Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[asal]

50 minutes ago, m-j said:

Audits are part of many service providers work life for the very reason people don't self regulate, it keeps them honest. We have work safe inspectors because people don't self regulate, it is a big part of life in general why should the people in this industry be treated differently?

The reason is because the peta types think where animals are concerned anyone with animals have no rights, those of us who have pets do not understand to a peta person your pet has been enslaved by you, and that includes guilty until PROVEN innocent.  They have been working to create this mindset since the 80's, I saw the beginnings of it and questioned then, I still question now but people want to be seen to be politically correct so tend to think only bad things happen to bad people. bit like the zebra all watching the lion instead of running for their lives until its too late. suspect when one is  caught the others figure, well they must have deserved it or it wouldn't have happened. That is how people tend to see it.  when the same scenario happens to people who know they have not done anything wrong their trust in their previous belief is shattered. they don't tend to cope too well .

Edited May 9, 2017 by asal

[Maddy]

16 hours ago, m-j said:

Audits are part of many service providers work life for the very reason people don't self regulate, it keeps them honest. We have work safe inspectors because people don't self regulate, it is a big part of life in general why should the people in this industry be treated differently?

Because they said they could be trusted to self regulate and to enforce their own rules? 

[Maddy]

15 hours ago, asal said:

The reason is because the peta types think where animals are concerned anyone with animals have no rights, those of us who have pets do not understand to a peta person your pet has been enslaved by you, and that includes guilty until PROVEN innocent.  They have been working to create this mindset since the 80's, I saw the beginnings of it and questioned then, I still question now but people want to be seen to be politically correct so tend to think only bad things happen to bad people. bit like the zebra all watching the lion instead of running for their lives until its too late. suspect when one is  caught the others figure, well they must have deserved it or it wouldn't have happened. That is how people tend to see it.  when the same scenario happens to people who know they have not done anything wrong their trust in their previous belief is shattered. they don't tend to cope too well .

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what m-j asked. She asked why shouldn't racing be overseen by an independent body, you waffled some paranoid garbage about PETA.

 

M-j, for what it's worth, I entirely agree that self-regulation doesn't work and would welcome an independent body to oversee things. However, I honestly don't believe it will ever happen and if it does, the industry will only want "pro" types or industry participants to make up this group, and essentially, it will become self-regulation all over again.

Truly independent regulation/enforcement would be the death of the industry very quickly and they know it.

[moosmum]

I don't think it would.

But I agree its unlikely to happen, and even more unlikely to be accepted with out corruption.

Self regulation can work. 

But only when there is integration with community/environment interests. With out that all they get is entropy.

I can't see that change happening. (See organizational physics.)

Doesn't mean I like it. Or that I could support the industry in its present form.

 

But I argue for the lessons to be learned because there are  others in the same boat.  We lose purpose, diversity and a lot of value by ignoring  integration as a requirement for success.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by moosmum

[m-j]

7 hours ago, Maddy said:

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what m-j asked. She asked why shouldn't racing be overseen by an independent body, you waffled some paranoid garbage about PETA.

 

M-j, for what it's worth, I entirely agree that self-regulation doesn't work and would welcome an independent body to oversee things. However, I honestly don't believe it will ever happen and if it does, the industry will only want "pro" types or industry participants to make up this group, and essentially, it will become self-regulation all over again.

Truly independent regulation/enforcement would be the death of the industry very quickly and they know it.

That's what everyone said about the industry in NSW but it has happened, because of people being the dog's advocates. Time will tell if it does the industry harm, but as I have said before they have some of the strictest regs of any animal industry. There will still be unscrupulous people involved just as there is in ALL animal sports, because that's some humans for you.

Edited May 10, 2017 by m-j

[asal]

7 hours ago, Maddy said:

Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with what m-j asked. She asked why shouldn't racing be overseen by an independent body, you waffled some paranoid garbage about PETA.

 

M-j, for what it's worth, I entirely agree that self-regulation doesn't work and would welcome an independent body to oversee things. However, I honestly don't believe it will ever happen and if it does, the industry will only want "pro" types or industry participants to make up this group, and essentially, it will become self-regulation all over again.

Truly independent regulation/enforcement would be the death of the industry very quickly and they know it.

I agreed completely to her. my comment was in answer to her last sentence "why should the people in this industry be treated differently?"

[asal]

12 hours ago, m-j said:

That's what everyone said about the industry in NSW but it has happened, because of people being the dog's advocates. Time will tell if it does the industry harm, but as I have said before they have some of the strictest regs of any animal industry. There will still be unscrupulous people involved just as there is in ALL animal sports, because that's some humans for you.

you really need to add unscrupulous people are involved in all sports, look at the AFL supplements scandal, Cadel Evans cycling scandal, multiple Olympic drugs scandal's do I need to list more? the problems are not isolated to sports involving animals that are not of the homo sapien  variety, I am not trying cloud the issue, but a bit of reality might not go astray

[m-j]

2 hours ago, asal said:

you really need to add unscrupulous people are involved in all sports, look at the AFL supplements scandal, Cadel Evans cycling scandal, multiple Olympic drugs scandal's do I need to list more? the problems are not isolated to sports involving animals that are not of the homo sapien  variety, I am not trying cloud the issue, but a bit of reality might not go astray

Exactly we can be so stupid just appease our egos. There is money involved but they have just blown the opportunity to utilise their skills in the future when they are past being athletes.

[corvus]

Separating commercial and regulatory functions has been promised by GRNSW along with life long tracking, and was a major cornerstone of recommendations from the reform panel. An independent regulator is a part of that. I do believe it will happen, because I think it has actually been legislated, now, if I'm not mistaken (which is possible - it's hard work keeping up). Of course they will try to get sympathetic people in, but some of the problems in NSW at least in the past were exacerbated by an uneven balance of power between greyhound owners/breeders/trainers and the government within GRNSW. I think participants in NSW are most concerned that kind of thing is going to be repeated. GRNSW promised they would clean the industry up. None of the other states have made any such bold statements that I know of, although Greyhound Racing Victoria has some bold moves coming through the pipeline from their recent policy update. 

