Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[asal]

Well I assumed Maddy meant that grey trainers drown puppies and what would I do if I knew ANKC breeders did it .Thats because of this that was said in an earlier post 30% PTS .

Maddy, on 10 November 2016 - 12:08 PM, said:

You're making assumptions there. I understand perfectly well why the industry does what it does. There is no great mystery to it. Desperately trying to pretend that those of us who feel that the current industry needs to be completely dismantled are somehow ignorant of the causes or possible fixes of the issue is almost as absurd as the arguments that equate greyhound trainers with refugees. If you think people who use small animals to bait dogs, or people who will euthanase 30% of a litter without a second thought, are deserving of even more chances to continue as they are, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what is/isn't acceptable for the welfare of the dogs.

Way to represent ANKC breeders, btw- as essentially supportive of an industry that is rife with massive welfare issues, just to protect their own arses. Nice work.

as I recall, it was proven the greyhound breeder used as the example of drowning his puppies was in fact an american breeder, living in america and still in america and the footage was ten years old. yet included in the investigation of new south wales greyhound industry? Yet maddy is still quoting it

but it made good press, certainly gave it the shock, disgust factor wanted and needed, which I think was the purpose and certainly accomplished

Edited November 12, 2016 by asal

[westiemum]

ABC24 reporting this morning that Baird has admitted the U-turn on the greyhound industry was taken partially because of the Orange bi-election and it didn't work.

Irony is that the result for the Nationals this last weekend has been disastrous (60% swing against the Nationals in one shire which is unheard of).

Edited November 14, 2016 by westiemum

[HazyWal]

ABC24 reporting this morning that Baird has admitted the U-turn on the greyhound industry was taken partially because of the Orange bi-election and it didn't work.

Irony is that the result for the Nationals this last weekend has been disastrous (60% swing against the Nationals in one shire which is unheard of).

A safe seat held by the Nats for 70 years, the people have spoken including those pesky uneducated, illiterate greyhound peeps. Council amalgamations were a huge part of their downfall but the greyhound ban was the straw the broke the Nationals back

Grant has just announced his resignation, we can only hope Casino Mike follows suit.

[Maddy]

Steve, it's not that those not involved in the wrong-doing are doing the wrong thing just by being trainers, it's that the vast majority of aware of the issues and refuse to speak up. If an ANKC breeder knew of another ANKC breeder who did something like.. routinely drowned unwanted puppies or who lied on breeding registration papers (used a different sire, etc) but that person did not report it, would you not agree that the person shares some amount of guilt by allowing it to continue?

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies?

Regarding your question of why I haven't reported things.. as I mentioned several times, many of the issues are not against any rules. Bosley's mum had litter after litter with epileptic pups and there is no rule or law against creating that misery. As for speaking out about it, I don't mean to sound snarky but what on Earth do you think I'm doing in this thread?

And yes, HazyWal understood what I meant. She and I don't necessarily agree on many of the points of this issue but at least she doesn't base arguments off entirely incorrect interpretations of what I'm saying :/

Steve, using previous posts to back up something that you misunderstood does not make you right. I asked (and I thought I was perfectly clear) what you would do if you knew of an ANKC breeder doing something that was either A) Ethically very questionable or B) an actual breach of rules.

I'm not talking about greyhound breeders drowning puppies, nor do I believe it likely to occur. You misinterpreted my post and instead of just acknowledging that, you felt the need to try to prove yourself right, even though I'm telling you that you weren't.

And asal.. there are no words for how misinformed and ignorant you are in this discussion. This is going to be my last reply to you because pro or anti, my patience gets very short with those who to turn reasonable discussions into circuses.

[Steve]

Steve, it's not that those not involved in the wrong-doing are doing the wrong thing just by being trainers, it's that the vast majority of aware of the issues and refuse to speak up. If an ANKC breeder knew of another ANKC breeder who did something like.. routinely drowned unwanted puppies or who lied on breeding registration papers (used a different sire, etc) but that person did not report it, would you not agree that the person shares some amount of guilt by allowing it to continue?

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies?

Regarding your question of why I haven't reported things.. as I mentioned several times, many of the issues are not against any rules. Bosley's mum had litter after litter with epileptic pups and there is no rule or law against creating that misery. As for speaking out about it, I don't mean to sound snarky but what on Earth do you think I'm doing in this thread?

And yes, HazyWal understood what I meant. She and I don't necessarily agree on many of the points of this issue but at least she doesn't base arguments off entirely incorrect interpretations of what I'm saying :/

Steve, using previous posts to back up something that you misunderstood does not make you right. I asked (and I thought I was perfectly clear) what you would do if you knew of an ANKC breeder doing something that was either A) Ethically very questionable or B) an actual breach of rules.

I'm not talking about greyhound breeders drowning puppies, nor do I believe it likely to occur. You misinterpreted my post and instead of just acknowledging that, you felt the need to try to prove yourself right, even though I'm telling you that you weren't.

