Research Survey About Dog Caretakership In Victoria

[asal]

And what is the point of the research?

Read Jed.

I knew nothing of what Jed knows but I can smell Peta a mile off. beware peoples.

[asal]

well the NSW greyhound board has just taken caretakership on every racing greyhound in NSW. That's why I hate the term. You can't even retire or rehome your own dog.

On 15 July 2016, the NSW Government introduced the Greyhound Racing Regulation 2016 which requires that owners of greyhounds registered in NSW to notify or seek consent from Greyhound Racing NSW (GRNSW) before transferring the ownership of, retiring, exporting or destroying a greyhound.

The Regulation has been prepared following the NSW Government’s decision to close down the greyhound racing industry from 1 July 2017 and will assist in the tracking and welfare of greyhounds during the wind down process.

The new Regulation requires the owner of a registered greyhound to notify GRNSW, in writing, before transferring the greyhound:

• to another registered owner, or

• to an RSPCA approved greyhound adoption program.

Participants can notify GRNSW by completing the Notification of Transfer Form and sending it to GRNSW at [email protected] or post it to PO Box 170, Concord West NSW 2138.

In addition, the Regulation prohibits a registered greyhound owner, except with the written consent of GRNSW, from:

• retiring a greyhound from racing;

• exporting a greyhound overseas;

• transferring a greyhound to a person who is not a registered owner, or

• destroying a greyhound.

To request consent from GRNSW, please complete the Consent Form and send it to GRNSW at [email protected] or post it to PO Box 170, Concord West NSW 2138.

Persons found to have breached the Regulation are liable to a maximum fine of up to $550. GRNSW may also take further action against anyone found to have breached the Regulation.

Participants must not retire a greyhound from racing, export a greyhound, transfer a greyhound to a person who is not a registered owner, or destroy a greyhound unless they have received written consent from GRNSW.

In the case of destruction of a greyhound, GRNSW consent is not required if the greyhound is destroyed by a veterinary practitioner in an emergency in order to relieve it of suffering or distress due to injury or illness.

so it may not comes as such a suprise then that a friend who breeds, trains and races her own thouroughbreds recently received notification from henceforth she can no longer move any of her horses from one paddock to another, not even on her own property, to take to the vet or anywhere else for that matter without notifying the AJC of the intention of doing so. (I think she said but dont quote me on it till I recheck with her) She didnt mention what the penalty for non compliance will be.

she cannot euthanase any of her stock regardless of the severity of injury, or even dispose of a body, not even a stillborn foal without reporting first to a body whose sole supposed purpose is the administration of Thoroughbred Racing in this country?

What is going on by stealth?

anyone notice a whiff of Peta in the breeze ? or is it just imagination?

Edited July 18, 2016 by asal

[Rebanne]

Peta wholeheartedly

[Dogsfevr]

I never do the surveys especially as we seem to get a lot on here that do ask stupid questions considering what they say they are studying ..In this day and age you can't trust many when it comes to surveys and intent plus gaining info on someone,the animal rights groups are on a roll at present and what better place to pretend to hang out and care

[PossumCorner]

....This survey .... will contribute to a broader study surrounding issues regarding companion dog breeding, adoption and welfare in the state. ....

What is the broader study that stats from "this survey" is contributing to? Who is producing that study and for whom??

Thistle the Dog, I do take your point. When I worked for a survey group I became maybe over-cynical about the Clients who commissioned surveys. Not a conspiracy theorist, but surveys often end up hurting or damaging something or someone depending on how the stats are used. This can be a good or bad thing, but I don't go near them now.

[Steve]

well the NSW greyhound board has just taken caretakership on every racing greyhound in NSW. That's why I hate the term. You can't even retire or rehome your own dog.

On 15 July 2016, the NSW Government introduced the Greyhound Racing Regulation 2016 which requires that owners of greyhounds registered in NSW to notify or seek consent from Greyhound Racing NSW (GRNSW) before transferring the ownership of, retiring, exporting or destroying a greyhound.

The Regulation has been prepared following the NSW Government’s decision to close down the greyhound racing industry from 1 July 2017 and will assist in the tracking and welfare of greyhounds during the wind down process.

The new Regulation requires the owner of a registered greyhound to notify GRNSW, in writing, before transferring the greyhound:

• to another registered owner, or

• to an RSPCA approved greyhound adoption program.

Participants can notify GRNSW by completing the Notification of Transfer Form and sending it to GRNSW at [email protected] or post it to PO Box 170, Concord West NSW 2138.

