Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[m-j]

and most of the rest of them would have been killed in the coming 2-4 years.

As I have said right from the beginning of this thread (and the thread that was started after the live baiting) this wouldn't happen if the government introduced legislation that required the breeders to register the pups at two weeks of age and to do this they needed to pay a fee of several thousand per pup that goes to an independent body that keeps that money until the dog is retired then it is used to enable the dog to go into a rescue organisation and have it's life after racing funded until it is rehomed into a pet home. The legislation could even cover the dogs that are already existing No registration, no racing, makes breeding the pups a wasted exercise in the first place and a huge waste of money for them. Ultrasounds could also be made compulsory so they can't get out of paying the thousands to register the pups. If the numbers on the ground don't tally up to the ultrasound a vet needs to verify why or that all is legitimate.

No breeder is going to euth pups at an early age and blow the thousands it has cost them just to get the pups on the ground. Not to mention they could be euthing the next Brett Lee.

This would help keep the numbers of pups being bred down and ensure they have a chance to live out their lives. If this was the case the owner/breeders who have gone into this to make money will think very seriously about breeding their bitch as it is hard enough to sell them as it is let alone having to add another several thousand to the price of the pups. Will it see the demise of the industry? possibly, but at least the dogs that would have been in it would have been be safe. The way it is they aren't all safe.

Edited August 17, 2016 by m-j

[Rebanne]

Well I was watching the news and Coleman himself said he anticipated the majority would be euthanised going on previous kill rates for the previous year.

That is a very different statement to what you posted above. Stop exaggerating and being ridiculous.

And I'm no fan of the RSPCA. Their kill stats are abhorrent. But he did not say that every single greyhound that comes to them will be slaughtered no questions asked.

Pointing to RSPCA kill stats is classic diversion tactics. Again the industry and its supporters try to just point the finger away from their own failings rather than accept the unacceptable issues from within. This is exactly why shutting down the industry is the only answer.

Now, anyone want to provide any evidence of the move to erode pet ownership in the many countries that banned Greyhound racing long ago? Or is that all just scaremongering and sky is falling reactions from those who think that the level of 'wastage' needed to support people gambling is just fine and dandy? I think I know which it is...

Could you please post the names of the countries that have banned grey racing?

The USA for one has banned it in almost all States for some time.

As for your quote - again, that is NOT what Asal said, which is that all Greyhounds will be automatically slaughtered without even being given a chance. I want a source for that quote (there isn't one, beecause it was never said).

No they haven't. What has been banned is betting. Big difference.

[Steve]

Well I was watching the news and Coleman himself said he anticipated the majority would be euthanised going on previous kill rates for the previous year.

That is a very different statement to what you posted above. Stop exaggerating and being ridiculous.

And I'm no fan of the RSPCA. Their kill stats are abhorrent. But he did not say that every single greyhound that comes to them will be slaughtered no questions asked.

Pointing to RSPCA kill stats is classic diversion tactics. Again the industry and its supporters try to just point the finger away from their own failings rather than accept the unacceptable issues from within. This is exactly why shutting down the industry is the only answer.

Now, anyone want to provide any evidence of the move to erode pet ownership in the many countries that banned Greyhound racing long ago? Or is that all just scaremongering and sky is falling reactions from those who think that the level of 'wastage' needed to support people gambling is just fine and dandy? I think I know which it is...

Could you please post the names of the countries that have banned grey racing?

The USA for one has banned it in almost all States for some time.

As for your quote - again, that is NOT what Asal said, which is that all Greyhounds will be automatically slaughtered without even being given a chance. I want a source for that quote (there isn't one, beecause it was never said).

No they haven't. What has been banned is betting. Big difference.

USA Link

[The Spotted Devil]

So, I guess you support game hunters too... maybe also live exports... Cock fighting... There are people who are denied an opportunity to work in these industries too. It doesn't make them right, moral or just.

I am far from an animal welfare nutter. I know how government's work. I'm not a lefty, nor am I overly swaying to the right. I understand how legislation is created, debated and passed by peers.

I am 100% supportive of the ban.

This is 2016. Greyhound racing is a deplorable sport. We sacrifice dogs for our sporting pleasure. I read all of the arguments and some of it reminds me of another time. The time when docking was first banned. The world was going to come crashing down I was told. Tail injuries were being recorded. 'You'll see' everyone said. This ban is wrong.

12 years on and life continues and all dogs now wag tails instead of stubs. The sky didn't fall. The purebred world didn't disappear. So too shall this pass. A period of adjustment will be a certainty, just like with docking and then life will continue on.

No I don't support game hunters, cock fighting or anything that is cruel and I consider a sport cruel when the end result is certain injury or death or anything the animal involved in it, given a choice, wouldn't participate. Try walking a greyhound past the entrance to an area where they know they have the opportunity to have a free run without them indicating they want to go in there, it is a very very sick Greyhound that doesn't want to go in and have that run.

Tail docking doesn't even vaguely compare to dogs doing something they were very much bred to and LOVE to do.

Why is Greyhound racing, done as it should be with all on a level playing field and the wastage issue addressed, a deplorable sport?? From my experience the dogs don't agree with you. They would rather have a run than lie on a couch the only time a couch would take precedence is if they are tired after their run. As I have mentioned before a track is about the safest place for them to do this.

Completely different. Greyhound racing is a beautiful sport for canine athletes doing what they love. Nothing to do with people. Cock fighting, bull fighting, dog fighting rings etc are blood sports. Greyhound racing is not a blood sport. You rarely see dogs killed while racing. Horse racing isn't a blood sport either.

Plus people who say lamb tail docking is cruel, really don't have the sheep's welfare in mind. Are we going to ban farmers for docking lamb tails (which isn't cruel imo and I live on a sheep property) or letting sickly lambs die in the paddock? I love animals but God didn't intend for us to put animals above us. Who cares about dead lambs in the paddocks? Nature intended them to die, only the strongest should survive.

