALWAYS going to be some other space or identity failing.

If we are targeted, We will claim people are out of touch and unrealistic, Its a small minority, most do the right thing. We are not responsible, can't be responsible for that.

But if thats your identity, you ARE responsible for what it is, and what it becomes. As long as your identity is distinct from all others.

If we had COMMON values and responsibility as a whole community, we'd find and share solutions to common problems, that can affect any one. We could listen to concerns. A serious breeder would be one who works to meet the expectations of those values, and we could play a part in teaching what they should be, by showing what CAN be.

But its not like that. Because we must preserve our identity as some thing else, some thing better, 1st.

So as the single community we realy are, all thats left to do is deleate the lowest common denominator.

In almost every problem that comes with having dogs, pedigree or mutt.

If some thing doesn't work for us, we must remove the lowest common denominator.

A group identity CAN'T be responsible for individuals who fail community expectations.

Theres a DIFFERENT measures of success. Different demands conditions and expectations. Those people have a different identity where success is some thing different. The priorities are different.

If your group identity is going to be its own private space, you will respond to THAT space and those priorities.

If we can't accept a COMMON identity and share things that help make it work, It CAN"T work for the majority who hold an interest.

So we we remove the lowest common denominator of the problem.

That all we can do because everything comes down to a group identity in a different space than our own.

Just look at almost any solutions we find to almost any problem concerning dogs. Because dog people have no common identity. Just problem ones.

We don't teach people what to expect, the best way to find it, how to manage it or why. Only whats expected of THEM by OUR group identity to be favored with membership.

Then wonder why fewer and fewer understand what to expect, how to find it or manage it. Thats not our responsibility. We say thats an individuals responsibility. If they fail, its their groups responsibility.

You can't have it both ways. Either we take responsibility for our own actions in the community, or groups are held responsible.

If retaining a distinct group identity holds more value for you than meeting community expectations, you can't.

Its just not going to work if we're all working from different places for different purpose. They are dogs no matter where they come from. They are all bred for man, Any breeders purpose is a dog.

We are all responsible for making sure its done as well as it can be. By talking openly about how and why we do things. Your values.

If they work with better results, the community benefits and will support them.

If it doesn't work, the community will demand better results. If you can't meet them AND keep your 'Prestige' as a part of an elite K.C identity, the K.C identity itself can't change. Its set as a group identity but only individual response can bring change.

Its impossible to eliminate the pieces of the world you won't live in, and keep it.

You can only be responsible for seeing your own little bit of the world works so well, people expect others to match the expectations you have set up.

Values are the things we do to make some thing work better. Values are a response to our purpose in the environment.

Yes, the pedigree is a value. But our purpose isn't to make Pedigrees work better. The purpose is DOGS, not pedigrees.

Pedigree is a value, not the purpose.

It can't be the purpose if its for dogs.

It can't be both value and purpose. You can't respond to that purpose as a group identity, separate from the community AND allow individuals to respond as the community demands and expects for DOGS. Not while the pedigree defines an identities purpose, instead of the dogs it should be.

The pedigrees value won't be recognized by the community if thats the single value that defines your purpose AND sets an identity as a breeder.

The community WILL recognize the value of pedigrees when individuals can respond to the pedigree as way to improve dogs, not JUST pedigrees.

And that means allowing pedigree dogs and their breeders to contribute to more than just pedigrees. Insisting that they do.

K.C culture as its set, makes the value of pedigrees their whole purpose.

It makes breeders reliant on a pedigree and a standard for their identity as 'good' breeders. A K.C breeder relies on meeting the needs of that identity, not the needs of the community.

They have found value in a pedigree and made that the purpose of their identity.

Instead of a value to add to a breeder identity.

Its not a value or a response to community any more, its a definition of community.

Edited August 14, 2016 by moosmum

[Rebanne]

I'm still confused as to how a government can force people to lose their livelihoods through the application of legislation but not force them to change by applying legislation so the industry can die slowly to allow rescue organisations to cope with the dogs that are going to made redundant.

How is it that they can appoint an administrator to close the industry but not to change it???

If it is such a concern why aren't the other states following suit???

