Greyhound Racing To Be Shut Down

[Salukifan]

I've seen a fair few posts likening the greyhound industry to the end of whaling. The issue with this analogy is that whaling didn't (mostly) end due to community attitudes as has been suggested. It ended because of the development of vegetable oils instead of whale oil in margarines and because of the development of kerosene for oil lamps.

Increasing scarcity also played a part.

[WoofnHoof]

The program ran out of time, but I wished they'd had time to flesh out if there was any way greys & their owners could simply enjoy racing... but outside an 'industry' structure Also the president of the greyhound trainers association was on the panel & he didn't have time to spell out what he said was a recent innovation. Each greyhound was given an ID when born which would permit tracking & accountability re what eventually happened to it

Of course there is. It's the model followed in most American states that the anti-racing brigade would have you believe have banned it.

No "commercial" racing. No professional trainers. Just hobby people racing the dogs they keep at home.

And a whole bunch of regulation.

Who regulates it over there? Our current government is very much a fan of the "user pays" school of thought, and privatising as many services as possible.

I would love to see animal welfare regulation and enforcement wholly and solely in public hands, I think it would be the best option for animals and people. Unfortunately I don't think it will ever happen.

[moosmum]

I'm telling you how it is. Not how it should be. Like it or not the ANKC represents a large proportion of the dog breeding sector, therefore if they are not seen to be acting against those who do the wrong thing the whole sector will be viewed as complicit. Cruelty and waste are not to be tolerated any more. No ifs. No buts.

The realty is that the industry is seen as a whole unit by the community, and it is the community which decides their fate. Outside of dog circles the ban has been welcomed. The greyhound racing people coming out and saying they have millions of $ to fight the ban is only making the public more convinced that they had the power to change but lacked the will.

Better go and look at the figures the - ANKC is very much a minority group in fact in 2015 only 79 breeders in australia who were registered with the ANKC had 10 litters and defining the wrong - this is the tricky bit . Some people don't see any wrong in dogs being humanely PTS if they don't work or run fast enough - some call it wastage and animal cruelty but others call it life. There is nothing in the animal cruelty laws which defines culling dogs which don't cut the grade humanely a criminal or even a cruel act. Some people think killing a dog for any reason unacceptable - look at the thread re rescue dogs who are aggressive .So its O.K. to kill a dog because it has a temperament that doesn't fit requirements for quick and easy placement in a family but not O.K. to kill a dog that doesn't fit requirements for winning races or herding sheep and cant be quickly and appropriately rehomed?

How do you expect that they the ANKC will act against those doing the wrong thing by ever growing community standards when they encourage it and actually have regs which govern maintaining. I can just see them going after a pug breeder and throwing them out because they have bred dogs with breathing problems.

So in all seriousness what do you see as things which are wrong or some of their members are doing wrong that they should be acting against - that there is a reasonable expectation that they would act against?

The figures the public sees are the figures that matter. Thousands of young animals euthanised for not being suitable, thousands of animals tortured for the sport. Societies which represent breeds and breeders hold the future in their hands. For example knowing the huge euthanasia rates in greys why does the association not restrict breeding to numbers that are more sustainable? We know why, because registration $ are important, but that just proves the point that money trumps welfare in the these bodies which have the power to enact change but refuse to do so.

"It wasn't me" isn't going to be enough when the question is asked "why didn't you do anything?"

You know what the issues are in the dog world just as I know what the issues are in the horse world, address those issues and be seen doing it. If someone's poor practices are tolerated by the governing bodies we need to ask why. If everything is perfect and no one ever does the wrong thing then show it. If someone does the wrong thing show how they are dealt with.

Was listening to Temple Grandin speak the other day, she said "don't let bad become normal" "we can't escape the phone camera it's everywhere". She hammered the point that industry has to be open and honest and seen to be addressing the issues. It was in the context of production animals but it applies across the board I think.

Essentially we need to address issues, zero tolerance, and be seen to be addressing them. If someone is breeding so many they need to cull a significant portion then that is not best practice and not sustainable. The public isn't going to care if it's only one person doing it they are going to ask why is that one person still allowed to do this. Why didn't anyone who knew about it put a stop to it? So why didn't we?