I don't believe in live export either, it's cruel.

Perhaps we should ban people from having kids, simply because we see so many abused children in society. So it's rather silly to ban the entire industry (greyhounds are working dogs first and foremost, they need to race to satisfy their competitive instincts) instead of getting rid of some of the scumbags in the industry.

So now you're talking about ethical decisions - which is fine. If you believe in God. Christian stewardship is no more or less valid as an ethical choice than Utilitarianism or Animal Rights. But don't mistake these ethical choices for discussions around animal welfare science.

[melzawelza]

Well I was watching the news and Coleman himself said he anticipated the majority would be euthanised going on previous kill rates for the previous year.

That is a very different statement to what you posted above. Stop exaggerating and being ridiculous.

And I'm no fan of the RSPCA. Their kill stats are abhorrent. But he did not say that every single greyhound that comes to them will be slaughtered no questions asked.

Pointing to RSPCA kill stats is classic diversion tactics. Again the industry and its supporters try to just point the finger away from their own failings rather than accept the unacceptable issues from within. This is exactly why shutting down the industry is the only answer.

Now, anyone want to provide any evidence of the move to erode pet ownership in the many countries that banned Greyhound racing long ago? Or is that all just scaremongering and sky is falling reactions from those who think that the level of 'wastage' needed to support people gambling is just fine and dandy? I think I know which it is...

Could you please post the names of the countries that have banned grey racing?

The USA for one has banned it in almost all States for some time.

As for your quote - again, that is NOT what Asal said, which is that all Greyhounds will be automatically slaughtered without even being given a chance. I want a source for that quote (there isn't one, because it was never said).

Some states in the USA doesn't count as a country so if we dont know what countries have banned it how do you expect us to answer your question? The USA is over run by PETA freaks who push for all manner of nutty things and just because the USA do anything regarding animals,trade wages, or people, presidents or wars is not reference for us following suit. USA pushes for desexing all animals and Norway makes it illegal. An assumption that things are the same worldwide are on par with an assumption that most involved here are the bad guys.

If the facts point to a ban being justified then why the gag on parliamentary debate and natural justice being delivered. This isn't just about the greys its about how a group of fanatics have been able to press their opinion and will upon a group they dont agree with without due process.

You are missing my point. Many here are stating that banning greyhound racing will open up the floodgates for the end of pet dogs. 43 (I think) of 50 US states banned greyhound racing some time ago. There are only a couple of states left with an active industry. If one equals the other, where is the push to end pet ownership? Where is the slippery slope? What legislation has followed that took away people's rights to own pets?

The answer is none because it is absurd to equate the two. Recognising that it is unacceptable for an industry to kill tens of thousands of dogs in a ten year period as 'wastage' so that people can gamble (not to mention all the other issues) and ending that industry for welfare reasons in no way relates to stopping people from owning pets. People can gamble on something other than living beings that suffer based on our greed.

Thank you for your posts Anne. Heartbreaking,

[Steve]

Well I was watching the news and Coleman himself said he anticipated the majority would be euthanised going on previous kill rates for the previous year.

That is a very different statement to what you posted above. Stop exaggerating and being ridiculous.

And I'm no fan of the RSPCA. Their kill stats are abhorrent. But he did not say that every single greyhound that comes to them will be slaughtered no questions asked.

Pointing to RSPCA kill stats is classic diversion tactics. Again the industry and its supporters try to just point the finger away from their own failings rather than accept the unacceptable issues from within. This is exactly why shutting down the industry is the only answer.

Now, anyone want to provide any evidence of the move to erode pet ownership in the many countries that banned Greyhound racing long ago? Or is that all just scaremongering and sky is falling reactions from those who think that the level of 'wastage' needed to support people gambling is just fine and dandy? I think I know which it is...

Could you please post the names of the countries that have banned grey racing?

The USA for one has banned it in almost all States for some time.

As for your quote - again, that is NOT what Asal said, which is that all Greyhounds will be automatically slaughtered without even being given a chance. I want a source for that quote (there isn't one, because it was never said).

Some states in the USA doesn't count as a country so if we dont know what countries have banned it how do you expect us to answer your question? The USA is over run by PETA freaks who push for all manner of nutty things and just because the USA do anything regarding animals,trade wages, or people, presidents or wars is not reference for us following suit. USA pushes for desexing all animals and Norway makes it illegal. An assumption that things are the same worldwide are on par with an assumption that most involved here are the bad guys.

If the facts point to a ban being justified then why the gag on parliamentary debate and natural justice being delivered. This isn't just about the greys its about how a group of fanatics have been able to press their opinion and will upon a group they dont agree with without due process.

You are missing my point. Many here are stating that banning greyhound racing will open up the floodgates for the end of pet dogs. 43 (I think) of 50 US states banned greyhound racing some time ago. There are only a couple of states left with an active industry. If one equals the other, where is the push to end pet ownership? Where is the slippery slope? What legislation has followed that took away people's rights to own pets?

The answer is none because it is absurd to equate the two. Recognising that it is unacceptable for an industry to kill tens of thousands of dogs in a ten year period as 'wastage' so that people can gamble (not to mention all the other issues) and ending that industry for welfare reasons in no way relates to stopping people from owning pets. People can gamble on something other than living beings that suffer based on our greed.

Thank you for your posts Anne. Heartbreaking,

This kind of fear is basic human behaviour which is set in us since caveman days .We are programmed to hear a twig snap and fear the worst . In this case some of the people you are interacting with have some pretty horrific situations which they have experienced that wont allow them to think the twig snapping may be someone coming to bring them dinner rather than coming to take away all they hold dear.