What plans did they have in place for the poor dogs whose welfare is now very compromised..... the RSPCA who can't cope with the wastage from the pet industry???

according to a Greens page on FB they are going to have Greyhound sanctuaries where all the lucky greyhounds get to go. Pity he couldn't answer any of my questions such as what happens to the ones that can't be adopted out, what happens to the ones who could be adopted out but the homes aren't there, what's the timeline of these greyhounds etc

[Rebanne]

Fact sheet from Canberra Greyhounds

http://canberragreyhoundfacts.com.au/the-facts

If this 'fact sheet' is the best they can come up with I don't think they will convince anyone! Just the first few things to jump out at me are

'We already know injuries and litters are just a fraction of what was guessed during the Inquiry'

Since when is 'We already know' evidence of anything? Who already knows, how do they already know? What evidence is there that "they" know anything? What "fraction" was it? The fraction could be 99% of what was guessed, it is still a fraction. This isn't a fact at all yet they have it listed on a fact sheet. Anyone can read a report and say 'I already know this is wrong', that doesn't prove anything as fact.

'The figure of "50-70%" of greyhound pups being euthanised is a fabrication, with less than one-tenth of that number being the actual figure - and most of that figure is for illness, old age and other'

Even if they were going to prove that the actual figure is less than one-tenth... they have just claimed that some of the greyhound PUPS euthanised were done so for reason of old age. Not a great way to state something as fact.

'Many rehomed greyhounds were previously counted as part of 'wastage' when they were actually healthy and happy pets'

How many is 'many'? 1,000? 15? It's just a meaningless thing to say, the word 'many' is completely subjective.

Looks like you can't read. They're saying that most greyhounds have died of old age, they were not killed. I have heaps of old greyhounds here, I am like most people in the industry, we prefer to keep our old greyhounds for ourselves as pets, we don't like giving away older greyhounds to rehoming groups. Plus, when people try to give older greyhounds to rehoming groups (I know for a fact, because I've been trying to save other trainer's retired greyhounds by helping to rehome them and their older greyhounds were always knocked back by these rehoming groups apparently because people don't want old greyhounds, they want cute puppies or young greyhounds. Just yesterday I asked a rescuer group if they could help my mum rehome 7 of the pet greyhounds (aged between 5 to 11) because the owner died 2 weeks ago of lung cancer and my mum is too ill to take them on herself due to her age, and the rescuer group said they can only help with the younger greys because they find them easier to rehome.)

If you look on my FB page friends list, you would see hundreds of them posting on their own walls, pics of their old greys lazing about on their lounge in the house. Most of these friends have between 1 to 18 pet greyhounds EACH. They've never given them away to be rehomed. This is why you don't see many older greyhounds in full sight, because trainers don't generally take them all out for walks in public. I certainly have never taken any of my 8 retired greys out in public as I don't trust the off leash/uncontrolled dogs (esp pitbull types, staffy types, doberman types, german shepherd types etc ) as so many pet owners are just plain irresponsible and don't care about training their pet dogs to be good dogs.

Years ago a unleashed Doberman took off from his owners while walking along a highway and he crossed the highway to charge at me walking my 3 greyhounds and it was only my frantic screams while I was trying to get the muzzles off my greys so they could defend themselves against this raving 50kgs monster, that brought a passerby to my rescue with a big stick to beat off the Doberman. He was still trying to mouth at my little grey's throat and I was screaming at the stupid owners to pull the dog off, they finally managed to pull him off but told me off for having greyhounds even though mine were on leads and muzzled.They didn't see anything wrong with their dog charging at my dogs unprovoked.

This is just one of the few incidents that's happened to me so 10 years ago I quit taking my greyhounds out in public and just preferred to let them potter on my acreage and gallop about in my paddock. They're happy and safe. And certainly living a longer life not being mauled every day by irresponsible owners' dogs.

Ahh, I'm actually quite glad you explained that to me. I thought I was pointing out what nonsense it was that they used the term 'greyhound PUPS' (a pup being a young dog) and then said they had died of old age. But you must be right, the actual problem is that I don't know how to read. What a terrible shame it is that my illiteracy has stopped me from bothering with the utter drivel that was the rest of your post

The rest of the post was (a) about dogs being attacked, (b) about people keeping their old greyhounds and © about rescue groups not wanting old dogs.

