Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[corvus]

I hear what you say but do you really think there is the capability inherent in the industry to change and make it stick?

I really don't know. I am keenly aware that the people that talk to me are the people that are genuinely interested in doing better by their dogs, and most of them were already working towards change, and I have had some good times with them and their dogs. Their passion for change is obvious. It's impossible to see beyond those positive experiences to parts of the industry that I don't see and people I don't talk to. I hope, for all the happy people and dogs I have met in the industry.

And as to dog deaths - sadly I think its clear they are going to happen regardless - and these people who 'love their dogs like family' will kill them if the industry shuts down, yet animals will conitinue to suffer if it continues - so like you I don't know what is the best approach.

It is a little bit complicated. Dogs that are not racing are supported at least in part by dogs that are racing. On the outset, it looks like, well, we know most of them don't live past 2 anyway, so if they die at 9 months old instead of 2, what's the difference? At least the cycle has come to an end. And in some cases, particularly large, professional enterprises, that is probably true. In other cases, maybe not. Hobbyists are more likely to be holding onto dogs that are not racing, and there are no figures for how many of them have non-racers still in their kennels, and if so, how many. It could include retired racers, injured dogs, young dogs, dogs on suspension, and failed racers, and it could be a temporary or indefinite arrangement. These dogs are pretty much invisible, so maybe there's just 4 in the entire state, or maybe there's 400. Maybe some of them would have been there all their lives, or may have been sold, or eventually adopted out, or euthanised... Whatever the case, if racing were suddenly ended, people may find that they can't support their non-racers anymore, and I expect some of them keep them because they sank a lot of time into them and grew attached and could afford to keep them. So, maybe it's not just the dogs that would have died anyway. It's dogs on top of that as well. I find myself at odds with a lot of colleagues I respect who are angry the ban has been repealed. I don't know if my concerns are coloured by my positive experiences in the industry, or biased by the types of people that like to talk to dog behaviour scientists, and if it matters. There were a lot of people in rescue delighted to see it coming to an end, while at the same time in denial about the sheer number of adoptable dogs that were probably not going to make it purely because there were going to be too many of them. I can't help feeling that everyone grabbed at the first deal offered and just talked themselves into it being the best for the dogs. There has to be better ways, though. I'm not sure if no ban, or a trial period is better in the long-term, but it is in the short-term IMO. I sincerely hope if they ever do decide to ban it after all, they will put a lot more thought into how they will do it.

[juice]

The "hobbeist" i know gave up because he said it was never a level playing field if certain big trainers dogs were entered, and not because they were better dogs.

Edited October 15, 2016 by juice

[corvus]

Every dog gets swabbed now if that's what you are alluding to.

[juice]

And the results recorded by those who lie about dogs dieing and being injured on the track . Very credible

[m-j]

And the results recorded by those who lie about dogs dieing and being injured on the track . Very credible

That's very hard to do when there is a video of every race in the country, that can be accessed on several websites and you can also access the archives of races, not sure how far back but I've looked at races that have been over 12 mths old.

[westiemum]

WM, you hit the nail on the head, they don't think they have done anything wrong and think " townies" have no idea.

I really am yet to see how they can stop live baiting.

Also all those dogs that would have died with the ban would be dead within the next few years anyway,either culled because thery werent fast enough or their very short career is over.

What it did stop was more being bred for the same fate.

I'm also sick of hearing its only a few bad apples, that is complete bollocks!

Agree juice - and its such bollocks to say just because you don't live in the bush or regionally you don't understand. What crap. Anyone who stood by and turned a blind eye to the 'bad apples' is just a culpable - if not more so. So its the whole industry that needs a complete overhaul - not just rooting out the bad apples - and that takes significant expertise and resources. But first it requires awareness that change must happen - and I can't see that here.