In addition, the Regulation prohibits a registered greyhound owner, except with the written consent of GRNSW, from:

• retiring a greyhound from racing;

• exporting a greyhound overseas;

• transferring a greyhound to a person who is not a registered owner, or

• destroying a greyhound.

To request consent from GRNSW, please complete the Consent Form and send it to GRNSW at [email protected] or post it to PO Box 170, Concord West NSW 2138.

Persons found to have breached the Regulation are liable to a maximum fine of up to $550. GRNSW may also take further action against anyone found to have breached the Regulation.

Participants must not retire a greyhound from racing, export a greyhound, transfer a greyhound to a person who is not a registered owner, or destroy a greyhound unless they have received written consent from GRNSW.

In the case of destruction of a greyhound, GRNSW consent is not required if the greyhound is destroyed by a veterinary practitioner in an emergency in order to relieve it of suffering or distress due to injury or illness.

so it may not comes as such a suprise then that a friend who breeds, trains and races her own thouroughbreds recently received notification from henceforth she can no longer move any of her horses from one paddock to another, not even on her own property, to take to the vet or anywhere else for that matter without notifying the AJC of the intention of doing so. (I think she said but dont quote me on it till I recheck with her) She didnt mention what the penalty for non compliance will be.

she cannot euthanase any of her stock regardless of the severity of injury, or even dispose of a body, not even a stillborn foal without reporting first to a body whose sole supposed purpose is the administration of Thoroughbred Racing in this country?

What is going on by stealth?

anyone notice a whiff of Peta in the breeze ? or is it just imagination?

this is why we advocated against licensing - because it effectively hands over ownership of the animal which you only get to keep if you do it their way without any judicial assessment and they can change the rules at any time.

[ClarePhD]

Hello everyone,

Just to clarify a few things to those who may have concerns about this research and the terminology used in the title of the survey.

Firstly, the term animal caretaker or animal caretakership is one that has become broadly used in animal studies and anthrozoological based literature, as well as the term animal companion as opposed to pet. The term has not been used in this instance to suggest you do not legally own your dog or to delegitimize the relationship you have with your dog. I understand that everyone prefers different terms to describe the human dog relationship, however either way, both terms place obligations on the owners or caretakers to take responsibility to care for their dog and satisfy their needs

Secondly, I am not in any way either personally or professionally associated with PETA or any other animal rights based organisation. As a researcher it is my job to be impartial and explore and consider a range of viewpoints on this issue.

Thirdly, to clarify the purpose of the survey and the broader research, perhaps I should have gone into more depth before posting and in the Participant Information Statement. I am conducting my doctoral thesis at La Trobe University in Melbourne and the survey data will exclusively be used by myself in my thesis, within conferences and journal articles. It will not be sourced to any other external organisation. The overall purpose of my research is to explore if, how and why human and dog relations may be changing in contemporary Victoria. I am focusing on things such as changes in humans lifestyles and how this may be contributing to what dogs we select to be our companions. I will be analysing the greater emphasis on animal adoption, changes in breed popularity and the emergence of designer animals, amongst other things.

This survey and this post was, and is in no way meant to offend anyone or cause any mistrust or anger. Dogs are something I too am very passionate about which is why I have decided to dedicate my thesis to this topic. I hope this has given you some greater clarity on my work.

Thanks for your time and to those who may have already completed the survey.

[LisaCC]

Talk about bad PR in pedigree dogs. Every time a researcher asks for participation on DOL (representing pedigree dogs, owners and breeders) they get blasted.

Whinge and don't fill them out, but your voice will be lost in all the research happening if you keep doing it.

I'm surprised anyone still bothers posting them here.

[Jed]

Your argument is spurious Lisa CC. The survey was not for pedigree dogs alone.

It was for "companion animals" and their "caretakers", both of which words were coined by Peta to make animals more of a laboratory subject and less of a pet.

I will not undertake any survey on "companion animals". These are buzz words now used exclusively in university papers - and all aiding Peta's intentions.

[LisaCC]

Yes Jed I'm actually part of the scientific community and understand how this works. When asking for participation on this site anyone who participates here ( and I'm not just talking about THIS research, I'm talking every single one that gets posted here) would just be one small sample. But is that sample not worth something? Yes. And people here all have one thing in common.

These researchers will be posting their research far and wide, and people often complain about wanting their voices heard, well this is one avenue for it.