Hardly drivel. I don't walk my greyhounds around the streets either, too many twits and nasty dogs.

[melzawelza]

Fact sheet from Canberra Greyhounds

http://canberragreyhoundfacts.com.au/the-facts

If this 'fact sheet' is the best they can come up with I don't think they will convince anyone! Just the first few things to jump out at me are

'We already know injuries and litters are just a fraction of what was guessed during the Inquiry'

Since when is 'We already know' evidence of anything? Who already knows, how do they already know? What evidence is there that "they" know anything? What "fraction" was it? The fraction could be 99% of what was guessed, it is still a fraction. This isn't a fact at all yet they have it listed on a fact sheet. Anyone can read a report and say 'I already know this is wrong', that doesn't prove anything as fact.

'The figure of "50-70%" of greyhound pups being euthanised is a fabrication, with less than one-tenth of that number being the actual figure - and most of that figure is for illness, old age and other'

Even if they were going to prove that the actual figure is less than one-tenth... they have just claimed that some of the greyhound PUPS euthanised were done so for reason of old age. Not a great way to state something as fact.

'Many rehomed greyhounds were previously counted as part of 'wastage' when they were actually healthy and happy pets'

How many is 'many'? 1,000? 15? It's just a meaningless thing to say, the word 'many' is completely subjective.

Looks like you can't read. They're saying that most greyhounds have died of old age, they were not killed. I have heaps of old greyhounds here, I am like most people in the industry, we prefer to keep our old greyhounds for ourselves as pets, we don't like giving away older greyhounds to rehoming groups. Plus, when people try to give older greyhounds to rehoming groups (I know for a fact, because I've been trying to save other trainer's retired greyhounds by helping to rehome them and their older greyhounds were always knocked back by these rehoming groups apparently because people don't want old greyhounds, they want cute puppies or young greyhounds. Just yesterday I asked a rescuer group if they could help my mum rehome 7 of the pet greyhounds (aged between 5 to 11) because the owner died 2 weeks ago of lung cancer and my mum is too ill to take them on herself due to her age, and the rescuer group said they can only help with the younger greys because they find them easier to rehome.)

If you look on my FB page friends list, you would see hundreds of them posting on their own walls, pics of their old greys lazing about on their lounge in the house. Most of these friends have between 1 to 18 pet greyhounds EACH. They've never given them away to be rehomed. This is why you don't see many older greyhounds in full sight, because trainers don't generally take them all out for walks in public. I certainly have never taken any of my 8 retired greys out in public as I don't trust the off leash/uncontrolled dogs (esp pitbull types, staffy types, doberman types, german shepherd types etc ) as so many pet owners are just plain irresponsible and don't care about training their pet dogs to be good dogs.

Years ago a unleashed Doberman took off from his owners while walking along a highway and he crossed the highway to charge at me walking my 3 greyhounds and it was only my frantic screams while I was trying to get the muzzles off my greys so they could defend themselves against this raving 50kgs monster, that brought a passerby to my rescue with a big stick to beat off the Doberman. He was still trying to mouth at my little grey's throat and I was screaming at the stupid owners to pull the dog off, they finally managed to pull him off but told me off for having greyhounds even though mine were on leads and muzzled.They didn't see anything wrong with their dog charging at my dogs unprovoked.

This is just one of the few incidents that's happened to me so 10 years ago I quit taking my greyhounds out in public and just preferred to let them potter on my acreage and gallop about in my paddock. They're happy and safe. And certainly living a longer life not being mauled every day by irresponsible owners' dogs.

"Nothing wrong with the industry, no such thing as wastage, my friends keep their dogs until they are old so no one kills young healthy dogs for no reason".

I can't figure out whether you're in denial or simply willing to lie and ignore facts in order to protect your industry, but either way your posts are a perfect example of why the industry can't and won't change and the only option is to shut it down.

Edited August 13, 2016 by melzawelza

[~Lisa~]

Hardly drivel. I don't walk my greyhounds around the streets either, too many twits and nasty dogs.