Bad becomes normal when we only show case the bad. When we don't show the good, and how it was achieved.

As for percentage and numbers of pedigree breeders, the percentage and numbers are irrelevant. The group identity has influence as an 'expert' and distinct body. Even more so when they teach the 'pedigree breeder' identity is the only correct response to community demands and expectations from dogs.

Zero tolerance is not the answer. Teaching effective response is. Teaching how to respond to the species to get maximum value with the minimum cost -to that species and the environment it exists in.

Teach effective response so people have the tools to take responsibility for their own choices, and those who don't will not prosper for it.

No matter what their group identity is. People recognize a LACK of values. When they understand the reasoning behind positive values they have the tools to address them. Not before.

eg; the example of the grey breeder working with rescue and minimizing his own wastage with carefully planned breeding. Taking personal responsibility in SPITE of industry demands.

How does the group industry identity reward that? Does it hold his example up as a favorable response to community demands?

And does the industry identity contribute anything positive to community so that it sees a need to preserve that identity?

How do they include the community to foster an interest in this purpose for dogs?

Because thats how you teach an ability to respond to the challenges of the purpose. By demonstrating the rewards of doing so. To the community.

The costs imposed can be kept to a minimum, when the community has an interest in seeing that they are. Because THEY benefit from seeing they are kept to a minimum.

The industry can't do that for itself. It has to be for the communities benefit, not their own.

The ability to respond, or take responsibility, is governed by physical laws. Identity and belief (or perceptions of identity) impact on that ability in the same way as genetics impact on a species ability to respond.

The environment places stresses on a species or identity. An evolutionary or adaptive response may or may not be the result depending on an inherent ability to adapt, and the diversity available to facilitate that adaptation through more effective responses.

The most effective being favored for success by the decrease in stress factors being felt.

The environment does not 'respond' to a species or identities demands (or costs imposed ) Those only deplete and limit the environment available over time. Rejection, due to damage.

A species or identity only gains favor in the environment by demonstrating responses to environmental stressors that DON"T impose costs on the environment.

Neither gets a favored response or benefit from the environment with out a purpose that benefits the health of that environment. Thats how the environment (or a supportive community) grows and expands. To support the species or identity that can respond the stresses and demands as they occur. So there are fewer stresses and costs imposed on the species or identity- less attrition from a healthier, evolving environment or community.

It seems this concept of a community as an environment, and peoples role as a species with distinct identities, traits and abilities to respond is hard for people to grasp.

Responsibility is an individual trait and diversity aids that ability as a species.

Specific set identity that can't show a benefit the community beyond that identity imposes costs on its environment and resources that must limit it. Specific and set identity as a goal limits the diversity and response it allows.

Re; Temple Grandin 'open and honest and SEEN to be addressing the issues'- An industry won't do any of those things with out recognition its 'being' is not a given, but depends on delivering a service to appreciate and uphold. Not costs and impositions its easier to do with out.

ANKC may have nothing to do with the Grey industry, but there are enough similarities in cause and effect to take notice.

Edited July 12, 2016 by moosmum

[mita]

The program ran out of time, but I wished they'd had time to flesh out if there was any way greys & their owners could simply enjoy racing... but outside an 'industry' structure Also the president of the greyhound trainers association was on the panel & he didn't have time to spell out what he said was a recent innovation. Each greyhound was given an ID when born which would permit tracking & accountability re what eventually happened to it

Of course there is. It's the model followed in most American states that the anti-racing brigade would have you believe have banned it.

No "commercial" racing. No professional trainers. Just hobby people racing the dogs they keep at home.

And a whole bunch of regulation.

Why isn't that US working model of 'hobby' greyhound racing being brought up here - by both the anti- and pro- brigades. Seems like an attractive compromise. The community happily lives with the various dog sports as hobbies. However, a 'loss' would be in dropping high priority on the economics. One strand of pro-racing stresses the fact that presently some communities & individuals rely on the associated moneys.

It was the SMH journalist who made the good point that the greys enjoyed racing, so no inherent cruelty. Rather it's the commercial/gambling influenced infrastructure that seems to promote toxic practices. That's when I hoped they'd move on to discussing a different model (or models).

Is that regulation of the US hobby model, linked with laws or is it self-regulation? Or, perhaps, a combination of both?