Edited July 19, 2016 by LisaCC

[mita]

Firstly, the term animal caretaker or animal caretakership is one that has become broadly used in animal studies and anthrozoological based literature, as well as the term animal companion as opposed to pet. The term has not been used in this instance to suggest you do not legally own your dog or to delegitimize the relationship you have with your dog. I understand that everyone prefers different terms to describe the human dog relationship, however either way, both terms place obligations on the owners or caretakers to take responsibility to care for their dog and satisfy their needs

Clare, thank you for posting to clarify your position. You are right that the first thing for any academic paper, is to define the terms which will be used. And it is customary to link those terms/definitions with what is commonly used in that particular field of study.

You appear to be using 'caretakership' to cover whatever someone who has an animal in their care (for whatever reason) does, to care for that animal's health & welfare.

However, in another field, the legal system, the terms used for 'pets' have huge significance in what determines who has the power to intervene in their care. Read the link to the article by the counsel for the US Animal Health Institute which is endorsed by the American Veterinary Medicine Association. Any terms that appear to leap over 'ownership' raise alarm bells for both pet owners & veterinarians. Which has happened in this thread.

(BTW I have no problem with the term 'companion dog' to describe the role that dog plays in people's lives. It's on a par with 'working dog' IMO. It's benign in suggesting anything about 'ownership' or 'guardianship' or 'caretakership'.)

I'd say (just my opinion) that an academic survey which is looking at the relationship of people with their pet dogs, cannot overlook the fact that a significant part of that relationship is how the person sees they 'own' that dog. With a huge sense of personal responsibility coming from that. So how the terms are defined in the legal process are of great significance to pet dog owners. While 'caretakership' in one academic discipline, might just be concerned with actual caring actions.... in the legal system, it can say something else of great importance about the relationship between pets & people.

Best wishes with your study.

Edited July 19, 2016 by mita

[WoofnHoof]

Firstly, the term animal caretaker or animal caretakership is one that has become broadly used in animal studies and anthrozoological based literature, as well as the term animal companion as opposed to pet. The term has not been used in this instance to suggest you do not legally own your dog or to delegitimize the relationship you have with your dog. I understand that everyone prefers different terms to describe the human dog relationship, however either way, both terms place obligations on the owners or caretakers to take responsibility to care for their dog and satisfy their needs

Clare, thank you for posting to clarify your position. You are right that the first thing for any academic paper, is to define the terms which will be used. And it is customary to link those terms/definitions with what is commonly used in that particular field of study.

You appear to be using 'caretakership' to cover whatever someone who has an animal in their care (for whatever reason) does, to care for that animal's health & welfare.

However, in another field, the legal system, the terms used for 'pets' have huge significance in what determines who has the power to intervene in their care. Read the link to the article by the counsel for the US Animal Health Institute which is endorsed by the American Veterinary Medicine Association. Any terms that appear to leap over 'ownership' raise alarm bells for both pet owners & veterinarians. Which has happened in this thread.

(BTW I have no problem with the term 'companion dog' to describe the role that dog plays in people's lives. It's on a par with 'working dog' IMO. It's benign in suggesting anything about 'ownership' or 'guardianship' or 'caretakership'.)

I'd say (just my opinion) that an academic survey which is looking at the relationship of people with their pet dogs, cannot overlook the fact that a significant part of that relationship is how the person sees they 'own' that dog. With a huge sense of personal responsibility coming from that. So how the terms are defined in the legal process are of great significance to pet dog owners. While 'caretakership' in one academic discipline, might just be concerned with actual caring actions.... in the legal system, it can say something else of great importance about the relationship between pets & people.

Best wishes with your study.

Excellent point. Certainly many people would see themselves as caretakers AND owners in the sense that they both own and care for their pets, but the terminology here is important because, as we have seen, when viewed through the perspective of animal rights, the term has a completely different implication, given the long term plan for PETA is the elimination of all human-animal relationships it is no real surprise that people here are loathe to associate themselves with it.

I'm not really sure why the term pet has gone out of fashion, I think the term companion animal originally was coined to differentiate a pet from a working animal or livestock, probably as mita says, for legal reasons and to perhaps give them more weight/value. And certainly it is easy to see how the term caretaker has come about as not all people who care for animals are the owners, for example agistment and kennel owners care for animals and have obligations under the law regarding that so that is why the term more broadly applies to those who care for animals and is appropriate in an academic context, doesn't negate the social and philosophical context though.

Might be easier to just chuck in every term and cover all bases although it's not very scientific :laugh:

[ClarePhD]

Firstly, the term animal caretaker or animal caretakership is one that has become broadly used in animal studies and anthrozoological based literature, as well as the term animal companion as opposed to pet. The term has not been used in this instance to suggest you do not legally own your dog or to delegitimize the relationship you have with your dog. I understand that everyone prefers different terms to describe the human dog relationship, however either way, both terms place obligations on the owners or caretakers to take responsibility to care for their dog and satisfy their needs

Clare, thank you for posting to clarify your position. You are right that the first thing for any academic paper, is to define the terms which will be used. And it is customary to link those terms/definitions with what is commonly used in that particular field of study.