I understand the concept of there being twits and nasty dogs on the street. My elderly greyhound had a few dozen stitches after a cat attacked her in her own backyard, I understand they can be vulnerable. She didn't have a muzzle on but her lack of teeth leaves her in a similar position.

I don't see how that relates to a 'fact sheet' which has been so poorly written it would surely be nothing but a disservice to it's cause.

I think Maddy and melzawelza have said it well in their lasts few posts. What they say is far more consistent with what knowledge I already had on the topic. I have been keeping up with this thread because I'm interested to learn more about both sides of the argument, but when someone is posting facts that aren't facts, and backing it up with saying their facebook buddies have old dogs so that must mean no one kills young dogs ("my friends keep their dogs until they are old so no one kills young healthy dogs for no reason")... It seems this quote from Maddy sums it up in the end.

The claim that only old or unwell greyhounds are euthanased is utter horse shit.

Edited August 13, 2016 by ~Lisa~

[mystify]

The most important thing people outside the industry have to consider, if they can think for themselves and see for themselves instead of blindly following the words of their corrupt Govt:

1. Industry participants HAVE NEVER denied that the industry isn't perfect, that there are a number of bad trainers who treat greyhounds like commodities and have a turnstile through their kennels to keep the good dogs coming in and the slow dogs going out.

2. They've never denied either that there have been live baiting going on, in years past it used to happen a fair bit with a lot of trainers, however luckily it has been phrased out over recent years by people that were willing to move with the times and to respect the laws.

3. Reforms have already been happening in the last few years, with more regulations and more concern on welfare issues, all of which were being addressed.

4. Most important of all, greyhound racing participants are not allowed by law to take matters into their own hands, they joined the industry thinking that all they had to do was do the right thing themselves and it was the responsibility of their racing authority to keep an eye on things and to enforce the laws and do regular surprise inspections on every single property of licensed trainers.

5. Yes there are too many greyhounds being euthanized for being too slow or not up to scratch, this was being addressed by new welfare regulations in the last 2 years who are now getting on top of this huge issue.

6. The report has been found to be flawed by prominent lawyers as it did not provide appropriate evidence, most of the submissions did not have evidence and relied on anecdotes and guesstimate figures as well as using inappropriate witnesses who had an agenda in wishing the sport shut down.

7. The 3 vets who gave submissions in the report, were later found to not have the necessary qualifications and were found to have lied, so at the moment, they are currently being investigated by AVA.

8. I don't have time to go through every website and post links to all the appropriate evidences and news updates from lawyers who have taken apart the report, but if you google enough times you'll find out for yourself that it is absolutely fact that the report is full of holes.

Because the racing authority didn't do their job, now 90% of law abiding greyhound trainers and breeders are going to be punished for something the other 10% did? The public cannot say that trainers knew about bad stuff and did nothing, because the public wouldn't even know about the number of trainers that reported illegal activities to their racing authority yet the officials either did nothing to investigate the reports or only gave the bad trainers a slap on the wrist with a small fine and short suspension.

People shouldn't judge each individual based on what others are doing. For eg, I'm a pretty much a homebody spending all my time with my dogs, so I don't know what my next door neighbour is doing. Then one day, the police comes to my door to arrest me and take my dogs away from me, apparently because my neighbour has been live baiting and cruelly abusing his dogs, so I must have known about it or either be doing the same thing.

The world has gone mad when a corrupt Govt can punish a whole society just because a bunch of vegan Greens and Animals Australia says the industry is 100% full of cruel live baiting trainers.

Sad times indeed that we live in...:-(

Edited August 13, 2016 by mystify

[The Spotted Devil]

So who does Greyhounds Australasia represent? They reported a euthanasia rate nationally of 58%.

[The Spotted Devil]

From Volume 2:

GA estimated that:

• 7,000 greyhounds a year did not make it to the track (40% of all greyhounds whelped);

• the industry sponsored Greyhounds As Pets (“GAP”) program rehomed around 6% of all pre- raced and retired greyhounds; and

• the industry was responsible for the deaths of anywhere between 13,000 and 17,000 healthy greyhounds a year.