And asal.. there are no words for how misinformed and ignorant you are in this discussion. This is going to be my last reply to you because pro or anti, my patience gets very short with those who to turn reasonable discussions into circuses.

You are only NOW explaining to me what you meant and just because you thought it was perfectly clear that doesnt make it that it was perfectly clear to me. I wasn't using a previous post to do what you accuse me of I was using it as a way of explaining why I thought you were saying what I thought you were. Now I know what you were saying I apologise that I didn't get it at the time . How the hell was I supposed to know if my interpretation was right or Hazywal had it right until you clarified it? Unless Ive missed something this is the first time you have clarified it.

Im sorry that I took your question the wrong way.

Obviously I have some other things confused because all I see is a whole group of people being judged as complicent because they didn't stand up and report those that you say they knew were doing the wrong thing. But the some of the wrong things you seem to have wanted them to report were not reportable and I believe that many did report the things that were against the rules and illegal. Self regulation meant it was covered up and corrupt.

Just as the grey industry has codes and rules and regs so does the ANKC and there are many things that are considered ethical as per the code of ethics for the state CCs that I believe are not ethical and lots of things that happen in the rescue arena that I dont think are ethical

To a point that the MDBA was born because I also learned that some things are not against the law or codes and even those that are can be pretty hard to prove, and the bullies who want to keep the status quo are pretty scary, but just the same were so unacceptable that something needed to be done.

[asal]

Steve, it's not that those not involved in the wrong-doing are doing the wrong thing just by being trainers, it's that the vast majority of aware of the issues and refuse to speak up. If an ANKC breeder knew of another ANKC breeder who did something like.. routinely drowned unwanted puppies or who lied on breeding registration papers (used a different sire, etc) but that person did not report it, would you not agree that the person shares some amount of guilt by allowing it to continue?

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies?

Regarding your question of why I haven't reported things.. as I mentioned several times, many of the issues are not against any rules. Bosley's mum had litter after litter with epileptic pups and there is no rule or law against creating that misery. As for speaking out about it, I don't mean to sound snarky but what on Earth do you think I'm doing in this thread?

And yes, HazyWal understood what I meant. She and I don't necessarily agree on many of the points of this issue but at least she doesn't base arguments off entirely incorrect interpretations of what I'm saying :/

Steve, using previous posts to back up something that you misunderstood does not make you right. I asked (and I thought I was perfectly clear) what you would do if you knew of an ANKC breeder doing something that was either A) Ethically very questionable or B) an actual breach of rules.

I'm not talking about greyhound breeders drowning puppies, nor do I believe it likely to occur. You misinterpreted my post and instead of just acknowledging that, you felt the need to try to prove yourself right, even though I'm telling you that you weren't.

And asal.. there are no words for how misinformed and ignorant you are in this discussion. This is going to be my last reply to you because pro or anti, my patience gets very short with those who to turn reasonable discussions into circuses.

You are only NOW explaining to me what you meant and just because you thought it was perfectly clear that doesnt make it that it was perfectly clear to me. I wasn't using a previous post to do what you accuse me of I was using it as a way of explaining why I thought you were saying what I thought you were. Now I know what you were saying I apologise that I didn't get it at the time . How the hell was I supposed to know if my interpretation was right or Hazywal had it right until you clarified it? Unless Ive missed something this is the first time you have clarified it.

Im sorry that I took your question the wrong way.

Obviously I have some other things confused because all I see is a whole group of people being judged as complicent because they didn't stand up and report those that you say they knew were doing the wrong thing. But the some of the wrong things you seem to have wanted them to report were not reportable and I believe that many did report the things that were against the rules and illegal. Self regulation meant it was covered up and corrupt.

Just as the grey industry has codes and rules and regs so does the ANKC and there are many things that are considered ethical as per the code of ethics for the state CCs that I believe are not ethical and lots of things that happen in the rescue arena that I dont think are ethical

To a point that the MDBA was born because I also learned that some things are not against the law or codes and even those that are can be pretty hard to prove, and the bullies who want to keep the status quo are pretty scary, but just the same were so unacceptable that something needed to be done.

excellent reply Steve.

as for that comment Maddy That is your opinion,(and that does not necessarily make you right, nice as it might be to think you and you alone can see the glorious truth of your version of the truth) but denigrating me to the degree nothing I say is valid, does not change the fact you want to blanket punish all for the sins of a few.

As Steve said by what right were you given to judge them as complicit of crimes this majority were probably unaware of?

Are you campaigning just as hard for the churches being disbanded because so many priests and ministers were complicit in the actions of the pedephiles in their ranks? Same scenario no matter how you want to paint it. But then children don't deserve you interest or protection, they might grow up to abuse animals?

