Nsw To Ban Greyhound Racing From July 2017

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Sounds like momentum is building for a challenge; the ban may yet be overturned. I can't accept that a whole industry is shut down simply because Baird says so

[Redsonic]

The view from the other side of the fence

This guy has not read the Commissioner's report. I am halfway through Volume 2 and so many of the guy's claims on Facebook have been dealt with in the report and found to be fairy dust. The claims in particular that the Greyhound Racing NSW board was finally implementing reforms were dealt with in a scathing matter by the commission. Firstly that there were lots of "moving towards" statements, and little actually done; secondly that the board's goals met smack up against the toxic culture of the industry members, and attempts at change faltered; thirdly that the industry was so far removed from modern animal behaviour science that it often didn't even get theneed to modernise animal training, breeding and rearing techniques.

To meet some of his claims more specifically (his claims are quoted or paraphrased in quotes, and the inquiry's findings below each point):

[GRNSW] Put in place steps and actions to remedy the issue -

Commission showed that time and again, the GRNSW “steps” were either:

Vague

Unfunded

Aimed at a target with nothing to do with public concerns

Breeders to obtain a licence and have their facilities inspected

Licence is free, involves reading a booklet and completing a very basic quiz, not certified at all. Facility requirements only cover the raising of a litter, not the actual whelping.

Tripled investment in GAP program.

Commission noted that the number of kennels available at the GAP centre had tripled, but rehoming was still challenged by the centralisation of this facility and went only a tiny percentage of the way to dealing with wastage in the industry.

Developing licensing systems to ensure all licensees would comply with core competencies

There are no competencies which have been developed with a training organisation or outside animal welfare body.

Embracing Change campaign

public relations spin.

Baird’s first quote about

the systematic deception of the public [of greyhound deaths and injuries on track]

was answered by facebook guy with blurb about track design research and improvement. GRNSW had a clear policy not to record deaths on track and to describe injuries with euphemisms which diminished their severity. This deceived punters and animal welfare groups alike, and was only stopped when uncovered by the inquiry. Facebook guy has said nothing about this.

Baird’s next quote

the widespread practice of live baiting

The guy says the suggestion of the issue being widespread is without concrete evidence. The commission interviewed 4/5 people caught live baiting and all but 1 said the rate was 80-90%. The commission chose to believe the trainer that said it was 10-20%, as his evidence seemed generally most reliable. Commission also uncovered situations at training tracks where rabbit sellers moved freely amongst all trainers, and suggested that the practice was widely known about amongst trainers but not reported to GRNSW. This convinced the commissioner that cultural change was going to be hard to shift and that live baiting would continue.

Figures don’t account for number of greyhounds moved interstate or kept by their owners at retirement.

Commission discussed this; many greyhounds are moved to NSW from interstate so total difference is not significant (when considering the tens of thousands of greyhounds involved). Commission used GRNSW own figures re the dogs retired as pets with owners and their families.

Facebook guy states that the greyhound industry in NSW could move toward 100% rehoming of retired or slow dogs.

The commission found that GRNSW could not operate sustainably without great wastage of greyhounds. The number of dogs needed to fill race schedules to keep racing profitable would always lead to a surplus of uncompetitive animals. GRNSW admitted that into the future it could only re-home approx 10% of animals. There is a finite number of pet homes in NSW able/willing to take a greyhound. Facebook guy's comparison with the US is disingenuous, as only 8 states still race greyhounds yet presumably the entire country (pop 320million) is available to adopt.

Facebook guy praises the new board’s efforts and sets it up as proof the industry could reform.

Commission found that numerous efforts by the board to reform appeared stymied by industry participants and did not result in change.

Breeding levels were down and adoption levels were up [since 4 corners report].

Commission considers that the fall in litters was a direct result of uncertainty following the live baiting scandal, and the adoption rates were up from a very low baseline.

There was more, but I haven't finished the report, and it is clear this guy hasn't read (or understood) it

Edited July 12, 2016 by Redsonic

[The Spotted Devil]

Thanks for posting Redsonic. I have also been trawling through the report and the detail is incredible. So many people keep telling me about the "misinformation" yet they clearly haven't bothered to read the report. I've actually approached this from a fairly objective angle.

[westiemum]

Great posts Redsonic and Spotty. I too am ploughing through the report. You do really have to read it to understand what justified the ban - and given the report credibility which no-one is questioning, it is justified. IMO, having read a large chunk of it, there is no other choice.

Edited July 12, 2016 by westiemum

[PossumCorner]

Today its the greyhound industry under attack .... Tomorrow will be the horse racing industry... first the jumps racing ....

And this is a bad thing?? I'd be happy to see the jumps racing gone.

[corvus]

I still cannot quite believe this is an animal welfare decision. The majority of the reasons cited could apply to the horse racing industry and live exports just as well, including ample opportunity for reform that has not been embraced. Yet, I will be very surprised if either of those industries are dealt the same blow. Both have faced serious controversy in the past and have somehow weathered it. Although, I was surprised it happened to greyhound racing. Interesting that the AVA has suddenly felt it is acceptable to support the ban, but still tiptoe around horse racing and live exports. The inconsistencies irk me. But, what's new.