Subject to the qualifications below, these figures suggest that between approximately 74% and 97% of the industry’s greyhounds are destroyed at some point at or before the age of approximately 4.5 years (at birth, prior to naming, after naming or upon retirement from racing).

(Report goes on to list qualifications and a detailed response to each - read it here: http://www.greyhoundracinginquiry.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Report-SCI-Greyhound-Racing-Industry-NSW-Volume-2.pdf )

[mystify]

From Volume 2:

GA estimated that:

• 7,000 greyhounds a year did not make it to the track (40% of all greyhounds whelped);

• the industry sponsored Greyhounds As Pets (“GAP”) program rehomed around 6% of all pre- raced and retired greyhounds; and

• the industry was responsible for the deaths of anywhere between 13,000 and 17,000 healthy greyhounds a year.

Subject to the qualifications below, these figures suggest that between approximately 74% and 97% of the industry’s greyhounds are destroyed at some point at or before the age of approximately 4.5 years (at birth, prior to naming, after naming or upon retirement from racing).

(Report goes on to list qualifications and a detailed response to each - read it here: http://www.greyhoundracinginquiry.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Report-SCI-Greyhound-Racing-Industry-NSW-Volume-2.pdf )

GA later retracted their findings as it was found to be misleading and not based on actual figures. It was found that they made incorrect calculations when they did not have the full figure of actual live greyhounds that never went to GAP nor were reported deceased. The figure was later changed to a lower percentage of deaths per year, I can't remember what it was but it was approx 10% on average per year that didn't survive including those pups in a litter that died of diseases, illnesses, killed by their dams, etc

Based on industry breeding figures, it's impossible to kill 17000 dogs in a single year. On average we need over 10,000 to race, 3000 to maintain those numbers via breeding (including sires), and the remaining 4000 would be made in GAP and private re-homing, with the exception of the now known "wastage" rate of 6.9%. Also keep in mind that breeding numbers are down by 46%, so your numbers are grossly outdated and false. See Greyhounds Australasia for confirmation. http://www.galtd.org.au/industry/australasian-statistics

Injury rates are very low when you consider we have around 350,000 starters every year. So based on the public perception of 200 injuries every week, means we have an injury rate of 2.97%. But just so you know, regulators around the nation are working to bring those already impressive numbers down even further. And it's worth noting those figures include minor injuries, including minor cuts or abrasions and minor muscle strains. Visit here for more details: http://www.racingtoarespectedfuture.com.au/

Living conditions are very strict. In Victoria alone, they are bound by a government code of practice, complete with standards of living. These standards are the highest in the world, and the dogs are better cared for than most pets. In fact when you consider who cares for their dogs better, you only have to look at the rate pet dogs are going into RSPCA shelters. And only 70% make it out alive, compared to greyhound racing 93.1% that make it from the whelping box to the couch. Visit here for more details: http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/pe…/domestic-animal-businesses

Edited August 14, 2016 by mystify

[Sheridan]

Fact sheet from Canberra Greyhounds

http://canberragreyhoundfacts.com.au/the-facts

If this 'fact sheet' is the best they can come up with I don't think they will convince anyone! Just the first few things to jump out at me are

'We already know injuries and litters are just a fraction of what was guessed during the Inquiry'

Since when is 'We already know' evidence of anything? Who already knows, how do they already know? What evidence is there that "they" know anything? What "fraction" was it? The fraction could be 99% of what was guessed, it is still a fraction. This isn't a fact at all yet they have it listed on a fact sheet. Anyone can read a report and say 'I already know this is wrong', that doesn't prove anything as fact.

'The figure of "50-70%" of greyhound pups being euthanised is a fabrication, with less than one-tenth of that number being the actual figure - and most of that figure is for illness, old age and other'

Even if they were going to prove that the actual figure is less than one-tenth... they have just claimed that some of the greyhound PUPS euthanised were done so for reason of old age. Not a great way to state something as fact.

'Many rehomed greyhounds were previously counted as part of 'wastage' when they were actually healthy and happy pets'

How many is 'many'? 1,000? 15? It's just a meaningless thing to say, the word 'many' is completely subjective.