Yet research points that those who don't kill themselves (stats reveal 70% do not live to see 30) turn to their pets for comfort. They certainly dont get that from the church

I increasingly get the impression the Animal Rights people for whatever reasons in their past hate their own species, so to destroy a majority to punish a minority where animals rights are concerned doesn't concern them at all because they have no sympathy or concern for the mental health of others of their species unless they are as like minded as yourself

Edited November 14, 2016 by asal

[moosmum]

Steve, it's not that those not involved in the wrong-doing are doing the wrong thing just by being trainers, it's that the vast majority of aware of the issues and refuse to speak up. If an ANKC breeder knew of another ANKC breeder who did something like.. routinely drowned unwanted puppies or who lied on breeding registration papers (used a different sire, etc) but that person did not report it, would you not agree that the person shares some amount of guilt by allowing it to continue?

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies?

Regarding your question of why I haven't reported things.. as I mentioned several times, many of the issues are not against any rules. Bosley's mum had litter after litter with epileptic pups and there is no rule or law against creating that misery. As for speaking out about it, I don't mean to sound snarky but what on Earth do you think I'm doing in this thread?

And yes, HazyWal understood what I meant. She and I don't necessarily agree on many of the points of this issue but at least she doesn't base arguments off entirely incorrect interpretations of what I'm saying :/

Steve, using previous posts to back up something that you misunderstood does not make you right. I asked (and I thought I was perfectly clear) what you would do if you knew of an ANKC breeder doing something that was either A) Ethically very questionable or B) an actual breach of rules.

I'm not talking about greyhound breeders drowning puppies, nor do I believe it likely to occur. You misinterpreted my post and instead of just acknowledging that, you felt the need to try to prove yourself right, even though I'm telling you that you weren't.

And asal.. there are no words for how misinformed and ignorant you are in this discussion. This is going to be my last reply to you because pro or anti, my patience gets very short with those who to turn reasonable discussions into circuses.

You are only NOW explaining to me what you meant and just because you thought it was perfectly clear that doesnt make it that it was perfectly clear to me. I wasn't using a previous post to do what you accuse me of I was using it as a way of explaining why I thought you were saying what I thought you were. Now I know what you were saying I apologise that I didn't get it at the time . How the hell was I supposed to know if my interpretation was right or Hazywal had it right until you clarified it? Unless Ive missed something this is the first time you have clarified it.

Im sorry that I took your question the wrong way.

Obviously I have some other things confused because all I see is a whole group of people being judged as complicent because they didn't stand up and report those that you say they knew were doing the wrong thing. But the some of the wrong things you seem to have wanted them to report were not reportable and I believe that many did report the things that were against the rules and illegal. Self regulation meant it was covered up and corrupt.

Just as the grey industry has codes and rules and regs so does the ANKC and there are many things that are considered ethical as per the code of ethics for the state CCs that I believe are not ethical and lots of things that happen in the rescue arena that I dont think are ethical

To a point that the MDBA was born because I also learned that some things are not against the law or codes and even those that are can be pretty hard to prove, and the bullies who want to keep the status quo are pretty scary, but just the same were so unacceptable that something needed to be done.

excellent reply Steve.

as for that comment Maddy That is your opinion,(and that does not necessarily make you right, nice as it might be to think you and you alone can see the glorious truth of your version of the truth) but denigrating me to the degree nothing I say is valid, does not change the fact you want to blanket punish all for the sins of a few.

As Steve said by what right were you given to judge them as complicit of crimes this majority were probably unaware of?

Are you campaigning just as hard for the churches being disbanded because so many priests and ministers were complicit in the actions of the pedephiles in their ranks? Same scenario no matter how you want to paint it. But then children don't deserve you interest or protection, they might grow up to abuse animals?

Yet research points that those who don't kill themselves (stats reveal 70% do not live to see 30) turn to their pets for comfort. They certainly dont get that from the church

I increasingly get the impression the Animal Rights people for whatever reasons in their past hate their own species, so to destroy a majority to punish a minority where animals rights are concerned doesnt concern them at all because they have no sympathy for others of their species

I think this is the result of a far 'left' P.C brigade, who see injustice and rather than accepting we have and always will have a flawed society that must be a work in progress, DO 'hate' their own species.

Perhaps more than those they rail against for promoting hatred, because they call it justifiable (and get away with it) to label whole groups as unfit for recognition as part of the human species, based on the actions of a few and according to their own entitled standards.

Any critical even of how those standards are applied are targets of this dismissal and hate. So you can't critisize a woman with out being sexist, or any member of any group who wants to claim minority status, with out being racist, homophobic or biggoted in way or form.

Promoting the idea themselves, that you can't make an observation referring to individuals, with out implicating their whole human 'type'.

They are encouraging a gentic 'Typing' of humanity and basing their judgements on type.

Not as individuals, influenced by their 'condition' as humans.