Recent history shows us that each time we turn around there is some new law regarding breeding and owning dogs, BSL, where we can take them ,how many we can own what we can do with them,where and how we can advertise them, where we can sell them,how we are to feed them, when we can mate them etc.

Any activity regarding dogs has had a shot or two lodged at it but especially the show ring via pedigree dogs exposed and any type of breeding . It's a non stop constant barrage and now we see something happening that is completely overlooking the human impact shutting down any opportunity for those affected feeling they have been given a fair go and for those of us watching seeing how easy it has all been to simply decide to change the rules and get away with it.

Why would anyone who gets hammered everyday for daring to have an opinion that doesn't fit with the nutters where the majority have learned to keep their campfires low and stay off the track and don't raise their voices or their heads tell anyone where they live or how many dogs they own because the AR might come after them not hear the twigs snapping and think its something coming to eat them? You may not think that an industry that is accused of killing thousands of dogs a year as wastage is the same as numbers of other dogs in pounds being considered wastage and the stated cruelty of the greyhound industry is not the same in the big scheme of things shouted about by animal rights as the accusations of cruelty in almost every area of dog ownership but its pushed every time we turn around and if you think the fanatics who yell and scream aren't thinking what comes next I'm thinking you may have missed a bit.

So for you the two may not be linked but that doesn't mean there is no basis for the fear or that the feelings and fears of the humans should be so easily tossed off.

[m-j]

Why is it a deplorable sport? Really? Do you really believe that a sport that uses a living thing, that cannot speak up, and one that revolves around money and gambling is going to ever be clean, wholesome and healthy?

As it was yes it was deplorable but as I said on a level playing field and legislation introduced as I have mentioned many times in previous posts and that legislation policed I think it could be changed. In the past policies were introduced but not policed (one inspection in 10 years that we knew was going to happen is not good policing, I would have welcomed more surprise inspections as we had nothing to hide)which makes them hardly worth the paper they were printed on.

I don't blame you or anybody for thinking the way you do (I have cursed owners myself, paid their vet bills but I took the dog with the exception of one) but to completely ban the industry I don't believe is the way forward for all the reasons I have mentioned, the biggest being this way is a certain death sentence for many of the existing dogs. I also believe if this goes Australia wide it WILL go underground and that it is definitely doable. If people can live bait on a track and there is only one instance of it being filmed, shouldn't be too hard.

[The Spotted Devil]

Then people who are owners, breeders, guardians of their breed need to step up. Just look at what's happened, incrementally, to my favourite breed of cat, the Burmese, because of show ring trends - from a stunningly athletic oriental without exaggeration to a snub nose cat with weeping eyes. I'll never have another one unless I can find a Euro style breeder. The Scottish Fold is another - people argue until they're blue in the face that they should have the RIGHT to breed these cats, every single one of which will suffer from painful arthritis from a young age. And if I get a Dalmatian again it will be from a breeder who is selecting for LUA. Seriously. If you don't want Governent to legislate you out of existence then step up and demonstrate best practice - this is how I breed, this is how I train and this is how I care for my pets. I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it's there for everyone to see. And you would be surprised how well received I am by some of the "animal rights nutters."

Edited August 17, 2016 by The Spotted Devil

[m-j]

Oops double post

Edited August 17, 2016 by m-j

[m-j]

Then people who are owners, breeders, guardians of their breed need to step up. Just look at what's happened, incrementally, to my favourite breed of cat, the Burmese, because of show ring trends - from a stunningly athletic oriental without exaggeration to a snub nose cat with weeping eyes. I'll never have another one unless I can find a Euro style breeder. The Scottish Fold is another - people argue until they're blue in the face that they should have the RIGHT to breed these cats, every single one of which will suffer from painful arthritis from a young age. And if I get a Dalmatian again it will be from a breeder who is selecting for LUA. Seriously. If you don't want Governent to legislate you out of existence then step up and demonstrate best practice - this is how I breed, this is how I train and this is how I care for my pets. I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it's there for everyone to see. And you would be surprised how well received I am by some of the "animal rights nutters."

Couldn't agree with you more but unfortunately there is an element in the industry that needs to be forced into that. People can adjust their business practise the way things are at the moment most business' are having to do that nobody has the money to spend they used to have. Bit OT aren't Burmese great cats, they are my favourite too with the exception of my moggy I have now.

[The Spotted Devil]

Then people who are owners, breeders, guardians of their breed need to step up. Just look at what's happened, incrementally, to my favourite breed of cat, the Burmese, because of show ring trends - from a stunningly athletic oriental without exaggeration to a snub nose cat with weeping eyes. I'll never have another one unless I can find a Euro style breeder. The Scottish Fold is another - people argue until they're blue in the face that they should have the RIGHT to breed these cats, every single one of which will suffer from painful arthritis from a young age. And if I get a Dalmatian again it will be from a breeder who is selecting for LUA. Seriously. If you don't want Governent to legislate you out of existence then step up and demonstrate best practice - this is how I breed, this is how I train and this is how I care for my pets. I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it's there for everyone to see. And you would be surprised how well received I am by some of the "animal rights nutters."

Couldn't agree with you more but unfortunately there is an element in the industry that needs to be forced into that. People can adjust their business practise the way things are at the moment most business' are having to do that nobody has the money to spend they used to have. Bit OT aren't Burmese great cats, they are my favourite too with the exception of my moggy I have now.

(Yes I love my Burms to pieces)

So...changing attitudes is difficult but part of that is influenced by what your workmates, friends, mentors think. And whilst large scale education campaigns are ideal they are expensive and unrealistic. As is legislation as it's so difficult to enforce. So be that ripple of change. You don't need to shout it from the roof tops. You don't need to criticise others. Be that person who is not afraid of using positive reinforcement in a room full of trainers who won't use food, that person who shares a joyous celebration with their dog after every competition run no matter the result, that person who freely shares their breeding practices and knowledge, that person who always strives to be better. As a wise person once told me....even a tsunami starts with a ripple.