[BarbedWire]

You can't knock them all over at once but hopefully one day they will all fall. I hate animal cruelty and exploitation and that includes horse racing, harness racing, and live export.

[Lhok]

You can't knock them all over at once but hopefully one day they will all fall. I hate animal cruelty and exploitation and that includes horse racing, harness racing, and live export.

And the same can be said and is being said about the pet industry. People have been asking to have breeding banned due to the shelters putting down dogs.

So would you also be happy to see pets go to?

--Lhok

[Jed]

Sarspididious - animal rights, much?

What on earth are you doing on a dog forum? I suppose I could ask the same question of many posters.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Jed

[BarbedWire]

Why shouldn't I be one a dog forum? I am not against dogs as pets. I am against animal sports where there is gambling and people are there just to make money, and the same goes for live exports. It is just about making money and the welfare of the animals doesn't matter.

[Katdogs]

Sounds like momentum is building for a challenge; the ban may yet be overturned. I can't accept that a whole industry is shut down simply because Baird says so

It's not surprising really - similar philosophy to westconnex, our councils, now TAFE...

[Sheridan]

Why shouldn't I be one a dog forum? I am not against dogs as pets. I am against animal sports where there is gambling and people are there just to make money, and the same goes for live exports. It is just about making money and the welfare of the animals doesn't matter.

Because once the momentum builds it will just be a matter of time before pet dog breeding is banned.

[BarbedWire]

Why shouldn't I be one a dog forum? I am not against dogs as pets. I am against animal sports where there is gambling and people are there just to make money, and the same goes for live exports. It is just about making money and the welfare of the animals doesn't matter.

Because once the momentum builds it will just be a matter of time before pet dog breeding is banned.

That's your opinion and I disagree.

[Sheridan]

Why shouldn't I be one a dog forum? I am not against dogs as pets. I am against animal sports where there is gambling and people are there just to make money, and the same goes for live exports. It is just about making money and the welfare of the animals doesn't matter.

Because once the momentum builds it will just be a matter of time before pet dog breeding is banned.

That's your opinion and I disagree.

Yes, it is my opinion. After all, I wrote it. Why do people write that?

Edited July 13, 2016 by Sheridan

[BarbedWire]

Why shouldn't I be one a dog forum? I am not against dogs as pets. I am against animal sports where there is gambling and people are there just to make money, and the same goes for live exports. It is just about making money and the welfare of the animals doesn't matter.

Because once the momentum builds it will just be a matter of time before pet dog breeding is banned.

That's your opinion and I disagree.

Yes, it is my opinion. After all, I wrote it. Why do people write that?

LOLs at the above.

[moosmum]

Why shouldn't I be one a dog forum? I am not against dogs as pets. I am against animal sports where there is gambling and people are there just to make money, and the same goes for live exports. It is just about making money and the welfare of the animals doesn't matter.

The same can just as easily be said of dog breeders, by people who are kept at a distance from the industry and have no understanding of it but what they see in the media.

You may disagree, but this is just the beginning. Unless the public is given a stake and the means to reclaim responsibility for direction of the species its inevitable.

A pedigree can not define a dog or a breeder. To act on the message that it does is to reduce environments able to support dogs. All a K.C can ever realy be is a SPECIFIC environment. If its the only legitimate environment, it will work over time to reduce all environments. By denying those communities an ability to respond favorably to the dogs produced there. They will always be held to be sub standard goods produced unethicaly.

Those communities will forget how to respond to those dogs to get the most out them, if any attempts meet scorn and resistance and the products always said to be inferior. Regardless of what dogs are used or careful expertise, if the practices or responses aren't taught. They can't be taught if the K.Cs insist, as an expert identity, that none out side their orgs. could possibly have any credentials. The dogs loose value to communities because they aren't getting the most out of them and so the dogs aren't meeting their needs.

That spills over into affecting pedigree dogs as well, if people aren't being taught how to respond to the species. Because it IS a single species.

So the Kennel Orgs. blame the community for their lack of responsibility and reduce the chances that they will be associated with any of that by condemning the environments that show so little respect (for those values no one may teach them.)

They hold on to good breeding stock, spey early and issue limit registers to say we take no responsibility if this dog is bred from out side the pedigree system it comes from. It was not for breeding. The quality and suitability of domestic dogs deteriorates with few known good candidates available for even semi predictable quality to join with any dogs that do stand out for desired traits (if not pedigree) while the more reliably bred pedigrees them selves are rarely bred 1st with a family pet in mind and popular sires from the show ring are over represented. Domestic dogs are no longer bred 1st for for suitability in purely domestic environments.