Conditions they condemn and oppress, rather than alleviate. In the name of those they see as oppressed! Repeating a cycle of fomenting hatred and oppression by 'genetic 'Typing' and 'Typing' of victimology.

Before I get the condemnation for this post, No, I don't mean ALL 'left' leaning people. I am likely one. I refer only to those people these observations clearly apply to.

Edited November 14, 2016 by moosmum

[Sheridan]

Steve, it's not that those not involved in the wrong-doing are doing the wrong thing just by being trainers, it's that the vast majority of aware of the issues and refuse to speak up. If an ANKC breeder knew of another ANKC breeder who did something like.. routinely drowned unwanted puppies or who lied on breeding registration papers (used a different sire, etc) but that person did not report it, would you not agree that the person shares some amount of guilt by allowing it to continue?

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies?

Regarding your question of why I haven't reported things.. as I mentioned several times, many of the issues are not against any rules. Bosley's mum had litter after litter with epileptic pups and there is no rule or law against creating that misery. As for speaking out about it, I don't mean to sound snarky but what on Earth do you think I'm doing in this thread?

And yes, HazyWal understood what I meant. She and I don't necessarily agree on many of the points of this issue but at least she doesn't base arguments off entirely incorrect interpretations of what I'm saying :/

Steve, using previous posts to back up something that you misunderstood does not make you right. I asked (and I thought I was perfectly clear) what you would do if you knew of an ANKC breeder doing something that was either A) Ethically very questionable or B) an actual breach of rules.

I'm not talking about greyhound breeders drowning puppies, nor do I believe it likely to occur. You misinterpreted my post and instead of just acknowledging that, you felt the need to try to prove yourself right, even though I'm telling you that you weren't.

And asal.. there are no words for how misinformed and ignorant you are in this discussion. This is going to be my last reply to you because pro or anti, my patience gets very short with those who to turn reasonable discussions into circuses.

By 'reasonable discussion' you appear to mean anyone who takes a contrary view to yours. I disagree with asal the vast majority of the time. We do not get along. However, asal (or indeed Steve) posting views you disagree with is not turning a thread into a circus, it's disagreeing with you. If you can't tell the difference perhaps, again, you should step away.

[Sheridan]

Steve, it's not that those not involved in the wrong-doing are doing the wrong thing just by being trainers, it's that the vast majority of aware of the issues and refuse to speak up. If an ANKC breeder knew of another ANKC breeder who did something like.. routinely drowned unwanted puppies or who lied on breeding registration papers (used a different sire, etc) but that person did not report it, would you not agree that the person shares some amount of guilt by allowing it to continue?

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies?

Regarding your question of why I haven't reported things.. as I mentioned several times, many of the issues are not against any rules. Bosley's mum had litter after litter with epileptic pups and there is no rule or law against creating that misery. As for speaking out about it, I don't mean to sound snarky but what on Earth do you think I'm doing in this thread?

And yes, HazyWal understood what I meant. She and I don't necessarily agree on many of the points of this issue but at least she doesn't base arguments off entirely incorrect interpretations of what I'm saying :/

Steve, using previous posts to back up something that you misunderstood does not make you right. I asked (and I thought I was perfectly clear) what you would do if you knew of an ANKC breeder doing something that was either A) Ethically very questionable or B) an actual breach of rules.

I'm not talking about greyhound breeders drowning puppies, nor do I believe it likely to occur. You misinterpreted my post and instead of just acknowledging that, you felt the need to try to prove yourself right, even though I'm telling you that you weren't.

And asal.. there are no words for how misinformed and ignorant you are in this discussion. This is going to be my last reply to you because pro or anti, my patience gets very short with those who to turn reasonable discussions into circuses.

You are only NOW explaining to me what you meant and just because you thought it was perfectly clear that doesnt make it that it was perfectly clear to me. I wasn't using a previous post to do what you accuse me of I was using it as a way of explaining why I thought you were saying what I thought you were. Now I know what you were saying I apologise that I didn't get it at the time . How the hell was I supposed to know if my interpretation was right or Hazywal had it right until you clarified it? Unless Ive missed something this is the first time you have clarified it.

Im sorry that I took your question the wrong way.

Obviously I have some other things confused because all I see is a whole group of people being judged as complicent because they didn't stand up and report those that you say they knew were doing the wrong thing. But the some of the wrong things you seem to have wanted them to report were not reportable and I believe that many did report the things that were against the rules and illegal. Self regulation meant it was covered up and corrupt.

Just as the grey industry has codes and rules and regs so does the ANKC and there are many things that are considered ethical as per the code of ethics for the state CCs that I believe are not ethical and lots of things that happen in the rescue arena that I dont think are ethical

To a point that the MDBA was born because I also learned that some things are not against the law or codes and even those that are can be pretty hard to prove, and the bullies who want to keep the status quo are pretty scary, but just the same were so unacceptable that something needed to be done.

excellent reply Steve.

as for that comment Maddy That is your opinion,(and that does not necessarily make you right, nice as it might be to think you and you alone can see the glorious truth of your version of the truth) but denigrating me to the degree nothing I say is valid, does not change the fact you want to blanket punish all for the sins of a few.