Edited August 17, 2016 by The Spotted Devil

[Steve]

Then people who are owners, breeders, guardians of their breed need to step up. Just look at what's happened, incrementally, to my favourite breed of cat, the Burmese, because of show ring trends - from a stunningly athletic oriental without exaggeration to a snub nose cat with weeping eyes. I'll never have another one unless I can find a Euro style breeder. The Scottish Fold is another - people argue until they're blue in the face that they should have the RIGHT to breed these cats, every single one of which will suffer from painful arthritis from a young age. And if I get a Dalmatian again it will be from a breeder who is selecting for LUA. Seriously. If you don't want Governent to legislate you out of existence then step up and demonstrate best practice - this is how I breed, this is how I train and this is how I care for my pets. I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it's there for everyone to see. And you would be surprised how well received I am by some of the "animal rights nutters."

Couldn't agree with you more but unfortunately there is an element in the industry that needs to be forced into that. People can adjust their business practise the way things are at the moment most business' are having to do that nobody has the money to spend they used to have. Bit OT aren't Burmese great cats, they are my favourite too with the exception of my moggy I have now.

(Yes I love my Burms to pieces)

So...changing attitudes is difficult but part of that is influenced by what your workmates, friends, mentors think. And whilst large scale education campaigns are ideal they are expensive and unrealistic. As is legislation as it's so difficult to enforce. So be that ripple of change. You don't need to shout it from the roof tops. You don't need to criticise others. Be that person who is not afraid of using positive reinforcement in a room full of trainers who won't use food, that person who shares a joyous celebration with their dog after every competition run no matter the result, that person who freely shares their breeding practices and knowledge, that person who always strives to be better. As a wise person once told me....even a tsunami starts with a ripple.

Except that many greyhound breeders were doing that and all they get for it now is acknowledgement that some were doing the right thing and were innocent. They have still been judged as part of the group and nothing any one individual with a ripple or a wave has made any difference.

[Pjrt]

Try to tell me that greyhound breeders trainers owners didn't know there was live baiting and mass graves etc and I'll tell you I don't believe it. The good people let bad things happen and therefore are somewhat complicit and partly responsible for what led to this ban. Good people chose to go home and clean up there own house and hope the bad people would too, or just go away, or not be seen or heard.

But it's because the good greyhound people didn't string their bad apples on the fence for everyone to see that things have turned out the way they have. They should have exposed the shit going on instead of turning a blind eye and shuffling around with their heads down

[mystify]

Well I was watching the news and Coleman himself said he anticipated the majority would be euthanised going on previous kill rates for the previous year.

That is a very different statement to what you posted above. Stop exaggerating and being ridiculous.

And I'm no fan of the RSPCA. Their kill stats are abhorrent. But he did not say that every single greyhound that comes to them will be slaughtered no questions asked.

Pointing to RSPCA kill stats is classic diversion tactics. Again the industry and its supporters try to just point the finger away from their own failings rather than accept the unacceptable issues from within. This is exactly why shutting down the industry is the only answer.

Now, anyone want to provide any evidence of the move to erode pet ownership in the many countries that banned Greyhound racing long ago? Or is that all just scaremongering and sky is falling reactions from those who think that the level of 'wastage' needed to support people gambling is just fine and dandy? I think I know which it is...

Could you please post the names of the countries that have banned grey racing?

The USA for one has banned it in almost all States for some time.

As for your quote - again, that is NOT what Asal said, which is that all Greyhounds will be automatically slaughtered without even being given a chance. I want a source for that quote (there isn't one, because it was never said).

Some states in the USA doesn't count as a country so if we dont know what countries have banned it how do you expect us to answer your question? The USA is over run by PETA freaks who push for all manner of nutty things and just because the USA do anything regarding animals,trade wages, or people, presidents or wars is not reference for us following suit. USA pushes for desexing all animals and Norway makes it illegal. An assumption that things are the same worldwide are on par with an assumption that most involved here are the bad guys.

If the facts point to a ban being justified then why the gag on parliamentary debate and natural justice being delivered. This isn't just about the greys its about how a group of fanatics have been able to press their opinion and will upon a group they dont agree with without due process.

Actually that is misinformation by Baird and co... greyhound racing IS NOT banned in USA. I think according to reports I've read, only one or two tracks out of a dozen in USA closed down the tracks because of costs, not because it was banned, but of course the animal killing charities PETA and Greys2k jumped on and took the credit for the tracks closing down lol

[mystify]

Try to tell me that greyhound breeders trainers owners didn't know there was live baiting and mass graves etc and I'll tell you I don't believe it. The good people let bad things happen and therefore are somewhat complicit and partly responsible for what led to this ban. Good people chose to go home and clean up there own house and hope the bad people would too, or just go away, or not be seen or heard.

But it's because the good greyhound people didn't string their bad apples on the fence for everyone to see that things have turned out the way they have. They should have exposed the shit going on instead of turning a blind eye and shuffling around with their heads down

Then you're judging people to be all bad, very harsh. I actually have known of live baiting years ago and witnessed it plenty of times and have reported it plenty of times to grnsw but guess what, plenty of other trainers have reported it to grnsw too, in the hope the authority would get off their bums and do something about stopping it but noooo, we cop the thin end of the stick, grnsw either didn't believe us or didn't investigate thoroughly (evidence probably hidden away before officials arrived) so the cases were always closed without any action being taken.

so how can you as an ignorant society blame us for something that is clearly the fault of a governmental body for not doing anything about it? We paid huge fees to register as an owner/trainer, register our pups, register for breeding, register for every bloody thing under the sun and yet we're not being protected like we should be by a government body that is taking our money and not working to help keep the industry clean??