You appear to be using 'caretakership' to cover whatever someone who has an animal in their care (for whatever reason) does, to care for that animal's health & welfare.

However, in another field, the legal system, the terms used for 'pets' have huge significance in what determines who has the power to intervene in their care. Read the link to the article by the counsel for the US Animal Health Institute which is endorsed by the American Veterinary Medicine Association. Any terms that appear to leap over 'ownership' raise alarm bells for both pet owners & veterinarians. Which has happened in this thread.

(BTW I have no problem with the term 'companion dog' to describe the role that dog plays in people's lives. It's on a par with 'working dog' IMO. It's benign in suggesting anything about 'ownership' or 'guardianship' or 'caretakership'.)

I'd say (just my opinion) that an academic survey which is looking at the relationship of people with their pet dogs, cannot overlook the fact that a significant part of that relationship is how the person sees they 'own' that dog. With a huge sense of personal responsibility coming from that. So how the terms are defined in the legal process are of great significance to pet dog owners. While 'caretakership' in one academic discipline, might just be concerned with actual caring actions.... in the legal system, it can say something else of great importance about the relationship between pets & people.

Best wishes with your study.

Excellent point. Certainly many people would see themselves as caretakers AND owners in the sense that they both own and care for their pets, but the terminology here is important because, as we have seen, when viewed through the perspective of animal rights, the term has a completely different implication, given the long term plan for PETA is the elimination of all human-animal relationships it is no real surprise that people here are loathe to associate themselves with it.

I'm not really sure why the term pet has gone out of fashion, I think the term companion animal originally was coined to differentiate a pet from a working animal or livestock, probably as mita says, for legal reasons and to perhaps give them more weight/value. And certainly it is easy to see how the term caretaker has come about as not all people who care for animals are the owners, for example agistment and kennel owners care for animals and have obligations under the law regarding that so that is why the term more broadly applies to those who care for animals and is appropriate in an academic context, doesn't negate the social and philosophical context though.

Might be easier to just chuck in every term and cover all bases although it's not very scientific :laugh:

Thank you both for your contribution. I will certainly be mindful of the terminological distinctions in a legalistic sense when conducting my research. It might even be a possible avenue of exploration in and of itself. However, my research is drawing upon a particular disciplinary perspective that uses the term caretakership. Whilst in a strict legalistic sense there might be differences in the United States in terms of intervention powers, my research is specifically focused on micro human/dog relationships in a changing socio-economic world. I certainly respect your perspective, however, and really value your contribution towards this discussion.

[mita]

Might be easier to just chuck in every term and cover all bases although it's not very scientific :laugh:

Or simply state what does not apply .... as in a disclaimer. Especially at the level of what's said when recruiting subjects for a study.

Actually, testing if & how the notion of 'owning' a pet as property influences care given, might be a topic for other studies. :)

But, again, best wishes with your current study, Clare.

[mita]

Thank you both for your contribution. I will certainly be mindful of the terminological distinctions in a legalistic sense when conducting my research. It might even be a possible avenue of exploration in and of itself. However, my research is drawing upon a particular disciplinary perspective that uses the term caretakership. Whilst in a strict legalistic sense there might be differences in the United States in terms of intervention powers, my research is specifically focused on micro human/dog relationships in a changing socio-economic world. I certainly respect your perspective, however, and really value your contribution towards this discussion.

Clare, the terms like 'guardian' haven't yet got into the legal system... either in the US or here. But animal rights groups (not animal welfare groups), some with a lot of clout, are advocating for it. And in this age of globalisation, those groups have a presence/influence in Australia, too. I know you're busy with your PhD but take time to just dip into that article on the AVMA website.

It will help you tune into the reasons that pet owners are concerned. And, even tho' your study is at the micro-level of care ....& you have strict limitations on what you mean by 'caretakership', there's an understandable concern that the field of study is innocently normalising the term for picking up & use by animal rights groups. Which is why I like the idea of a disclaimer... that it's being used with no connection to pets being property or not.

[Sheridan]

Hello everyone,

Just to clarify a few things to those who may have concerns about this research and the terminology used in the title of the survey.