Looks like you can't read. They're saying that most greyhounds have died of old age, they were not killed. I have heaps of old greyhounds here, I am like most people in the industry, we prefer to keep our old greyhounds for ourselves as pets, we don't like giving away older greyhounds to rehoming groups. Plus, when people try to give older greyhounds to rehoming groups (I know for a fact, because I've been trying to save other trainer's retired greyhounds by helping to rehome them and their older greyhounds were always knocked back by these rehoming groups apparently because people don't want old greyhounds, they want cute puppies or young greyhounds. Just yesterday I asked a rescuer group if they could help my mum rehome 7 of the pet greyhounds (aged between 5 to 11) because the owner died 2 weeks ago of lung cancer and my mum is too ill to take them on herself due to her age, and the rescuer group said they can only help with the younger greys because they find them easier to rehome.)

If you look on my FB page friends list, you would see hundreds of them posting on their own walls, pics of their old greys lazing about on their lounge in the house. Most of these friends have between 1 to 18 pet greyhounds EACH. They've never given them away to be rehomed. This is why you don't see many older greyhounds in full sight, because trainers don't generally take them all out for walks in public. I certainly have never taken any of my 8 retired greys out in public as I don't trust the off leash/uncontrolled dogs (esp pitbull types, staffy types, doberman types, german shepherd types etc ) as so many pet owners are just plain irresponsible and don't care about training their pet dogs to be good dogs.

Years ago a unleashed Doberman took off from his owners while walking along a highway and he crossed the highway to charge at me walking my 3 greyhounds and it was only my frantic screams while I was trying to get the muzzles off my greys so they could defend themselves against this raving 50kgs monster, that brought a passerby to my rescue with a big stick to beat off the Doberman. He was still trying to mouth at my little grey's throat and I was screaming at the stupid owners to pull the dog off, they finally managed to pull him off but told me off for having greyhounds even though mine were on leads and muzzled.They didn't see anything wrong with their dog charging at my dogs unprovoked.

This is just one of the few incidents that's happened to me so 10 years ago I quit taking my greyhounds out in public and just preferred to let them potter on my acreage and gallop about in my paddock. They're happy and safe. And certainly living a longer life not being mauled every day by irresponsible owners' dogs.

Ahh, I'm actually quite glad you explained that to me. I thought I was pointing out what nonsense it was that they used the term 'greyhound PUPS' (a pup being a young dog) and then said they had died of old age. But you must be right, the actual problem is that I don't know how to read. What a terrible shame it is that my illiteracy has stopped me from bothering with the utter drivel that was the rest of your post

The rest of the post was (a) about dogs being attacked, (b) about people keeping their old greyhounds and © about rescue groups not wanting old dogs.

Hardly drivel. I don't walk my greyhounds around the streets either, too many twits and nasty dogs.

Exactly. Lisa may not be illiterate but her comprehension skills need some work.

[Steve]

The most important thing people outside the industry have to consider, if they can think for themselves and see for themselves instead of blindly following the words of their corrupt Govt:

1. Industry participants HAVE NEVER denied that the industry isn't perfect, that there are a number of bad trainers who treat greyhounds like commodities and have a turnstile through their kennels to keep the good dogs coming in and the slow dogs going out.

2. They've never denied either that there have been live baiting going on, in years past it used to happen a fair bit with a lot of trainers, however luckily it has been phrased out over recent years by people that were willing to move with the times and to respect the laws.

3. Reforms have already been happening in the last few years, with more regulations and more concern on welfare issues, all of which were being addressed.

4. Most important of all, greyhound racing participants are not allowed by law to take matters into their own hands, they joined the industry thinking that all they had to do was do the right thing themselves and it was the responsibility of their racing authority to keep an eye on things and to enforce the laws and do regular surprise inspections on every single property of licensed trainers.

5. Yes there are too many greyhounds being euthanized for being too slow or not up to scratch, this was being addressed by new welfare regulations in the last 2 years who are now getting on top of this huge issue.

6. The report has been found to be flawed by prominent lawyers as it did not provide appropriate evidence, most of the submissions did not have evidence and relied on anecdotes and guesstimate figures as well as using inappropriate witnesses who had an agenda in wishing the sport shut down.