That's what really frustrates me, we're not policemen, we've dobbed trainers in plenty of times, but they still get away because of the government's incompetence/or lazy blindness.

Also re earlier post about registering pups at 2 weeks old, every greyhound pup born is always registered at 2 weeks old, form has to be handed in to notify Grnsw before pups are 2 weeks old, about how many there are in the litter, how many dogs/bitches and if there are any stillborns or deaths. Puppies can die from FPS, (fading puppy syndrome)birth defects, genetic anomolies within hours/days of birth so to suggest that the breeder is sneakily killing off pups just to have less pups to pay registrations for, is pretty laughable.

Every breeder I know, always whinge when there's a small litter, because they all want a big litter. the more pups, the merrier! They don't care about how much it cost to feed them all. They can sell the pups for $500 each if they have to make a quick sale to pay for the rest of the litter's feed.

Edited August 17, 2016 by mystify

[Steve]

Try to tell me that greyhound breeders trainers owners didn't know there was live baiting and mass graves etc and I'll tell you I don't believe it. The good people let bad things happen and therefore are somewhat complicit and partly responsible for what led to this ban. Good people chose to go home and clean up there own house and hope the bad people would too, or just go away, or not be seen or heard.

But it's because the good greyhound people didn't string their bad apples on the fence for everyone to see that things have turned out the way they have. They should have exposed the shit going on instead of turning a blind eye and shuffling around with their heads down

Yeah well that all sounds good too except from all reports people did report it and the admin didnt act and didnt see anything wrong with it and I happen to think that some practices that go on in purebred dog breeding are cruel and as far as I can see the shit that is going on has been exposed over and over.

Take a good look through threads here and see what happens when someone tries to expose the shit that's going on. Governments are focused on trivial regs controlling even the most ridiculous decisions a breeder can make,everyone wants to beat a drum because they think that someone who has more than an average number of dogs is cruel and the real cruelty is as plain as the dogs faces and everyone in the whole bloody world had a fair idea live baiting was going on. I was warned 15 years ago to keep an eye on my cats because some were being used in the local area for live baiting. It was only bad if they used someone's pet.

The people who participated in live baiting didnt have a clue that others would judge them so harshly I mean seriously you have a government who just sent in a pack of wild dogs to use goats as live bait and literally slaughter them and even better inject a slow release poison to get rid of their wastage ! Do you see purebred breeders who breed dogs that have huge health problems due to their conformation see anything wrong in what they do. So what exactly is it that you could expect good people to do when they have no evidence and only hear about it ?

Why would they think mass graves is a problem - would it be better if each were buried separately and given a headstone and most who have seen both options agree that a quick bullet is less cruel than a needle.

Deciding to have your dog put down still isnt illegal or cruel - its not nice and arguable wastage but who exactly should they report to about someone who euthanizes their own animals and buries them in one spot, they may even let their mates use the same spot to do the same and how is that something that some good people should do something about You cant just go stringing apples out on the fence if that means it puts you and your dogs at risk or if you have no evidence that the apples even really exist or if they do proving who they are.

If you knew your neighbour was burying their dogs in one spot when they were legally able to do it as a good person how would you be somewhat complicit and partly responsible for this bad thing happening ? Its only recently that its been spoken if as if its not a good thing by the industry and that's mainly only because its not politically correct not because all of a sudden they see it any differently because most of them see nothing wrong with it just as those who bump off puppies that dont have a ridge or which are born white etc dont see it as an issue.

[melzawelza]

Well I was watching the news and Coleman himself said he anticipated the majority would be euthanised going on previous kill rates for the previous year.

That is a very different statement to what you posted above. Stop exaggerating and being ridiculous.

And I'm no fan of the RSPCA. Their kill stats are abhorrent. But he did not say that every single greyhound that comes to them will be slaughtered no questions asked.

Pointing to RSPCA kill stats is classic diversion tactics. Again the industry and its supporters try to just point the finger away from their own failings rather than accept the unacceptable issues from within. This is exactly why shutting down the industry is the only answer.

Now, anyone want to provide any evidence of the move to erode pet ownership in the many countries that banned Greyhound racing long ago? Or is that all just scaremongering and sky is falling reactions from those who think that the level of 'wastage' needed to support people gambling is just fine and dandy? I think I know which it is...

Could you please post the names of the countries that have banned grey racing?

The USA for one has banned it in almost all States for some time.

As for your quote - again, that is NOT what Asal said, which is that all Greyhounds will be automatically slaughtered without even being given a chance. I want a source for that quote (there isn't one, because it was never said).

Some states in the USA doesn't count as a country so if we dont know what countries have banned it how do you expect us to answer your question? The USA is over run by PETA freaks who push for all manner of nutty things and just because the USA do anything regarding animals,trade wages, or people, presidents or wars is not reference for us following suit. USA pushes for desexing all animals and Norway makes it illegal. An assumption that things are the same worldwide are on par with an assumption that most involved here are the bad guys.

If the facts point to a ban being justified then why the gag on parliamentary debate and natural justice being delivered. This isn't just about the greys its about how a group of fanatics have been able to press their opinion and will upon a group they dont agree with without due process.

Actually that is misinformation by Baird and co... greyhound racing IS NOT banned in USA. I think according to reports I've read, only one or two tracks out of a dozen in USA closed down the tracks because of costs, not because it was banned, but of course the animal killing charities PETA and Greys2k jumped on and took the credit for the tracks closing down lol

Seriously? It is not information that is hard to find.

" Currently, 40 states and the territory of Guam have standing laws banning the practice, and 5 more states, Connecticut, Kansas, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin, do not practise greyhound racing despite the practice not being illegal there.[44]"

From the Wikipedia entry for greyhound racing (yes I'm aware of the limitations of Wikipedia. It has a legit citation).