[westiemum]

Having done major change programmes in big organisations - both the 'slow excruciating tooth pulling' version and the 'short sharp, get in and get out, blood on the floor' version' i prefer the latter - while its bloody in the short term I think its less painful in the long term -

So are you saying that the short sharp version closed the organisations down completely or they went OS, or was it that the participants just had to change their culture, no compromises, so the industry could survive?

The latter m-j usually - it usually involves rapid down-sizing and sophisticated management of change and people - and that so ain't going to happen here. Management by attrition usually takes a long time, and while it works in some situations I doubt it will work here given the public and political pressure.

So yes - I have seen absolutely nothing here to suggest that genuine sustainainble change will happen so this industry will survive in a form that is acceptable to the general public. In fact this decision has probably ensured the slow 'death by a thousand cuts' for this industry, unless it happens again. And yes I'm certain it will all happen again and next time it will be a brutal shutdown.

Look the truth is that the days of using animals for gambling and entertainment are severely numbered - its only a matter of time given its a toxic mix that brings out the worst in human beings. So this industry can evolve to shutdown under its own control or have it done to it eventually. They can take their pick which route they take - but they are going to end up in the same place. Bookmark it.

Edited October 23, 2016 by westiemum

[westiemum]

I hear what you say but do you really think there is the capability inherent in the industry to change and make it stick?

I really don't know. I am keenly aware that the people that talk to me are the people that are genuinely interested in doing better by their dogs, and most of them were already working towards change, and I have had some good times with them and their dogs. Their passion for change is obvious. It's impossible to see beyond those positive experiences to parts of the industry that I don't see and people I don't talk to. I hope, for all the happy people and dogs I have met in the industry.

And as to dog deaths - sadly I think its clear they are going to happen regardless - and these people who 'love their dogs like family' will kill them if the industry shuts down, yet animals will conitinue to suffer if it continues - so like you I don't know what is the best approach.

It is a little bit complicated. Dogs that are not racing are supported at least in part by dogs that are racing. On the outset, it looks like, well, we know most of them don't live past 2 anyway, so if they die at 9 months old instead of 2, what's the difference? At least the cycle has come to an end. And in some cases, particularly large, professional enterprises, that is probably true. In other cases, maybe not. Hobbyists are more likely to be holding onto dogs that are not racing, and there are no figures for how many of them have non-racers still in their kennels, and if so, how many. It could include retired racers, injured dogs, young dogs, dogs on suspension, and failed racers, and it could be a temporary or indefinite arrangement. These dogs are pretty much invisible, so maybe there's just 4 in the entire state, or maybe there's 400. Maybe some of them would have been there all their lives, or may have been sold, or eventually adopted out, or euthanised... Whatever the case, if racing were suddenly ended, people may find that they can't support their non-racers anymore, and I expect some of them keep them because they sank a lot of time into them and grew attached and could afford to keep them. So, maybe it's not just the dogs that would have died anyway. It's dogs on top of that as well. I find myself at odds with a lot of colleagues I respect who are angry the ban has been repealed. I don't know if my concerns are coloured by my positive experiences in the industry, or biased by the types of people that like to talk to dog behaviour scientists, and if it matters. There were a lot of people in rescue delighted to see it coming to an end, while at the same time in denial about the sheer number of adoptable dogs that were probably not going to make it purely because there were going to be too many of them. I can't help feeling that everyone grabbed at the first deal offered and just talked themselves into it being the best for the dogs. There has to be better ways, though. I'm not sure if no ban, or a trial period is better in the long-term, but it is in the short-term IMO. I sincerely hope if they ever do decide to ban it after all, they will put a lot more thought into how they will do it.

I see your point. Though while I'm happy to be corrected, you seem to be saying regardless of what happens dogs will die. So maybe the original ban with a lead in time was probably best for the industry dogs. Next time you can almost guarantee that the public outrage will be such that there will be a brutal fast shutdown - and while I hate to see dogs die, at least as you say the cycle stops - for good. And those so called 'good people' who turned a blind eye to such abject cruelty and misery will hopefully rehome their 'family' dogs - but somehow I doubt it. If they could turn a blind eye to such cruelty and misery then death of their dogs in response to a ban probably won't mean much either. And yes I hope I'm wrong. But years of watching and managing human behaviour suggests otherwise.