Edited July 12, 2016 by mita

[juice]

Just to point out whaling hasn't stopped, check out the Japanese in the southern ocean and the savages of the faro's islands for a start.

[workcocker1983]

Just to point out whaling hasn't stopped, check out the Japanese in the southern ocean and the savages of the faro's islands for a start.

Savages??? Seems a bit rough for a culture that is 100's of years old.

[PossumCorner]

..... Why isn't that US working model of 'hobby' greyhound racing being brought up here -

Possibly because the whole country would roll about laughing at the concept: meaning with the numbers involved and their previous commercialism/professionalism, how long would it be before the SP Bookies were standing up (oh that's right, thought that was illegal too: another joke).

I'd give it about twenty minutes.

Edited July 13, 2016 by PossumCorner

[juice]

Savages is being polite about how i actually feel about these people workcocker .Try looking into it a bit more.

[mita]

..... Why isn't that US working model of 'hobby' greyhound racing being brought up here -

Possibly because the whole country would roll about laughing at the concept: meaning with the numbers involved and their previous commercialism/professionalism, how long would it be before the SP Bookies were standing up (oh that's right, thought that was illegal too: another joke).

I'd agree that would have to be included in the discussion... how gambling in Australia has historic precedents of going underground, as in the old SP bookies. And an already established set of habits is not likely to die easily. Certainly, the industry is a huge money-maker in terms of income from gambling.

However, there seems to be a wave of genuine concern to do something to improve the lot of racing greyhounds ... for all sorts of reasons and coming from all sorts of perspectives. So it's good to see likely resolutions being aired... for critique, and for debate on pros & cons. Note I said that other models should be brought up for discussion...not just advocacy.

WnH made a point about how public (rather than entirely private) regulation would still be needed. Regulation would be a significant issue, lest a hobby model might take abuses (as well as gambling as you pointed out) underground. So it'd be interesting to see what's the nature of the US regulations and what evidence there is on their effectiveness in improving the lot of the greys.

Edited July 13, 2016 by mita

[workcocker1983]

Savages is being polite about how i actually feel about these people workcocker .Try looking into it a bit more.

I admire the Faroese people. They are doing exactly what the generations of their people have in the years before. Not everyone get their food from a polystyrene tray in the supermarket. They take what they need and there is little waste. What will eventually stop them is the high levels of pollutants that are in the whales.

Anyway this is completely OT. Carry on....

[m-j]

People can gamble on human sports of all kinds too, do we stop them as well? Because gambling is regulated there are measures that have been put in place to assist problem gamblers with their problem and because they can be seen (transparency) it can be done, if it goes underground no transparency no regulation and the people willing to take the risk to organise gambling outlets for gamblers probably wouldn't give to hoots about gambler's welfare so long as they get their money. Gambling is an addiction, if it was made illegal it won't stop, drugs are a good example, Portugal (I think that was the country mentioned in the docco I was watching) has legalised some drugs and 10 yrs down the track there have been improvements.

The racing culture could be changed, not overnight though, by forcing them to be accountable for the dogs welfare before, during and after racing. The industry does need to become more educated, transparent, regulated and policed. If that becomes the norm the younger up and coming trainers, owners etc will accept it as that is the way it is.

As has been mentioned Greys love to run and I believe the track is the safest place for them to do this, if there were as many Greys running around at off-lead dog parks etc as there are racing, there would be far far more injuries even fatalities, as much as I love them I'm convinced they are the klutzes of the dog world. In nearly 50 yrs of owning dogs, the last 12 with Greys I 've had more self induced injuries than in the other nearly 38yrs with other dog breeds. I am very careful where I let my dogs off-lead. In the pens and running lanes at the kennels I worked at, the ground was manicured and well maintained to avoid injuries.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

There's two problems with gambling - one is the addiction...

the other is fiddling results (at the expense of the sport and the addicted). It happens in horse racing, and human sports too, anything that people can put bets on - is vulnerable.

but banning gambling - just drives it completely underground.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[juice]

.

Edited July 13, 2016 by juice

[Steve]

This isnt about gambling its about how the loud part of the community now see what has been seen within the industry as normal,not cruel and perfectly acceptable as being part of what they do as the norm as abhorrent.