[Steve]

Well I was watching the news and Coleman himself said he anticipated the majority would be euthanised going on previous kill rates for the previous year.

That is a very different statement to what you posted above. Stop exaggerating and being ridiculous.

And I'm no fan of the RSPCA. Their kill stats are abhorrent. But he did not say that every single greyhound that comes to them will be slaughtered no questions asked.

Pointing to RSPCA kill stats is classic diversion tactics. Again the industry and its supporters try to just point the finger away from their own failings rather than accept the unacceptable issues from within. This is exactly why shutting down the industry is the only answer.

Now, anyone want to provide any evidence of the move to erode pet ownership in the many countries that banned Greyhound racing long ago? Or is that all just scaremongering and sky is falling reactions from those who think that the level of 'wastage' needed to support people gambling is just fine and dandy? I think I know which it is...

Could you please post the names of the countries that have banned grey racing?

The USA for one has banned it in almost all States for some time.

As for your quote - again, that is NOT what Asal said, which is that all Greyhounds will be automatically slaughtered without even being given a chance. I want a source for that quote (there isn't one, because it was never said).

Some states in the USA doesn't count as a country so if we dont know what countries have banned it how do you expect us to answer your question? The USA is over run by PETA freaks who push for all manner of nutty things and just because the USA do anything regarding animals,trade wages, or people, presidents or wars is not reference for us following suit. USA pushes for desexing all animals and Norway makes it illegal. An assumption that things are the same worldwide are on par with an assumption that most involved here are the bad guys.

If the facts point to a ban being justified then why the gag on parliamentary debate and natural justice being delivered. This isn't just about the greys its about how a group of fanatics have been able to press their opinion and will upon a group they dont agree with without due process.

Actually that is misinformation by Baird and co... greyhound racing IS NOT banned in USA. I think according to reports I've read, only one or two tracks out of a dozen in USA closed down the tracks because of costs, not because it was banned, but of course the animal killing charities PETA and Greys2k jumped on and took the credit for the tracks closing down lol

Seriously? It is not information that is hard to find.

" Currently, 40 states and the territory of Guam have standing laws banning the practice, and 5 more states, Connecticut, Kansas, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin, do not practise greyhound racing despite the practice not being illegal there.[44]"

From the Wikipedia entry for greyhound racing (yes I'm aware of the limitations of Wikipedia. It has a legit citation).

True but that isnt a lot of countries we could reference to answer your original question see consequences and give a fair response I also note that in the states it actually came about primarily as it was losing money due to competitive gambling venues and the addition of the ability to gamble on other things to gamble on at the tracks. they also have a different system where the doggers have their own union and are able to dictate how much they will get from the purse etc .The way you worded your post it implied there were lots of countries that had banned it and that we could judge whether or not there had been any negative consequences.

Any info from the states is no evidence of what may or may not happen next here and just because it doesn't fit in with those who are screaming for everyone's rights to be taken from them without a whimper doesnt mean its not real to others who fear they will also lose more of their rights as dog owners and breeders.

[asal]

Well I was watching the news and Coleman himself said he anticipated the majority would be euthanised going on previous kill rates for the previous year.

That is a very different statement to what you posted above. Stop exaggerating and being ridiculous.

And I'm no fan of the RSPCA. Their kill stats are abhorrent. But he did not say that every single greyhound that comes to them will be slaughtered no questions asked.

Pointing to RSPCA kill stats is classic diversion tactics. Again the industry and its supporters try to just point the finger away from their own failings rather than accept the unacceptable issues from within. This is exactly why shutting down the industry is the only answer.

Now, anyone want to provide any evidence of the move to erode pet ownership in the many countries that banned Greyhound racing long ago? Or is that all just scaremongering and sky is falling reactions from those who think that the level of 'wastage' needed to support people gambling is just fine and dandy? I think I know which it is...

Could you please post the names of the countries that have banned grey racing?

The USA for one has banned it in almost all States for some time.

As for your quote - again, that is NOT what Asal said, which is that all Greyhounds will be automatically slaughtered without even being given a chance. I want a source for that quote (there isn't one, because it was never said).

Some states in the USA doesn't count as a country so if we dont know what countries have banned it how do you expect us to answer your question? The USA is over run by PETA freaks who push for all manner of nutty things and just because the USA do anything regarding animals,trade wages, or people, presidents or wars is not reference for us following suit. USA pushes for desexing all animals and Norway makes it illegal. An assumption that things are the same worldwide are on par with an assumption that most involved here are the bad guys.

If the facts point to a ban being justified then why the gag on parliamentary debate and natural justice being delivered. This isn't just about the greys its about how a group of fanatics have been able to press their opinion and will upon a group they dont agree with without due process.

You are missing my point. Many here are stating that banning greyhound racing will open up the floodgates for the end of pet dogs. 43 (I think) of 50 US states banned greyhound racing some time ago. There are only a couple of states left with an active industry. If one equals the other, where is the push to end pet ownership? Where is the slippery slope? What legislation has followed that took away people's rights to own pets?

The answer is none because it is absurd to equate the two. Recognising that it is unacceptable for an industry to kill tens of thousands of dogs in a ten year period as 'wastage' so that people can gamble (not to mention all the other issues) and ending that industry for welfare reasons in no way relates to stopping people from owning pets. People can gamble on something other than living beings that suffer based on our greed.

Thank you for your posts Anne. Heartbreaking,

This kind of fear is basic human behaviour which is set in us since caveman days .We are programmed to hear a twig snap and fear the worst . In this case some of the people you are interacting with have some pretty horrific situations which they have experienced that wont allow them to think the twig snapping may be someone coming to bring them dinner rather than coming to take away all they hold dear.