[Sheridan]

I'd be astonished to see significant political support for the closure of the racehorse industry, or the pet industry. Greyhounds are small fry next to both.

you only have to read the subject below this one. Vic dog breeders are in serious trouble if this gets through.

Jaala Pulford once said to me on social media she didn't want to see the end of dog breeding.

If she was telling the truth then she should have discussed the strategies with the peopel this law will affect .She stated publicly the current amendments would only affect 90 people in Victoria when in fact they will affect 10s of thousands.

Funnily enough she seems to be ignoring certain posts now.

[asal]

I hear what you say but do you really think there is the capability inherent in the industry to change and make it stick?

I really don't know. I am keenly aware that the people that talk to me are the people that are genuinely interested in doing better by their dogs, and most of them were already working towards change, and I have had some good times with them and their dogs. Their passion for change is obvious. It's impossible to see beyond those positive experiences to parts of the industry that I don't see and people I don't talk to. I hope, for all the happy people and dogs I have met in the industry.

And as to dog deaths - sadly I think its clear they are going to happen regardless - and these people who 'love their dogs like family' will kill them if the industry shuts down, yet animals will conitinue to suffer if it continues - so like you I don't know what is the best approach.

It is a little bit complicated. Dogs that are not racing are supported at least in part by dogs that are racing. On the outset, it looks like, well, we know most of them don't live past 2 anyway, so if they die at 9 months old instead of 2, what's the difference? At least the cycle has come to an end. And in some cases, particularly large, professional enterprises, that is probably true. In other cases, maybe not. Hobbyists are more likely to be holding onto dogs that are not racing, and there are no figures for how many of them have non-racers still in their kennels, and if so, how many. It could include retired racers, injured dogs, young dogs, dogs on suspension, and failed racers, and it could be a temporary or indefinite arrangement. These dogs are pretty much invisible, so maybe there's just 4 in the entire state, or maybe there's 400. Maybe some of them would have been there all their lives, or may have been sold, or eventually adopted out, or euthanised... Whatever the case, if racing were suddenly ended, people may find that they can't support their non-racers anymore, and I expect some of them keep them because they sank a lot of time into them and grew attached and could afford to keep them. So, maybe it's not just the dogs that would have died anyway. It's dogs on top of that as well. I find myself at odds with a lot of colleagues I respect who are angry the ban has been repealed. I don't know if my concerns are coloured by my positive experiences in the industry, or biased by the types of people that like to talk to dog behaviour scientists, and if it matters. There were a lot of people in rescue delighted to see it coming to an end, while at the same time in denial about the sheer number of adoptable dogs that were probably not going to make it purely because there were going to be too many of them. I can't help feeling that everyone grabbed at the first deal offered and just talked themselves into it being the best for the dogs. There has to be better ways, though. I'm not sure if no ban, or a trial period is better in the long-term, but it is in the short-term IMO. I sincerely hope if they ever do decide to ban it after all, they will put a lot more thought into how they will do it.

I see your point. Though while I'm happy to be corrected, you seem to be saying regardless of what happens dogs will die. So maybe the original ban with a lead in time was probably best for the industry dogs. Next time you can almost guarantee that the public outrage will be such that there will be a brutal fast shutdown - and while I hate to see dogs die, at least as you say the cycle stops - for good. And those so called 'good people' who turned a blind eye to such abject cruelty and misery will hopefully rehome their 'family' dogs - but somehow I doubt it. If they could turn a blind eye to such cruelty and misery then death of their dogs in response to a ban probably won't mean much either. And yes I hope I'm wrong. But years of watching and managing human behaviour suggests otherwise.