 

The government in NSW wants the greyhound industry gone. You would be mistaken to think that has anything at all to do with animal rights advocates, PETA, Animals Australia, RSPCA, or even animal welfare. Animal welfare was just a convenient out at the time - or at least that's what Baird seemed to think. It is a lot more political than it seems. The greyhound industry has an agreement with harness racing and horse racing industries about income from gambling. The agreement sees all gambling income from the three codes pooled and then redistributes it according to the percentages in the agreement. Greyhounds were contributing considerably more to that pool than they were getting back. This is a ticking time bomb for the other two codes, because sooner or later, this is probably going to be rectified and they lose a bunch of money. If they can squeeze greyhounds out, punters are predicted to shift to the horse codes, and they get more money and don't have to worry about the greyhound industry getting the agreement changed. They can't do it on their own, though. They need the government to legislate them out. So, the greyhound industry in NSW got a reprieve because it turned out there were more people that were involved and wanted it to stay AND VOTE than it seems Baird was counting on. The special commission recommended that the TAB agreement be changed so it was fair. The other codes obviously have no interest in this, but the greyhound industry could take it to court and there's already a precedent set. The greyhound industry would almost certainly be successful. But they haven't, and AFAIK, there are no plans that they do this. Think about it. GRNSW is still to some degree a state body, so it's still at its core ruled by the state government... which wants it gone. 

[m-j]

It has been passed and the committee that is responsible for upholding the regulations is made up of a majority of non participants in the industry.

Edited May 11, 2017 by m-j

[Maddy]

On 5/11/2017 at 8:49 AM, asal said:

you really need to add unscrupulous people are involved in all sports, look at the AFL supplements scandal, Cadel Evans cycling scandal, multiple Olympic drugs scandal's do I need to list more? the problems are not isolated to sports involving animals that are not of the homo sapien  variety, I am not trying cloud the issue, but a bit of reality might not go astray

Again with the false equivalence garbage. Comparing a football player who cheats to a greyhound trainer who bludgeons dogs to death is absurd. The fact that you cannot see the immense difference between those two things suggests to me that perhaps you and I have very different ideas of what is acceptable practice in an industry involving animals. 

[corvus]

It's not hard to find people within the industry that are good to their dogs. It's not hard to find people that are not making money from racing but do it anyway. It's not hard to find people racing dogs that also have retired or failed racers at home that they are supporting as well. If you want a fair comparison, we could easily argue that some dog breeders (hoarders) are immensely cruel to their dogs, to the point where they can be charged and convicted with animal cruelty. There is no argument that some participants in the industry should not be allowed near animals, same as some people in the public should not be allowed to own animals. It doesn't seem fair to me to punish everyone involved (and their dogs) because of that. 

[m-j]

If we call for the demise of one animal industry because of a bad minority isnt it only fair  that all animal industries/sports should have the same treatment. I personally think that way of thinking is flawed as Corvus said why punish a majority for the sins of a minority, why not just do something about it to prohibit that minority doing what they do, as has been done in NSW. 

[asal]

24 minutes ago, m-j said:

If we call for the demise of one animal industry because of a bad minority isnt it only fair  that all animal industries/sports should have the same treatment. I personally think that way of thinking is flawed as Corvus said why punish a majority for the sins of a minority, why not just do something about it to prohibit that minority doing what they do, as has been done in NSW. 

I don't think that is what maddy wants to hear,  the sports people who cheat actually are bludgening themselves when you learn how badly what they have done does to their health and lifespan, as for the players who were given the stuff by their trainer who didn't care a jot about the effects it would have on their lives and health, same cruelty but hey people are dreadful so what happens bad to them doesn't count, is that the message?

[Simply Grand]

1 hour ago, m-j said:

If we call for the demise of one animal industry because of a bad minority isnt it only fair  that all animal industries/sports should have the same treatment. I personally think that way of thinking is flawed as Corvus said why punish a majority for the sins of a minority, why not just do something about it to prohibit that minority doing what they do, as has been done in NSW. 

What industries/sports are you including in your comparison?

[m-j]

38 minutes ago, Simply Grand said:

What industries/sports are you including in your comparison?

Any that have people who do the wrong thing by their animals even if those people are a small minority.

[Simply Grand]

57 minutes ago, m-j said:

Any that have people who do the wrong thing by their animals even if those people are a small minority.

That's not an answer, could you be specific?

[m-j]

Any/all where the wellbeing of the animal relies on humans

[Maddy]

Ah yes, back to the old "but other things could also be a problem" argument. As if our inability to attain complete perfection in animal welfare is a valid argument against even trying to improve things where we can. And let's be honest, there is ample room for improvement in greyhound racing.

 

[m-j]

3 hours ago, Maddy said:

Ah yes, back to the old "but other things could also be a problem" argument. As if our inability to attain complete perfection in animal welfare is a valid argument against even trying to improve things where we can. And let's be honest, there is ample room for improvement in greyhound racing.

 

There is room for improvement in the other states but instead of ending the industry why not try to fix it. Already the "scare " that the NSW participants have undergone has seen improvements  happen and the good aspects of the sport are continuing. People not getting proactive and just sitting on their hands isn't  going to see things improve and as I've said many times before I don't think shutting it down will help the existing dogs, 10000's of dogs will have nowhere to go, the reforms in NSW help dogs now and in the future and also the good folk in the industry.

To be PC it could be seen as discrimination.

Edited May 13, 2017 by m-j