Recent history shows us that each time we turn around there is some new law regarding breeding and owning dogs, BSL, where we can take them ,how many we can own what we can do with them,where and how we can advertise them, where we can sell them,how we are to feed them, when we can mate them etc.

Any activity regarding dogs has had a shot or two lodged at it but especially the show ring via pedigree dogs exposed and any type of breeding . It's a non stop constant barrage and now we see something happening that is completely overlooking the human impact shutting down any opportunity for those affected feeling they have been given a fair go and for those of us watching seeing how easy it has all been to simply decide to change the rules and get away with it.

Why would anyone who gets hammered everyday for daring to have an opinion that doesn't fit with the nutters where the majority have learned to keep their campfires low and stay off the track and don't raise their voices or their heads tell anyone where they live or how many dogs they own because the AR might come after them not hear the twigs snapping and think its something coming to eat them? You may not think that an industry that is accused of killing thousands of dogs a year as wastage is the same as numbers of other dogs in pounds being considered wastage and the stated cruelty of the greyhound industry is not the same in the big scheme of things shouted about by animal rights as the accusations of cruelty in almost every area of dog ownership but its pushed every time we turn around and if you think the fanatics who yell and scream aren't thinking what comes next I'm thinking you may have missed a bit.

So for you the two may not be linked but that doesn't mean there is no basis for the fear or that the feelings and fears of the humans should be so easily tossed off.

EXACTLY

Look how quickly the vilification of dog breeders has taken off.

look at the definations of a shonky puppy farmer.

I received this unsolicited email from I gather a new puppy website

Promote your Breed and Bloodline!

Join Australia's leading FREE online dog classified website.

Petagree promotes your bloodline, reputation and track record, ensuring that you receive top dollar for your hard work. Create your own profile, upload your puppies and your breeders. Easily manage your litter or a single dog.

" Free to Join

Manage Your Profile

Link to Breed Associations

Upload Multiple Pics

Request Reviews

Get More Leads

Petagree's unique system allows owners to connect to more buyers, whilst given those buyers a greater insight into your breed, based on prior ratings and customer feedback.

Petegree promotes the sale of shelter dogs above all others.

If you would like us to upload your profile and all your current dogs for FREE

Please click "Visit Petagree" below"

being curious I applied to join and then received this

"Welcome to Petagree!

Thank you for your registration. Our staff are reviewing your account information and you will be available to login once we approve it. This security check is required with each registration to prevent puppy farmers.

With Love for Dogs!

Petagree "

I then send an email asking how and what are they going to "security check" me?

still waiting on an answer.

but perusing their site spotted this.

"Petagree connects buyers to ethical dog breeders and shelters across Australia."

and

"No Parents

If the breeder cannot let you meet the parents, you should walk away. Not meeting the parents is like buying a car without knowing the make. Don’t do it. For all you know, these people did not even breed the puppy, but are selling him secondhand for unknown reasons.

Lets Meet Elsewhere

If you call a breeder and they say “let’s meet somewhere” when you ask to visit their kennel, it’s a puppy mill. Usually they will try to get you to meet in a store parking lot or a park. Unless there are extreme circumstances, there is no reason why should not see where your puppy was born.

Several Breeds

Reputable breeders focus on one breed, maybe two, MAX. If you find a site offering five different breeds (and their mixes!), it’s a puppy mill.

Multiple Litters

When you call the breeder and ask if they have puppies, do they respond with “I have one litter coming, but there is already a waiting list” or “oh yes, I have 3 litters on the ground and 2 more on the way”? If the breeder has 30 puppies, that is definitely a puppy mill.

No Vaccinations

Puppy mills don’t like to spend money, it deters from profits. So the parents may not be vaccinated (you should ask!) and the puppies probably are not. Or, conversely, they have so many puppies they lost track and your pup got vaccinated twice.

Extreme Promises

Dr. Kathryn Primm DVM, says to be wary about the breeder promising a certain size, temperament, or characteristic that seems extreme. For example, a dog came into her clinic that was supposed to be a Pomeranian and Husky mix that the breeder had promised would never grow lover than 7 pounds. She was 42 pounds.

Lack of Cleanliness

This goes for the dog and the breeder’s home or kennel. Dr. Primm says puppies from puppy mills are more likely to smell like a kennel and have poor coat quality.

Contract

Your breeder should care enough about what happens to the puppy that she has a contract protecting both you and her. Reputable breeders have a spay/neuter agreement, breed papers, health contract, and a request that you return the dog to them if it doesn’t work out (rather than dumping him at the shelter).

Too Young

Another way they can cut their costs is by giving you the puppy early, because they do not have to feed them, give them shots, etc. Question any breeder wanting to give you the puppy before they are eight weeks old. This is the minimum age you should be taking a puppy from their mother and litter-mates."

No Parents, many dont have a stud dog, they pay for one using A.I. or natural service. Yet not having both parents puts you into the Unethical category.

Lets Meet Elsewhere how soon it is forgotten that the reason a breeders name and address is no longer in the Litters Registered section anymore is because dog thieves were found with a copy of the Monthly Journal with rings around the litters of the stolen puppies they were caught with.

I have been a registered breeder since 1978 and during all those years although I havent had a lot stolen over such a long period but I have had three adults taken and 6 puppies taken, the youngest ever taken was march 2014 she was only 3 days old, I knew who took just about every one of them as they had come to see puppies, then returned soon after to remove what they wanted. One was spotted by a neighbour and told her she was looking for petrol as her car had broken down, my neighbour saw the puppy and was suspicious and took her license plate. Actually she taken two puppies, a 5 week old male and a 4 week old bitch puppy, one from each litter, the police didnt want to know about it, she still had them 10 years later and bred many unregistered litters from them, I know because a friend was in the force and gave me the address for the car and I went and saw them playing in her yard, at least they survived but I couldnt get them back, the police were very annoyed with me for asking, one chaps reply was your going on about two puppies when we are overwhelmed with battered and missing children!. even the 3 day old pup, the police refused to go to the home of the person I knew had the pup. all you can hope for is that for those that are already microchipped, one day, some day they will end up at a vets and you will get the call to come pick up your "missing" dog. the chip register will only put that the dog is missing.NOT STOLEN.