I hear this argument ad finitum from the horse rescues who want knackeries closed down and breeders restricted so there is no more horses ending up as dog food. The nutters got their way and had them all shut down in America, thats an awful huge country with no meat disposal industry for the aged, injoured or unsound in limb or mind and theres an awful lot to deal with. So what became the solution? Road trains of double decker semi's snaking these excess horses thousands of Km to either Canada or Mexico. result, the occasional gory headlines when one overturns.

what they cannot seem to get into their heads is that EVERY animal, human as well for that matter, IS GOING TO DIE. some sooner, some later, some MUCH later.

when an animal as massive as a horse reaches its end of days, that is some 400 to 800 to in some cases 1,000 kg of carcase to be disposed of. many need to be put down due to injoury before old age catches up with them but even the likes of Black Caviar will some day will find her owners deciding, do they have the land to have her buried, or an incinerator they can have the body disposed of, or take it to a knackery and all that meat that would otherwise go to waste become dog food. I know the tree huggers would have it that no animal crosses the rainbow bridge let alone becomes a body for consumption. but dogs ARE carnivores, no dog will be as healthy or long lived kept solely on a no meat diet.

so you see you need to also remember every dog too, will one day die despite your best efforts to maintain its life. The only way the cycle will stop is when the AR nutters get their way and there are not any left, be careful what you wish for?

Edited October 24, 2016 by asal

[moosmum]

A lot of good intentions do seem driven to think if we can banish death and pain in one environment, that its gone. They don't look to understand the consequences.

Was asked to sign a similar petition to shut down knackeries in Aus. I would have signed gladly if it were to improve over sight and conditions to try and ensure there was no pain or fear.

To shut down knackeries would lead to worse conditions for many.

[Steve]

There is another huge issue here that isnt politically correct to discuss - however in this country if you own a dog or 100 dogs regardless of what breed they are you can decide you want to have them go to god. As long as you do so humanely without suffering because its your property its your call.

So some people think its cruel to breed dogs which will mean that some wont cut the grade and be destroyed.But its not cruel to breed a dog, to look after a dog well while it is alive and to kill the dog when you get the urge as long as you are not cruel to it just because someone else thinks that horrible. You can still eat a dog in this country as long as you dont cut its tail off before you kill it. My point is since when do others get to tell you whether you can have your dogs put down. Its the dog owners right under the federal law.

[moosmum]

There is another huge issue here that isnt politically correct to discuss - however in this country if you own a dog or 100 dogs regardless of what breed they are you can decide you want to have them go to god. As long as you do so humanely without suffering because its your property its your call.

So some people think its cruel to breed dogs which will mean that some wont cut the grade and be destroyed.But its not cruel to breed a dog, to look after a dog well while it is alive and to kill the dog when you get the urge as long as you are not cruel to it just because someone else thinks that horrible. You can still eat a dog in this country as long as you dont cut its tail off before you kill it. My point is since when do others get to tell you whether you can have your dogs put down. Its the dog owners right under the federal law.

Its also part of their responsibility. To decide and act in the best interests of that dog, or other dogs. To the best of their own ability.

We forget the meaning of that word 'responsibility'.

Political correctness has a lot to answer for in shutting down conversation and communication.

You can't take responsibility with out the correct information, and if you can't or won't listen you don't have it.

You are marginalizing groups with dismissal and ridicule. Not the way to convince any you have their best interests at heart.

Edited October 25, 2016 by moosmum

[asal]

There is another huge issue here that isnt politically correct to discuss - however in this country if you own a dog or 100 dogs regardless of what breed they are you can decide you want to have them go to god. As long as you do so humanely without suffering because its your property its your call.

So some people think its cruel to breed dogs which will mean that some wont cut the grade and be destroyed.But its not cruel to breed a dog, to look after a dog well while it is alive and to kill the dog when you get the urge as long as you are not cruel to it just because someone else thinks that horrible. You can still eat a dog in this country as long as you dont cut its tail off before you kill it. My point is since when do others get to tell you whether you can have your dogs put down. Its the dog owners right under the federal law.