As the environment/community for domestic dogs: We lose responsibility, or an ability to respond favorably to the species and so it no longer meets our needs and expectations. The cost is too great and its easier to do with out where things go wrong. So as a community, we ban another possible environment where dogs were still welcome.

All thats standing in the way of a CHANCE to reverse this process is to say 'A dog is a dog, and a breeder is a breeder and we should take personal responsibility to see that anyone who wants to be involved with Dogs can be. We will do our best to help them understand how to respond to the dog to get the most out of it, and any dogs produced have the lives intended by the breeder.

As citizens who value dogs.

Not as representatives of the only valid system that can practice with any degree of ethics.

To do that doesn't take any value away from a pedigree dog or breeder. It adds value in the eyes of the community for the service of a healthier environment for dogs, and a new appreciation of the value of knowledge a pedigree provides. A pedigree dog will ALWAYS offer more predictable traits for more specific requirements.

As long as people learn to respond to and value dogs, that predictability will be sought and favored in ownership and breeding.

If that response is not taught, The community with an ability to respond FAVORABLY to the species will shrink further and less need seen for dogs of any stripe. More so Pedigrees because they're even more of an unknown than a mutt in the publics eyes, and the process of buying is often not pleasant.

One day it will click with some one. Hope its not too late.

There are physical laws governing response-ability that affect the evolutionary direction of any species. Set or fixed ideas are like a genetic code for a fixed trait. They reduce ability to respond or adapt to environmental change or stress by blocking the direction of responses that don't support those beliefs. A collective of people with the same 'genetic' message or belief will affect their environment collectively.

Edited July 13, 2016 by moosmum

[WoofnHoof]

All wonderful ideals but in the current climate people outside of the industry do not understand why the industry does not deal with cruelty within its own ranks. We can make up all the excuses in the world but it doesn't absolve us of the responsibility.

[Steve]

There is another point here - the people involved in greyhound racing had no choice but to be members of one organisation - not just to race but also to own train and breed them .All dogs involved had to be under their breeding and recording system to be able to be involved.The good guys have no choice but to swim in the same pond . When a few are sprung and shown to be doing horrible things everyone in the group is judged as the pond scum and the entire group population and their dogs are punished.

Cant see any difference in this and the ANKC and if enough get busted for what the community feels is cruelty - bingo.

Worse there are so many beating their chests telling everyone they are better than the rest that they completely miss what it is that the community is judging them on.

The community is judging them on things they do which are being sensationalised as being cruel which they are told is produced by the showring but those who are showing and those who make their money out of the showring think they are untouchable and superior and cant see it coming.

The Ccs are caught up with the whole dont let our breeders look like puppy farmers and completely ignore what will have the potential to do what has been done here. Just as those grey trainers didnt see that what they did was cruel some purebred breeders cant see that by breeding dogs which the community is being told suffer their whole lives due to the selection for the show ring standard that they are closer to being seen as the cruel industry that selects dogs with physical features that make them suffer.

They introduce prefix exams, waiting periods,ownership of a purebred dog and being a member for over a year before they can apply to breed, push those already there for breeding less litters no close breeding no matter what the reason, limiting the gene pools with limited register and less litters, inspect to see they are picking up poo keeping their records in order etc just as the grey people did but cant see what it is they will be judge on because they see nothing wrong with it.

[moosmum]

All wonderful ideals but in the current climate people outside of the industry do not understand why the industry does not deal with cruelty within its own ranks. We can make up all the excuses in the world but it doesn't absolve us of the responsibility.

No, It doesn't. So we are left with no other choices in our response.

I wouldn't call them 'ideals' Its how things work. See Richard Dawkins( evolutionary Biologist) on Faith.

'Beliefs' are fine until you accept them as truths and refuse to any challenge to them, yet act on them as truth and ask every one else to do the same. Only hes talking religious faith and human generations/ environment. Here we are talking of a biological 'belief' and its effects on dogs and their environment. Much shorter generations and much faster effect.

A belief in the pedigree system is beneficial.

It ceases to be beneficial when it demands breeding outside a pedigree system ISN"T beneficial and there is no value to be had out side its own systems.

Edited July 13, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

All wonderful ideals but in the current climate people outside of the industry do not understand why the industry does not deal with cruelty within its own ranks. We can make up all the excuses in the world but it doesn't absolve us of the responsibility.

I would argue that they cant deal with what the community comes to see as cruelty because they cant see that what they do is cruel not because they wont police it but because they cant see that the same things they see as needing to be policed and dealt with are the same as what the community places a priority on.

The grey people at the top of the admin tree were very good at identification and record keeping making sure their members picked up poo and whole bunch of other stuff but couldnt see that breeding huge amounts that were killed or allowing them to chase live lures was anything to write home about and that it was something they needed to be seen to take action on its the same in the purebred dog world. They simply dont get it and they will shrug it off because they will defend what they do as they truly dont see breeding dogs which suffer due to an extreme conformation is a something they need to take different action on that the community will consider acceptable. After all its not them - its the other guys.