Now its no longer politically correct to dare say 'so what' and they get how because others are judging them harshly enough to impact on the politicians and shut them down - they will stop using live lures and try to cut PTS rates.

[westiemum]

Apologies if this has been discussed before tonight - but I've only just caught up with it on the late night repeat.

The 7.30 Report tonight aired an interview with a clearly highly traumatised vet who worked for Greyhound Racing NSW over 2014 and 2015. He reported he and his family have been threatened by greyhound trainers because he is speaking out. He has spoken out about the evidence he documented of the horrific injuries and track euthanasias that never appeared in the Steward reports because they 'didn't want to set-off the Greenies'. He also stated that the attitude of the GRNSW hierarchy after the Four Corners Live Baiting revelations in February 2015 was 'it could have been worse' and they were relieved that all that was reported was the live baiting and that at that time the money laundering and other cruel practices were overlooked. So from their perspective it was weather the storm and then business as usual. The vet stated that the incident which pushed him out of the industry was a greyhound who sustained a tail injury in a race 19 months ago. He told the trainer from Rockhampton that the tail should be amputated. At the end of the meet the tail was found at the starting gate, rope attached where it had clearly been pulled off, probably using the start gate. The trainer denied any wrong doing and is still training in Rockhampton 19 months later. Despite the photographic evidence aired on the programme there has been no investigation by GNSW.

Dr Bryant says he wants the industry shut-down Australia-wide as its absolutely incapable of reform. Must say after yet more shocking images on the 7.30 report tonight I can't come to any other conclusion. An orderly shut-down is the only solution and it has to be Australia-wide,

The programme also raised another question in my mind - who cares for people like this vet and no doubt many others who are clearly severely traumatised by what they have witnessed in this industry? And what gives this industry the right to continue cruelty and corruption like this that traumatises employees? Surely these are serious OHS breaches as well. Fact: vets have the highest rate of suicide of any profession (I found this out while working at the University of Adelaide Vet School in 2012) - and this industry I suspect is part of the problem.

Suggest people look at the programme on iView but beware the images are very graphic.

Edited July 15, 2016 by westiemum

[westiemum]

The racing culture could be changed, not overnight though, by forcing them to be accountable for the dogs welfare before, during and after racing.

Sorry but this could not be more wrong. I have earned my living helping organisations shift and re-align their cultures, and the factors for successful culture change do not exist in this industry and probably never will. And that's clearly what the Commission of Inquiry found if you read the report. You can't force anyone or any organisation to change and be accountable. It has to be driven from the top internally and its tough work to get each and every individual on board with any change and requires huge and prolonged commitment. I know - I've done it over years in organisations desperate to change (unlike this industry) - and its still shockingly resource intensive, requires high levels of know-how, rock-solid executive buy-in and hard work over a long period of time. Dragging an organisation or industry kicking and screaming to the change table doesn't work. And yes you can check the literature if you like. The silence from the large-step change organisations who have the capacity to attempt something like this (eg McKinsey's, Deloitte's) is absolutely deafening. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole either (not that I could).

This industry has had years and years to culture shift and has chosen instead to hide, duck, weave and consistently state 'move on, nothing to see here'. However now it can't avoid the evidence, its 'we're changing, we're changing - just give us time' - and then people like the Commission of Inquiry and Dr Bryant pop up with evidence that that's clearly not the case. Changing this industry is a lost cause. And yes I'm sorry for the good people - but they too clearly stood by and did nothing. So time's up. The industry now needs to get on board with an orderly shut-down and transition. The public and now the government have clearly had enough. It's too late for anything else - and time to make greyhound racing illegal as it is in much of the rest of the world.

Edited July 14, 2016 by westiemum

[Lhok]

Westiemum, I have no doubt that things that the greyhound industry have done are horrific however did you know and understand that along side the banning of the industry that innocent people have been caught up in it as well? Take a look at this:

Looks like lure coursing is caught up in the ban too.

The NSW Lure Coursing Association is shocked and disappointed by recommendations on lure coursing made in The Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Greyhound Racing Industry in NSW.

The recommendations, if implemented, would make the sport of lure coursing unviable by forcing anyone considering the sport to have to choose between the pets in their home.