I know a chap who once he decides on the price he wants for a horse he has decided to sell, if intending buyers try to haggle with him and he gets angry at the amount offered if they push him too far, will come out with the rifle and give them a decision to make. do they want it at the price he is asking or not?

If they do not leave but continue to argue he has turned to the horse and shot it then and there. Far as I know he has only done it when the haggler is a man.

but one day he had 7 that he decided to cull as it was a bad drought, trouble was he had them tied near the road where the school kids were waiting for the bus. so they saw him shoot all 7. one girl was hysterical and ran hom and her parents called the rspca to be told as long as he shot them on his property he is perfectly within his legal rights to do so.

Yet look at the headlines of the dog breeders be it pet breeds or greyhounds, shock horror, bodies found shot in the head on breeders property. yet it was fine to shoot the horses?

in the video I posted and the photos of Inspector Ashton "euthanising" cattle. they were shot as they were chased through gates, not done with a captive bolt, or a clean shot to the centre of the skull but shot as they ran past and its called "euthanasia"? No abbotior is allowed to slaughter stock that way. let alone call it euthanasia

Edited October 25, 2016 by asal

[corvus]

I see your point. Though while I'm happy to be corrected, you seem to be saying regardless of what happens dogs will die. So maybe the original ban with a lead in time was probably best for the industry dogs. Next time you can almost guarantee that the public outrage will be such that there will be a brutal fast shutdown - and while I hate to see dogs die, at least as you say the cycle stops - for good. And those so called 'good people' who turned a blind eye to such abject cruelty and misery will hopefully rehome their 'family' dogs - but somehow I doubt it. If they could turn a blind eye to such cruelty and misery then death of their dogs in response to a ban probably won't mean much either. And yes I hope I'm wrong. But years of watching and managing human behaviour suggests otherwise.

Well, yes. It's the nature of any industry where animals lose their value over time. Even in the pet industry. The issue with the original plan as I saw it was that there was too little time to wind up racing activities without making keeping healthy dogs economically possible. That's a lot of dogs that suddenly have no industry support. I understand the task force was trying to find ways to enable greyhound owners to keep their dogs, but I'm not sure they had any solutions, and it's not straight forward. Some people were just gutted. It's like, what would you do with your dogs if you were no longer allowed to do nearly all the things you currently enjoy doing with them? You and I would probably not euthanise them, but we might consider rehoming them to somewhere they might be happier if we believed there was such a place. And maybe we might shake our heads in disgust over the way some people treat their dogs, but if it suddenly looked like we might lose our dogs because of them, we might do more than shake our heads in disgust next time.

I think we have to decide as a society what is acceptable. Is it okay for people to make money off dogs? Is it okay if some dogs are hurt, sometimes fatally in the process? Does how much the dog enjoys it factor? Is it okay for dogs to die in accidents if there is not big money in it? How responsible should owners be for how their dogs are cared for if they are paying someone else to care for them? Is it okay for people to rehome a dog that is not successful in their chosen pursuits? Is it okay for such dogs to be euthanised? We need to answer these questions, and not just for racing greyhounds. And if we decide something is not acceptable, then there needs to be proper support in place for the animals involved so that there are options for them to transition into another kind of life.

[moosmum]

I see your point. Though while I'm happy to be corrected, you seem to be saying regardless of what happens dogs will die. So maybe the original ban with a lead in time was probably best for the industry dogs. Next time you can almost guarantee that the public outrage will be such that there will be a brutal fast shutdown - and while I hate to see dogs die, at least as you say the cycle stops - for good. And those so called 'good people' who turned a blind eye to such abject cruelty and misery will hopefully rehome their 'family' dogs - but somehow I doubt it. If they could turn a blind eye to such cruelty and misery then death of their dogs in response to a ban probably won't mean much either. And yes I hope I'm wrong. But years of watching and managing human behaviour suggests otherwise.