As Steve said by what right were you given to judge them as complicit of crimes this majority were probably unaware of?

Are you campaigning just as hard for the churches being disbanded because so many priests and ministers were complicit in the actions of the pedephiles in their ranks? Same scenario no matter how you want to paint it. But then children don't deserve you interest or protection, they might grow up to abuse animals?

Yet research points that those who don't kill themselves (stats reveal 70% do not live to see 30) turn to their pets for comfort. They certainly dont get that from the church

I increasingly get the impression the Animal Rights people for whatever reasons in their past hate their own species, so to destroy a majority to punish a minority where animals rights are concerned doesnt concern them at all because they have no sympathy for others of their species

I think this is the result of a far 'left' P.C brigade, who see injustice and rather than accepting we have and always will have a flawed society that must be a work in progress, DO 'hate' their own species.

Perhaps more than those they rail against for promoting hatred, because they call it justifiable (and get away with it) to label whole groups as unfit for recognition as part of the human species, based on the actions of a few and according to their own entitled standards.

Any critical even of how those standards are applied are targets of this dismissal and hate. So you can't critisize a woman with out being sexist, or any member of any group who wants to claim minority status, with out being racist, homophobic or biggoted in way or form.

Promoting the idea themselves, that you can't make an observation referring to individuals, with out implicating their whole human 'type'.

They are encouraging a gentic 'Typing' of humanity and basing their judgements on type.

Not as individuals, influenced by their 'condition' as humans.

Conditions they condemn and oppress, rather than alleviate. In the name of those they see as oppressed! Repeating a cycle of fomenting hatred and oppression by 'genetic 'Typing' and 'Typing' of victimology.

Before I get the condemnation for this post, No, I don't mean ALL 'left' leaning people. I am likely one. I refer only to those people these observations clearly apply to.

Twaddle. Blaming the left for PC-ness has become very fashionable in the last few days and it's rubbish. I will note that you suggesting that the left sees injustice and wanting to do something about it means that the right thinks it's perfectly fine that people are poor or that animals are abused. No, you didn't write that but if you insist on characterising people one way the opposite must also be a truth. Be careful what you argue, academic, for there are gaping holes ready to be tripped into.

[moosmum]

Steve, it's not that those not involved in the wrong-doing are doing the wrong thing just by being trainers, it's that the vast majority of aware of the issues and refuse to speak up. If an ANKC breeder knew of another ANKC breeder who did something like.. routinely drowned unwanted puppies or who lied on breeding registration papers (used a different sire, etc) but that person did not report it, would you not agree that the person shares some amount of guilt by allowing it to continue?

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies?

Regarding your question of why I haven't reported things.. as I mentioned several times, many of the issues are not against any rules. Bosley's mum had litter after litter with epileptic pups and there is no rule or law against creating that misery. As for speaking out about it, I don't mean to sound snarky but what on Earth do you think I'm doing in this thread?

And yes, HazyWal understood what I meant. She and I don't necessarily agree on many of the points of this issue but at least she doesn't base arguments off entirely incorrect interpretations of what I'm saying :/

Steve, using previous posts to back up something that you misunderstood does not make you right. I asked (and I thought I was perfectly clear) what you would do if you knew of an ANKC breeder doing something that was either A) Ethically very questionable or B) an actual breach of rules.

I'm not talking about greyhound breeders drowning puppies, nor do I believe it likely to occur. You misinterpreted my post and instead of just acknowledging that, you felt the need to try to prove yourself right, even though I'm telling you that you weren't.

And asal.. there are no words for how misinformed and ignorant you are in this discussion. This is going to be my last reply to you because pro or anti, my patience gets very short with those who to turn reasonable discussions into circuses.

You are only NOW explaining to me what you meant and just because you thought it was perfectly clear that doesnt make it that it was perfectly clear to me. I wasn't using a previous post to do what you accuse me of I was using it as a way of explaining why I thought you were saying what I thought you were. Now I know what you were saying I apologise that I didn't get it at the time . How the hell was I supposed to know if my interpretation was right or Hazywal had it right until you clarified it? Unless Ive missed something this is the first time you have clarified it.

Im sorry that I took your question the wrong way.

Obviously I have some other things confused because all I see is a whole group of people being judged as complicent because they didn't stand up and report those that you say they knew were doing the wrong thing. But the some of the wrong things you seem to have wanted them to report were not reportable and I believe that many did report the things that were against the rules and illegal. Self regulation meant it was covered up and corrupt.