7. The 3 vets who gave submissions in the report, were later found to not have the necessary qualifications and were found to have lied, so at the moment, they are currently being investigated by AVA.

8. I don't have time to go through every website and post links to all the appropriate evidences and news updates from lawyers who have taken apart the report, but if you google enough times you'll find out for yourself that it is absolutely fact that the report is full of holes.

Because the racing authority didn't do their job, now 90% of law abiding greyhound trainers and breeders are going to be punished for something the other 10% did? The public cannot say that trainers knew about bad stuff and did nothing, because the public wouldn't even know about the number of trainers that reported illegal activities to their racing authority yet the officials either did nothing to investigate the reports or only gave the bad trainers a slap on the wrist with a small fine and short suspension.

People shouldn't judge each individual based on what others are doing. For eg, I'm a pretty much a homebody spending all my time with my dogs, so I don't know what my next door neighbour is doing. Then one day, the police comes to my door to arrest me and take my dogs away from me, apparently because my neighbour has been live baiting and cruelly abusing his dogs, so I must have known about it or either be doing the same thing.

The world has gone mad when a corrupt Govt can punish a whole society just because a bunch of vegan Greens and Animals Australia says the industry is 100% full of cruel live baiting trainers.

Sad times indeed that we live in...:-(

[The Spotted Devil]

From Volume 2:

GA estimated that:

• 7,000 greyhounds a year did not make it to the track (40% of all greyhounds whelped);

• the industry sponsored Greyhounds As Pets (“GAP”) program rehomed around 6% of all pre- raced and retired greyhounds; and

• the industry was responsible for the deaths of anywhere between 13,000 and 17,000 healthy greyhounds a year.

Subject to the qualifications below, these figures suggest that between approximately 74% and 97% of the industry’s greyhounds are destroyed at some point at or before the age of approximately 4.5 years (at birth, prior to naming, after naming or upon retirement from racing).

(Report goes on to list qualifications and a detailed response to each - read it here: http://www.greyhoundracinginquiry.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Report-SCI-Greyhound-Racing-Industry-NSW-Volume-2.pdf )

GA later retracted their findings as it was found to be misleading and not based on actual figures. It was found that they made incorrect calculations when they did not have the full figure of actual live greyhounds that never went to GAP nor were reported deceased. The figure was later changed to a lower percentage of deaths per year, I can't remember what it was but it was approx 10% on average per year that didn't survive including those pups in a litter that died of diseases, illnesses, killed by their dams, etc

Based on industry breeding figures, it's impossible to kill 17000 dogs in a single year. On average we need over 10,000 to race, 3000 to maintain those numbers via breeding (including sires), and the remaining 4000 would be made in GAP and private re-homing, with the exception of the now known "wastage" rate of 6.9%. Also keep in mind that breeding numbers are down by 46%, so your numbers are grossly outdated and false. See Greyhounds Australasia for confirmation. http://www.galtd.org.au/industry/australasian-statistics

Injury rates are very low when you consider we have around 350,000 starters every year. So based on the public perception of 200 injuries every week, means we have an injury rate of 2.97%. But just so you know, regulators around the nation are working to bring those already impressive numbers down even further. And it's worth noting those figures include minor injuries, including minor cuts or abrasions and minor muscle strains. Visit here for more details: http://www.racingtoarespectedfuture.com.au/

Living conditions are very strict. In Victoria alone, they are bound by a government code of practice, complete with standards of living. These standards are the highest in the world, and the dogs are better cared for than most pets. In fact when you consider who cares for their dogs better, you only have to look at the rate pet dogs are going into RSPCA shelters. And only 70% make it out alive, compared to greyhound racing 93.1% that make it from the whelping box to the couch. Visit here for more details: http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/pe…/domestic-animal-businesses

Don't quote BS RSPCA stats. If you want to talk about euth rates nationally they are freely available. 15% for dogs. I'm not pro-RSPCA nor am I anti-Greyhound Racing. I'm interested in accountability and facts. They're not MY numbers by the way. I'm quoting from Vol 2 of the Commision's report. GA's own highly confidential report submitted to the board. GA have publicly stated 58% euth rate (radio interview ABC) following the release of the report.