Well, yes. It's the nature of any industry where animals lose their value over time. Even in the pet industry. The issue with the original plan as I saw it was that there was too little time to wind up racing activities without making keeping healthy dogs economically possible. That's a lot of dogs that suddenly have no industry support. I understand the task force was trying to find ways to enable greyhound owners to keep their dogs, but I'm not sure they had any solutions, and it's not straight forward. Some people were just gutted. It's like, what would you do with your dogs if you were no longer allowed to do nearly all the things you currently enjoy doing with them? You and I would probably not euthanise them, but we might consider rehoming them to somewhere they might be happier if we believed there was such a place. And maybe we might shake our heads in disgust over the way some people treat their dogs, but if it suddenly looked like we might lose our dogs because of them, we might do more than shake our heads in disgust next time.

I think we have to decide as a society what is acceptable. Is it okay for people to make money off dogs? Is it okay if some dogs are hurt, sometimes fatally in the process? Does how much the dog enjoys it factor? Is it okay for dogs to die in accidents if there is not big money in it? How responsible should owners be for how their dogs are cared for if they are paying someone else to care for them? Is it okay for people to rehome a dog that is not successful in their chosen pursuits? Is it okay for such dogs to be euthanised? We need to answer these questions, and not just for racing greyhounds. And if we decide something is not acceptable, then there needs to be proper support in place for the animals involved so that there are options for them to transition into another kind of life.

Yes.

As an inclusive society.

[m-j]

Having done major change programmes in big organisations - both the 'slow excruciating tooth pulling' version and the 'short sharp, get in and get out, blood on the floor' version' i prefer the latter - while its bloody in the short term I think its less painful in the long term -

So are you saying that the short sharp version closed the organisations down completely or they went OS, or was it that the participants just had to change their culture, no compromises, so the industry could survive?

The latter m-j usually - it usually involves rapid down-sizing and sophisticated management of change and people - and that so ain't going to happen here. Management by attrition usually takes a long time, and while it works in some situations I doubt it will work here given the public and political pressure.

So yes - I have seen absolutely nothing here to suggest that genuine sustainainble change will happen so this industry will survive in a form that is acceptable to the general public. In fact this decision has probably ensured the slow 'death by a thousand cuts' for this industry, unless it happens again. And yes I'm certain it will all happen again and next time it will be a brutal shutdown.

Look the truth is that the days of using animals for gambling and entertainment are severely numbered - its only a matter of time given its a toxic mix that brings out the worst in human beings. So this industry can evolve to shutdown under its own control or have it done to it eventually. They can take their pick which route they take - but they are going to end up in the same place. Bookmark it.

Thank you for your reply. As I have said before you are probably right except it will be a pity for the good folk in the industry and they do exist and they have complained but it has fallen on deaf ears.

The entertainment and gambling factor of the industry are not to blame for this it is the "win at all cost" mentality. Unfortunately it isn't only in the greyhounds it is across the board in all sports, it is why human athletes get drug tested and are being found positive. Gone are the days when sport was just that sport, now it is business, pity. One example of this is country football/cricket they are paying players from other places to play for them so now the kids that don't make the grade instead of being at the footy or the cricket on Saturday they are entertaining themselves in other ways and not all of them are wholesome.

[westiemum]

Having done major change programmes in big organisations - both the 'slow excruciating tooth pulling' version and the 'short sharp, get in and get out, blood on the floor' version' i prefer the latter - while its bloody in the short term I think its less painful in the long term -

So are you saying that the short sharp version closed the organisations down completely or they went OS, or was it that the participants just had to change their culture, no compromises, so the industry could survive?

The latter m-j usually - it usually involves rapid down-sizing and sophisticated management of change and people - and that so ain't going to happen here. Management by attrition usually takes a long time, and while it works in some situations I doubt it will work here given the public and political pressure.