Just as the grey industry has codes and rules and regs so does the ANKC and there are many things that are considered ethical as per the code of ethics for the state CCs that I believe are not ethical and lots of things that happen in the rescue arena that I dont think are ethical

To a point that the MDBA was born because I also learned that some things are not against the law or codes and even those that are can be pretty hard to prove, and the bullies who want to keep the status quo are pretty scary, but just the same were so unacceptable that something needed to be done.

excellent reply Steve.

as for that comment Maddy That is your opinion,(and that does not necessarily make you right, nice as it might be to think you and you alone can see the glorious truth of your version of the truth) but denigrating me to the degree nothing I say is valid, does not change the fact you want to blanket punish all for the sins of a few.

As Steve said by what right were you given to judge them as complicit of crimes this majority were probably unaware of?

Are you campaigning just as hard for the churches being disbanded because so many priests and ministers were complicit in the actions of the pedephiles in their ranks? Same scenario no matter how you want to paint it. But then children don't deserve you interest or protection, they might grow up to abuse animals?

Yet research points that those who don't kill themselves (stats reveal 70% do not live to see 30) turn to their pets for comfort. They certainly dont get that from the church

I increasingly get the impression the Animal Rights people for whatever reasons in their past hate their own species, so to destroy a majority to punish a minority where animals rights are concerned doesnt concern them at all because they have no sympathy for others of their species

I think this is the result of a far 'left' P.C brigade, who see injustice and rather than accepting we have and always will have a flawed society that must be a work in progress, DO 'hate' their own species.

Perhaps more than those they rail against for promoting hatred, because they call it justifiable (and get away with it) to label whole groups as unfit for recognition as part of the human species, based on the actions of a few and according to their own entitled standards.

Any critical even of how those standards are applied are targets of this dismissal and hate. So you can't critisize a woman with out being sexist, or any member of any group who wants to claim minority status, with out being racist, homophobic or biggoted in way or form.

Promoting the idea themselves, that you can't make an observation referring to individuals, with out implicating their whole human 'type'.

They are encouraging a gentic 'Typing' of humanity and basing their judgements on type.

Not as individuals, influenced by their 'condition' as humans.

Conditions they condemn and oppress, rather than alleviate. In the name of those they see as oppressed! Repeating a cycle of fomenting hatred and oppression by genetic ( maybe 'Conditional' is more accurate) 'Typing' and 'Typing' of victimology.

Before I get the condemnation for this post, No, I don't mean ALL 'left' leaning people. I am likely one. I refer only to those people these observations clearly apply to.

Twaddle. Blaming the left for PC-ness has become very fashionable in the last few days and it's rubbish. I will note that you suggesting that the left sees injustice and wanting to do something about it means that the right thinks it's perfectly fine that people are poor or that animals are abused. No, you didn't write that but if you insist on characterising people one way the opposite must also be a truth. Be careful what you argue, academic, for there are gaping holes ready to be tripped into.

No holes. Just misunderstanding or interpretation..

You have just said much the same as me,with out recognizing the full implications .

As for blaming the Left, yes, as a generalization that is unfair and untrue. Which is why I qualified that by saying I WAS NOT referring to all, Just those who fit the observation. I am sure they have the capacity to self identify without with out assuming because I said 'left' I mean all of them.

THATS the mentality I am critisizing.

There hasn't yet been a term coined for those I do refer to. Maybe Identiphobes :laugh:

People who disregard personal responsibility in favor of a group identity.

So lets just say some people who CHOSE to Identify with the Left. I don't think labels have done us much favor, If people are being forced into them with out their consent.

As for "The left sees injustice and wanting to do some thing about it means the right thinks its perfectly fine people are poor and animals are abused"

There you go. Assigning groups an identity they are then forced to take responsibility for. With out their consent.

Thats the point I'm trying to make AGAINST Characterization or 'Typing' and why I DON'T identify with ANY group other than Human. Anything less implies limitations to my responsibility as a HUMAN. If I chose to identify as a Woman, or a Black, or disabled before I can identify with my Humanity, I limit myself to appeasing that identities self image. I am less responsible for Humanities self image, or how I contribute to that personaly. I would be accepting limits on my abilities in a Human identity to favor an identity limited to its condition.

If I accept that, I can't change those conditions, I can only contribute to them. Acceptance would mean I share them, not change them.

I recognize those conditions, and improve them through my own actions. I don't demand others bear responsibility.

For the most part, If we must use labels for ideologies, Left and Right are pretty ambiguous and misleading. I prefer to think most people recognize injustice and want to "do something about it" Not all forms, because that takes familiarity , then recognition and none of us can be familiar with all forms of social injustice.

Edited November 15, 2016 by moosmum

[Sheridan]

'Without understanding the full implications'.

Thanks for being so utterly patronising. i understand you well enough to realise that you cannot make any argument without devolving into academic claptrap. I understand the implications. I understand what you wrote. I did not write the same thing as you. I pointed out your argument is twaddle.