Lure coursing is a purely amateur sport for pet dogs. Both pedigree and mixed breed dogs participate in lure coursing. There is no betting and no prize money for participants. Our dogs chase plastic bags around a string course that runs on pulleys. Dogs who do not chase the bag are not euthanased, they are pets first.

The practical impact of two of the Report’s Recommendations is that a pet dog owner who participates in lure coursing would be guilty of a criminal offence if their dog shared its home with any other species of small animal, such as a pet cat, or chickens. Our view is that the authors of the report could not have understood the difference between a coursing dog (live game) and lure coursing (no live game). The sport of lure coursing was developed specifically to provide a safe and humane alternative to the use of live game. We do not understand why our sport has been targeted by the Report.

The Commission actually states in its report that it has no evidence that there is live baiting occurring in lure coursing. That is hardly surprising in the circumstances. The Commission did not consult with the DogsNSW Lure Coursing Representative or indeed with anyone involved in lure coursing before making recommendations that are a slur on our many law abiding, companion animal loving participants. If implemented it is likely that the Recommendations would destroy our sport.

I also think it is highly unlikely that lure coursing will be allowed to continue.

--Lhok

[westiemum]

Westiemum, I have no doubt that things that the greyhound industry have done are horrific however did you know and understand that along side the banning of the industry that innocent people have been caught up in it as well? Take a look at this:

Looks like lure coursing is caught up in the ban too.

The NSW Lure Coursing Association is shocked and disappointed by recommendations on lure coursing made in The Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Greyhound Racing Industry in NSW.

The recommendations, if implemented, would make the sport of lure coursing unviable by forcing anyone considering the sport to have to choose between the pets in their home.

Lure coursing is a purely amateur sport for pet dogs. Both pedigree and mixed breed dogs participate in lure coursing. There is no betting and no prize money for participants. Our dogs chase plastic bags around a string course that runs on pulleys. Dogs who do not chase the bag are not euthanased, they are pets first.

The practical impact of two of the Report's Recommendations is that a pet dog owner who participates in lure coursing would be guilty of a criminal offence if their dog shared its home with any other species of small animal, such as a pet cat, or chickens. Our view is that the authors of the report could not have understood the difference between a coursing dog (live game) and lure coursing (no live game). The sport of lure coursing was developed specifically to provide a safe and humane alternative to the use of live game. We do not understand why our sport has been targeted by the Report.

The Commission actually states in its report that it has no evidence that there is live baiting occurring in lure coursing. That is hardly surprising in the circumstances. The Commission did not consult with the DogsNSW Lure Coursing Representative or indeed with anyone involved in lure coursing before making recommendations that are a slur on our many law abiding, companion animal loving participants. If implemented it is likely that the Recommendations would destroy our sport.

I also think it is highly unlikely that lure coursing will be allowed to continue.

--Lhok

Lhok I have no doubt that you are right - there no doubt will be some unintended consequences of an industry shut-down. However I have no doubt that these things will be considered in the transition planning that is about to start. I understand the NSW government has appointed the highly credible John Kennery to oversee the transition. As to having 'no idea' why lure coursing has been targeted as well, I suspect the answer is in the report (which I'm still wading through as time permits)

But IMO lure coursing effects and other consequences can be dealt with and are not a reason to pause the greyhound industry shut-down IMO. I would hope that genuine lure coursing without gambling, prize money or live game would continue - unless of course the Commissioner is concerned that lure coursing will simply evolve into a facsimile of the greyhound racing industry - ie that lure coursing will fill the industry gap and attract the bad element - and yes its probably a reasonable concern in a self-regulated sport like lure coursing. But haven't actually read that in the report - that's just late night surmising on my part.

Anyway I have to work tomorrow so I'm going to bed. To be continued.

Edited July 14, 2016 by westiemum

[Salukifan]

I am the President of the NSW Lure Coursing Association and wrote the post Lhok shared. "Unintended consequences" aren't very comfortable on the receiving end. We are in shock but gearing up to fight this if we have to.

[Salukifan]

I am the President of the NSW Lure Coursing Association and wrote the post Lhok shared. "Unintended consequences" aren't very comfortable on the receiving end. We are in shock but gearing up to fight this if we have to.

We are not self regulated. We are ANKC regulated