So yes - I have seen absolutely nothing here to suggest that genuine sustainainble change will happen so this industry will survive in a form that is acceptable to the general public. In fact this decision has probably ensured the slow 'death by a thousand cuts' for this industry, unless it happens again. And yes I'm certain it will all happen again and next time it will be a brutal shutdown.

Look the truth is that the days of using animals for gambling and entertainment are severely numbered - its only a matter of time given its a toxic mix that brings out the worst in human beings. So this industry can evolve to shutdown under its own control or have it done to it eventually. They can take their pick which route they take - but they are going to end up in the same place. Bookmark it.

Thank you for your reply. As I have said before you are probably right except it will be a pity for the good folk in the industry and they do exist and they have complained but it has fallen on deaf ears.

The entertainment and gambling factor of the industry are not to blame for this it is the "win at all cost" mentality. Unfortunately it isn't only in the greyhounds it is across the board in all sports, it is why human athletes get drug tested and are being found positive. Gone are the days when sport was just that sport, now it is business, pity. One example of this is country football/cricket they are paying players from other places to play for them so now the kids that don't make the grade instead of being at the footy or the cricket on Saturday they are entertaining themselves in other ways and not all of them are wholesome.

Generally m-j I think we are in agreement - I just don't believe so much in 'the good people' - not one public whistle blower I'm aware of in all the years of greyhound racing? But anyway, yes it is a pity that what might have been a good clean fun hobby has now become 'business' - and when it involves animals you can absolutely bet that greed will overrule any sense of animal welfare and decrease our collective humanity. I think this is why I'm so angry with this industry - as it not only reflects on them, it reflects on all of us. And I wonder if the huge outcry over greyhounds is because they are closer to us than, say horses. The are a companion animal species who live in our homes - and while some people have horses as well most of us don't. So it hits hard.

And yes absolutely agree - the moment sport becomes 'business' it moves to a different plane. I'm a great AFL supporter - and sooooo angry with Essendon for the disrepute that they have brought to the game through their 'whatever it takes' 'supplements' program. They are a case study for everything m_j talks about. I've seriously considered going back to supporting grass roots footie through the SANFL - and I might still. And no I won't be watching or betting on 'the race that stops the nation' either.

[westiemum]

Well, yes. It's the nature of any industry where animals lose their value over time. Even in the pet industry. The issue with the original plan as I saw it was that there was too little time to wind up racing activities without making keeping healthy dogs economically possible. That's a lot of dogs that suddenly have no industry support. I understand the task force was trying to find ways to enable greyhound owners to keep their dogs, but I'm not sure they had any solutions, and it's not straight forward. Some people were just gutted. It's like, what would you do with your dogs if you were no longer allowed to do nearly all the things you currently enjoy doing with them? You and I would probably not euthanise them, but we might consider rehoming them to somewhere they might be happier if we believed there was such a place. And maybe we might shake our heads in disgust over the way some people treat their dogs, but if it suddenly looked like we might lose our dogs because of them, we might do more than shake our heads in disgust next time.

You're right - I wouldn't euthanise and neither would you - but we would become the most innovative dog owners and find ways for them to lead rich lives under the 'new rules' and after they have departed decide if we continue dog ownership under the new rules. The same should apply to this industry. Choose to have dogs, you have the responsibility for life IMO.

I think we have to decide as a society what is acceptable. Is it okay for people to make money off dogs? Is it okay if some dogs are hurt, sometimes fatally in the process? Does how much the dog enjoys it factor? Is it okay for dogs to die in accidents if there is not big money in it? How responsible should owners be for how their dogs are cared for if they are paying someone else to care for them? Is it okay for people to rehome a dog that is not successful in their chosen pursuits? Is it okay for such dogs to be euthanised? We need to answer these questions, and not just for racing greyhounds. And if we decide something is not acceptable, then there needs to be proper support in place for the animals involved so that there are options for them to transition into another kind of life.