[HazyWal]

From Volume 2:

GA estimated that:

• 7,000 greyhounds a year did not make it to the track (40% of all greyhounds whelped);

• the industry sponsored Greyhounds As Pets (“GAP”) program rehomed around 6% of all pre- raced and retired greyhounds; and

• the industry was responsible for the deaths of anywhere between 13,000 and 17,000 healthy greyhounds a year.

Subject to the qualifications below, these figures suggest that between approximately 74% and 97% of the industry’s greyhounds are destroyed at some point at or before the age of approximately 4.5 years (at birth, prior to naming, after naming or upon retirement from racing).

(Report goes on to list qualifications and a detailed response to each - read it here: http://www.greyhoundracinginquiry.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Report-SCI-Greyhound-Racing-Industry-NSW-Volume-2.pdf )

Yes the good old GA that just threw out a figure of 17,000 with no thought to it at all when all of a sudden they thought "oops, hang on that can't be right there wouldn't be enough dogs to race!". Of course within about 30 seconds of that figure being announced the anti's jumped on it like seagulls on a chip, scurrying around raking in money from the sheeple and whacking up billboards all over the joint emblazoned with "17,000 dogs die!!!!!" Or 18,000 if you live in Brisbane, hell I've seen the figure of 30,000 from the frothing with excitement anti brigade. GA retracted the figure later but really, if they had retracted that 2 seconds later it would of made no difference. They claimed the back track from GA was lies, of course, because you can't let the truth get in the way of a good story. As the old saying goes "A lie can make it's way around the world before the truth has even put it's shoes on"

GA later retracted their findings as it was found to be misleading and not based on actual figures. It was found that they made incorrect calculations when they did not have the full figure of actual live greyhounds that never went to GAP nor were reported deceased. The figure was later changed to a lower percentage of deaths per year, I can't remember what it was but it was approx 10% on average per year that didn't survive including those pups in a litter that died of diseases, illnesses, killed by their dams, etc

Based on industry breeding figures, it's impossible to kill 17000 dogs in a single year. On average we need over 10,000 to race, 3000 to maintain those numbers via breeding (including sires), and the remaining 4000 would be made in GAP and private re-homing, with the exception of the now known "wastage" rate of 6.9%. Also keep in mind that breeding numbers are down by 46%, so your numbers are grossly outdated and false. See Greyhounds Australasia for confirmation. http://www.galtd.org.au/industry/australasian-statistics

Injury rates are very low when you consider we have around 350,000 starters every year. So based on the public perception of 200 injuries every week, means we have an injury rate of 2.97%. But just so you know, regulators around the nation are working to bring those already impressive numbers down even further. And it's worth noting those figures include minor injuries, including minor cuts or abrasions and minor muscle strains. Visit here for more details: http://www.racingtoarespectedfuture.com.au/

Living conditions are very strict. In Victoria alone, they are bound by a government code of practice, complete with standards of living. These standards are the highest in the world, and the dogs are better cared for than most pets. In fact when you consider who cares for their dogs better, you only have to look at the rate pet dogs are going into RSPCA shelters. And only 70% make it out alive, compared to greyhound racing 93.1% that make it from the whelping box to the couch. Visit here for more details: http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/pe…/domestic-animal-businesses

[HazyWal]

I have no idea how my post got lost in the middle of TSD and mystifies post but this was it.

Yes the good old GA that just threw out a figure of 17,000 with no thought to it at all when all of a sudden they thought "oops, hang on that can't be right there wouldn't be enough dogs to race!". Of course within about 30 seconds of that figure being announced the anti's jumped on it like seagulls on a chip, scurrying around raking in money from the sheeple and whacking up billboards all over the joint emblazoned with "17,000 dogs die!!!!!" Or 18,000 if you live in Brisbane, hell I've seen the figure of 30,000 from the frothing with excitement anti brigade. GA retracted the figure later but really, if they had retracted that 2 seconds later it would of made no difference. They claimed the back track from GA was lies, of course, because you can't let the truth get in the way of a good story. As the old saying goes "A lie can make it's way around the world before the truth has even put it's shoes on"