[m-j]

Ok we have differing opinions on many issues to do with this industry but I'm guessing none of us want to see a large amount of dogs die. As it is at the moment the industry has been given a reprieve but as WM says it probably will happen again, what measures do you (anybody) think could be put in place now, to enable 1000's of dogs to be saved if/when it does happen? I've mentioned my ideas what feels like a thousand times so I won't bore you again but I'm very interested in ideas others may have.

[westiemum]

I've only skim read the last couple of pages of posts but my view on this hasn't changed. But I do need to clarify my comments about the greyhound people who stood by and did nothing. They did nothing illegal. However in my view they are as ethically and morally culpable as those who engaged in active cruelty - culpable passive inaction (I think I've invented a new term).

And yes as m-j says I believe it will happen again - only a matter of time - and if as is highly likely there is then a brutal industry shut-down the issue for those of us who love dogs is how to save as many greys as possible. While not having read previous suggestions, I'm guessing that vastly enlarging the capacity of the existing GAP programmes using their expertise - right through their online systems to fostering and adopting capability. And yes it will take vast amounts of government support - and somehow keeping the RSPCA out of it so it doesn't get buggered up and turned into an RSPCA marketing exercise.

I'd go as far as to suggest that a national GAP approach to the problem would be best even if the problem is initially NSW centred. Its probably the only way that enough fostering support can be garnered quickly. But at the risk of sounding like an old record, it will take massive resources, project and change management expertise and national goodwill. While I know the goodwill will be there, I'm not sure the resources and expertise will be when its needed.

Edited November 15, 2016 by westiemum

[asal]

Ok we have differing opinions on many issues to do with this industry but I'm guessing none of us want to see a large amount of dogs die. As it is at the moment the industry has been given a reprieve but as WM says it probably will happen again, what measures do you (anybody) think could be put in place now, to enable 1000's of dogs to be saved if/when it does happen? I've mentioned my ideas what feels like a thousand times so I won't bore you again but I'm very interested in ideas others may have.

with a bit of luck by the time it happens there will be so few dogs and puppies of any breed available anyone who really wants a dog but cant find one will snap them up. as for if the vic govt get their planned changes though that will be sooner than you can possibly imagine

[m-j]

I've only skim read the last couple of pages of posts but my view on this hasn't changed. But I do need to clarify my comments about the greyhound people who stood by and did nothing. They did nothing illegal. However in my view they are as ethically and morally culpable as those who engaged in active cruelty - culpable passive inaction.

And yes as m-j says I believe it will happen again - only a matter of time - and if as is highly likely there is then a brutal industry shut-down the issue for those of us who love dogs is how to save as many greys as possible. While not having read previous suggestions, I'm guessing that vastly enlarging the capacity of the existing GAP programmes using their expertise - right through their online systems to fostering and adopting capability. And yes it will take vast amounts of government support - and somehow keeping the RSPCA out of it so it doesn't get buggered up and turned into an RSPCA marketing exercise.

I'd go as far as to suggest that a national GAP approach to the problem would be best even if the problem is initially NSW centred. Its probably the only way that enough fostering support can be garnered quickly. But at the risk of sounding like an old record, it will take massive resources, project and change management expertise and national goodwill. While I know the goodwill will be there, I'm not sure the resources and expertise will be when its needed.

Utilising GAP would be great but GAP to my knowledge is an incentive of and funded by the industry, close the industry no more GAP. This is why I would have liked to have seen a bond ( GBOTA suggested $1500, unfortunately this was one of the proposed reforms taken off the table) put on each greyhound when it was 2 weeks old, that would enable it be funded after retirement, another benefit would have been less pups bred due to the added cost of getting them registered $9000 for a litter of 6 pups on top of the 1000's it costs already. I don't see why taxpayers and other good people should be the only contributors to cleaning up their wastage. It would be the breeders choice to absorb that cost or past it on to the potential owners.

[m-j]

Ok we have differing opinions on many issues to do with this industry but I'm guessing none of us want to see a large amount of dogs die. As it is at the moment the industry has been given a reprieve but as WM says it probably will happen again, what measures do you (anybody) think could be put in place now, to enable 1000's of dogs to be saved if/when it does happen? I've mentioned my ideas what feels like a thousand times so I won't bore you again but I'm very interested in ideas others may have.

with a bit of luck by the time it happens there will be so few dogs and puppies of any breed available anyone who really wants a dog but cant find one will snap them up. as for if the vic govt get their planned changes though that will be sooner than you can possibly imagine

I hope that isn't the case but if it did as you said would be good for the Greys maybe they're not everyone's cup of tea.