These are excellent questions Corvus and I'm not pretending I know the answers (others are better equipped to answer them than I am) - except to say its really values driven/laden - so given values differ I suspect the answers to your questions will vary widely too, depending on who you talk to.

Sorry for the lengthy response but I want to do justice to your excellent post.

I come from a horse racing family and my brother worked in the industry for years and profited from blood stock/horses sales. As a young person it didn't occur to me to question it. As I've got older (and I like to think wiser), I've questioned what I believe is the true nature and values which drives humans to profit from animal entertainment (for want of a better word). My values base has clearly changed as I've aged and (and learned) and so my position supporting these industries has shifted from 'acceptable' to unacceptable'.

And yes I agree transition needs to happen (second bolded bit) - but when your values don't line up with making that transition to 'other lives' then euthanasia sadly for many becomes the only option. You and I probably wouldn't dream of euthanising dogs 'excess to requirements' but others will see it as their first and only option - and this is unacceptable to the general community.

Then there is the moral/right thing to do versus the legal question. And yet as Steve rightly says, dogs are property under the law and owers have the right to do as they like to their 'property' (and herein lies the difficulty with live companion animals as 'property') But then how to legally define 'stock' animals? Hmn...).

So clearly the law may need to change to keep up with community expectations. Whether the greyhound industry (and every other animal industry) likes it or not, if they do not adhere to public standards and expectations (which have clearly shited), then they will lose in the 'court of public expectation' and lose their livelihoods. The community has made it very clear that they will not tolerate these levels of animal cruelty and misery anymore, ever. And so I expect legislative/common law change will follow - eventually. And yes I hope the industry deeply understands that and becomes a model animal industry - but I doubt it for all the reasons I've explained in previous posts.

So bottom line, clean up and meet community expectations or ship out - there is clearly no middle ground left on this. And given there has been no shift in this industry to produce sustainable change acceptable to the general public then I suspect it will ultimately be an industry shut-down - and yes that will happen - ts only a matter of time.

Edited November 1, 2016 by westiemum

[Steve]

Dogs are always going to be property. If a dog is not my property then someone can come along take it out of my yard and use it at stud, use it to play with, kill it , race it, hunt with it,eat it etc. It was the basis of the Magna Carta where in medieval times people could literally simply take your cow or your bull your land etc and do what ever they wanted without any way of the person the animal lived with having any say etc. The AR would like them to be given the status of us being their guardians but do you want to have to clear it with the state to be able to make even the most base decisions on what you want to do for your dogs? I hand over some of my rights as a dog owner because I choose to belong to a group that tells me I cant allow it to breed with a dog they don't approve of ,that I cant sell it to a source they don't approve of etc but if I decide I want the right to do as I wish with my dog its a breach of their codes - so what ? Legally such things are my choice .If I decided that what is best for my dog is to go to God for a variety of possible reasons then that's not now nor will it ever be a criminal offence. It's O.K. To talk about changing community attitudes but the minute those changing community attitudes and law changes may impact on YOUR ability to own a dog of your choice and make choices with YOUR dogs,what activities you can participate in with them even if you always love it and never do it any harm the game changes. How do you define changing community attitudes? If you judge that based on the shouting banshees led by animal rights people how do you determine that what they say and want is representative of the community that doesn't shout and demand changes? Along the way someone has decided selling puppies in pet shops is a terrible thing based on who we are told supplies them and there is much drum banging and shouting about changing community attitudes etc but move outside of this forum and the real world where AR are not as obvious and there are still the vast majority of the whole community who do see it as a problem or an issue. Commercial breeders sell thousands of puppies each per year to members of the community who don't agree with the latest view of changing community attitudes quoted by AR. The whole world is jumping about what Oscar Laws told us was a changed community attitude where it is O.K. to restrict numbers and treat anyone who owns a fertile dog as a potential criminal. The greyhound laws in NSW have been turned around because the premier worked out that what AR present as changed community attitude is only one view of the snapshot.