A friend has Nissan GTR's he is constantly updating parts for his beloved cars, selling parts he has upgraded, buying parts he wants. HE WILL NEVER permit a buyer to come to his home. HE MEETS THEM WHERE? ELSEWHAREyet thanks to rubbish like this you have to let the bastards come to your home to prove your bloody ETHICAL? the real word's is stupid. cowed and afraid to be tarred and feathered as unethical if you don't bow to the pressure.

Several Breeds can be an issue if some people actually like several breeds, or in one case i know wife likes one breed, hubby another and the kids another. or in the case of a friend, keeps a number of rare breeds in addition to her favorite breed, to keep their number up and encourage people to keep these rare breeds going. Its no where near as cut as dried as that implies. But then, as is now increasingly obvious, freedom of choice is no longer your prerogative if you have dogs

Multiple Litters Any doctor can tell you when a large group of women all live together they will begin to cycle together. Dogs are the same, once it was considered a good idea to put bitches in pup at the same time, the benefit being one with a large litter could have some of her puppies fostered to a bitch who had a small litter, in the case of one developing milk feaver, her puppies could be fostered so she could have a rest and not risk a repeat. far better for the puppies than bottle feeding nutrition wise no matter how touted the benefits of the bottle fed. Not today though its the mark of what? the unethical, no mention of the practical .

No Vaccinations no argument with that one, It never ceases to amaze me when some one asks can they buy a puppy unvaccinated and do it themselves, the easy answer to that is "what? do you want a dead puppy? thats whats the most likely result of taking any puppy that hasnt been vaccinated at least 2 weeks before you pick it up.

Extreme Promises most likely newbies who haven't a clue, if can, educate them.

Lack of Cleanliness thats another not that simple, if they turn up just after some have decided to make a mess your now unethical. the darned things don't work to a schedule, clean one minute , doo's the next and your sunk if its not out of sight FAST.

Contract Agree with most of it but note to be an ethical have a "spay/neuter agreement" and just try asking for a main register pup these days. Since when was a breeder going to do any but supply pets and the line dies with them, be anything but a dead end breeder? whatever happened to pass on the genes to the next generation of breeders. Now you need to be a dead end breeder to prevent your precious lines falling into the hands of a puppy farmer. What would have happened if those entrusted with your dogs ancestors had done the same? no wonder there are fewer and fewer new breeders. Well not unless they are going to buy from unregistered breeders and continue those lines instead.

No pressure though in that is there?

If a car is stolen the person who took it is a thief. If a puppy or a dog is stolen, it was probably being "rescued".

the act is the same, yet on one case the thief is just that, in the second case, the owner is the one under suspicion.

Edited August 18, 2016 by asal

[Steve]

Yes well thats a similar list to what is peddled by RSPCA . They dont want you to have more than a couple of dogs at your place but if you have guardian homes and the bitch is back at her place by the time the pups go home there is no bitch to see and no boy in some circles actually means that you are not just using the boy because he is convenient and you own him. Do they really expect that every person who breeds a litter and cares about what they put on the ground for future generations actually owns and lives with both parents in every litter ?

I have been an ANKC member since 1971 and I too have had puppies stolen, my kids stuff trashed, and our property stolen by people who want to see the puppies and the parents .I have had my dogs baited and one shot in the head from out on the road. I have had people rock up on Christmas Day to look at my dogs and Ill never forget one that crashed my son's engagement party and demanded to see the dogs. 50 or so people in my backyard and they were so rude about me not letting them in to see where I keep my dogs right now that Im still shaking my head over it.

In all this time I have never sent home a puppy that was not in perfect health and no one has ever complained about the temperament or quality of the puppies Ive sold them and there are hundreds - but that doesn't count.

Some of our members are victims of domestic violence and are terrified of anyone knowing where they are located, some are elderly living alone on remote properties and simply don't feel safe having people coming and going - surely because they want to breed a litter of puppies they dont have to open their homes and have no right to privacy without being judged as bad breeders. I work about 12 to 15 hours a day - everyday. I start at 4am every day I have 8 kids and 15 grandkids and when someone says can we come and have a look that means I have to stop everything and allow them to come into my home and onto my property - to see what ? My Maremmas are all out in the paddocks working so all they see is a dog in a paddock with some sheep. I have 2 beagles that live in my home with a pet maremma and my whelping room is my family room. To have a stranger who might think I pass the test come in and inspect where my dogs live and where the puppies are raised means my whole family is disrupted with them walking through their space as well.

So they don't want you to make money out of breeding dogs so you need to have another source of income to feed them and keep them but they want you to front up as if you are a business open for constant inspection.

People do come to my place to have a look and to pick up their puppies but Id like $5 for everyone that came here that couldnt or wouldnt control their kids or didn't respect the fact that people actually live and work here and whilst I may not have a right to privacy because Im just a low life breeder my family shouldn't have to have strangers and their kids in their bedrooms and touching their stuff either. One in about 10 that come here arrive on time and the vast majority either come early to try to catch you out or arrive hours after the arranged time ,Some have arrived in 3 car loads and while Im talking to the front person the others are all over my property leaving gates open and going into sterile areas where we process the Lavender and herb oils.

If a breeder tells me they prefer not to have puppy buyers come to their place I get it and its just one more example of the crap that's been pushed for years.