[asal]

Ok we have differing opinions on many issues to do with this industry but I'm guessing none of us want to see a large amount of dogs die. As it is at the moment the industry has been given a reprieve but as WM says it probably will happen again, what measures do you (anybody) think could be put in place now, to enable 1000's of dogs to be saved if/when it does happen? I've mentioned my ideas what feels like a thousand times so I won't bore you again but I'm very interested in ideas others may have.

with a bit of luck by the time it happens there will be so few dogs and puppies of any breed available anyone who really wants a dog but cant find one will snap them up. as for if the vic govt get their planned changes though that will be sooner than you can possibly imagine

I hope that isn't the case but if it did as you said would be good for the Greys maybe they're not everyone's cup of tea.

have you read the transcripts on the other thread? some realise people will not be able to source what they want in the near future, even the AVA letter stated that many people will chose to go without rather than accept a breed they do not want, ditto for those who do not want a rescue.

Personally I like greys, ultimate lounge lizard and so regal to boot

[m-j]

Ok we have differing opinions on many issues to do with this industry but I'm guessing none of us want to see a large amount of dogs die. As it is at the moment the industry has been given a reprieve but as WM says it probably will happen again, what measures do you (anybody) think could be put in place now, to enable 1000's of dogs to be saved if/when it does happen? I've mentioned my ideas what feels like a thousand times so I won't bore you again but I'm very interested in ideas others may have.

with a bit of luck by the time it happens there will be so few dogs and puppies of any breed available anyone who really wants a dog but cant find one will snap them up. as for if the vic govt get their planned changes though that will be sooner than you can possibly imagine

I hope that isn't the case but if it did as you said would be good for the Greys maybe they're not everyone's cup of tea.

have you read the transcripts on the other thread? some realise people will not be able to source what they want in the near future, even the AVA letter stated that many people will chose to go without rather than accept a breed they do not want, ditto for those who do not want a rescue.

Personally I like greys, ultimate lounge lizard and so regal to boot

Skimmed so I probably have missed a lot.

I call them my retirement dogs as they are so easy to live with and own.

[westiemum]

I've only skim read the last couple of pages of posts but my view on this hasn't changed. But I do need to clarify my comments about the greyhound people who stood by and did nothing. They did nothing illegal. However in my view they are as ethically and morally culpable as those who engaged in active cruelty - culpable passive inaction.

And yes as m-j says I believe it will happen again - only a matter of time - and if as is highly likely there is then a brutal industry shut-down the issue for those of us who love dogs is how to save as many greys as possible. While not having read previous suggestions, I'm guessing that vastly enlarging the capacity of the existing GAP programmes using their expertise - right through their online systems to fostering and adopting capability. And yes it will take vast amounts of government support - and somehow keeping the RSPCA out of it so it doesn't get buggered up and turned into an RSPCA marketing exercise.

I'd go as far as to suggest that a national GAP approach to the problem would be best even if the problem is initially NSW centred. Its probably the only way that enough fostering support can be garnered quickly. But at the risk of sounding like an old record, it will take massive resources, project and change management expertise and national goodwill. While I know the goodwill will be there, I'm not sure the resources and expertise will be when its needed.

Utilising GAP would be great but GAP to my knowledge is an incentive of and funded by the industry, close the industry no more GAP. This is why I would have liked to have seen a bond ( GBOTA suggested $1500, unfortunately this was one of the proposed reforms taken off the table) put on each greyhound when it was 2 weeks old, that would enable it be funded after retirement, another benefit would have been less pups bred due to the added cost of getting them registered $9000 for a litter of 6 pups on top of the 1000's it costs already. I don't see why taxpayers and other good people should be the only contributors to cleaning up their wastage. It would be the breeders choice to absorb that cost or past it on to the potential owners.

Agreed - but there's no reason why some transitional funding shouldn't be made available say for two - three years post shut-down to nationalise GAP as well as maybe a smaller bond (you're right - the industry must shoulder at least some of the responsibility for re-homing their 'excess' and mustn't be allowed to escape scot free).

But again that takes expertise to mobilise these GAP changes - and a very thick skin along with absolute rock solid political protection - and I doubt that will happen.

[Sheridan]

Ok we have differing opinions on many issues to do with this industry but I'm guessing none of us want to see a large amount of dogs die. As it is at the moment the industry has been given a reprieve but as WM says it probably will happen again, what measures do you (anybody) think could be put in place now, to enable 1000's of dogs to be saved if/when it does happen? I've mentioned my ideas what feels like a thousand times so I won't bore you again but I'm very interested in ideas others may have.

with a bit of luck by the time it happens there will be so few dogs and puppies of any breed available anyone who really wants a dog but cant find one will snap them up. as for if the vic govt get their planned changes though that will be sooner than you can possibly imagine

I hope that isn't the case but if it did as you said would be good for the Greys maybe they're not everyone's cup of tea.

There won't be any greys. Will that make you finally happy? If there is no dog breeding at all? Cos that's what's happening in Victoria right now. I have no time for people who cannot see past their own nose.