Firstly, the term animal caretaker or animal caretakership is one that has become broadly used in animal studies and anthrozoological based literature, as well as the term animal companion as opposed to pet. The term has not been used in this instance to suggest you do not legally own your dog or to delegitimize the relationship you have with your dog. I understand that everyone prefers different terms to describe the human dog relationship, however either way, both terms place obligations on the owners or caretakers to take responsibility to care for their dog and satisfy their needs

Secondly, I am not in any way either personally or professionally associated with PETA or any other animal rights based organisation. As a researcher it is my job to be impartial and explore and consider a range of viewpoints on this issue.

Thirdly, to clarify the purpose of the survey and the broader research, perhaps I should have gone into more depth before posting and in the Participant Information Statement. I am conducting my doctoral thesis at La Trobe University in Melbourne and the survey data will exclusively be used by myself in my thesis, within conferences and journal articles. It will not be sourced to any other external organisation. The overall purpose of my research is to explore if, how and why human and dog relations may be changing in contemporary Victoria. I am focusing on things such as changes in humans lifestyles and how this may be contributing to what dogs we select to be our companions. I will be analysing the greater emphasis on animal adoption, changes in breed popularity and the emergence of designer animals, amongst other things.

This survey and this post was, and is in no way meant to offend anyone or cause any mistrust or anger. Dogs are something I too am very passionate about which is why I have decided to dedicate my thesis to this topic. I hope this has given you some greater clarity on my work.

Thanks for your time and to those who may have already completed the survey.

Clare, you ask why people choose breeds. How can you quantify someone's heart?

ETA on 'designer' animals, please put that in parentheses. There is no design to sticking two unsuitable dog breeds together other than the desire to make money.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Sheridan

[Sheridan]

well the NSW greyhound board has just taken caretakership on every racing greyhound in NSW. That's why I hate the term. You can't even retire or rehome your own dog.

On 15 July 2016, the NSW Government introduced the Greyhound Racing Regulation 2016 which requires that owners of greyhounds registered in NSW to notify or seek consent from Greyhound Racing NSW (GRNSW) before transferring the ownership of, retiring, exporting or destroying a greyhound.

The Regulation has been prepared following the NSW Government’s decision to close down the greyhound racing industry from 1 July 2017 and will assist in the tracking and welfare of greyhounds during the wind down process.

The new Regulation requires the owner of a registered greyhound to notify GRNSW, in writing, before transferring the greyhound:

• to another registered owner, or

• to an RSPCA approved greyhound adoption program.

Participants can notify GRNSW by completing the Notification of Transfer Form and sending it to GRNSW at [email protected] or post it to PO Box 170, Concord West NSW 2138.

In addition, the Regulation prohibits a registered greyhound owner, except with the written consent of GRNSW, from:

• retiring a greyhound from racing;

• exporting a greyhound overseas;

• transferring a greyhound to a person who is not a registered owner, or

• destroying a greyhound.

To request consent from GRNSW, please complete the Consent Form and send it to GRNSW at [email protected] or post it to PO Box 170, Concord West NSW 2138.

Persons found to have breached the Regulation are liable to a maximum fine of up to $550. GRNSW may also take further action against anyone found to have breached the Regulation.

Participants must not retire a greyhound from racing, export a greyhound, transfer a greyhound to a person who is not a registered owner, or destroy a greyhound unless they have received written consent from GRNSW.

In the case of destruction of a greyhound, GRNSW consent is not required if the greyhound is destroyed by a veterinary practitioner in an emergency in order to relieve it of suffering or distress due to injury or illness.

OT, Rebanne, do you have the link for the above, please.

[ClarePhD]

Thank you both for your contribution. I will certainly be mindful of the terminological distinctions in a legalistic sense when conducting my research. It might even be a possible avenue of exploration in and of itself. However, my research is drawing upon a particular disciplinary perspective that uses the term caretakership. Whilst in a strict legalistic sense there might be differences in the United States in terms of intervention powers, my research is specifically focused on micro human/dog relationships in a changing socio-economic world. I certainly respect your perspective, however, and really value your contribution towards this discussion.

Clare, the terms like 'guardian' haven't yet got into the legal system... either in the US or here. But animal rights groups (not animal welfare groups), some with a lot of clout, are advocating for it. And in this age of globalisation, those groups have a presence/influence in Australia, too. I know you're busy with your PhD but take time to just dip into that article on the AVMA website.

It will help you tune into the reasons that pet owners are concerned. And, even tho' your study is at the micro-level of care ....& you have strict limitations on what you mean by 'caretakership', there's an understandable concern that the field of study is innocently normalising the term for picking up & use by animal rights groups. Which is why I like the idea of a disclaimer... that it's being used with no connection to pets being property or not.

I will most certainly take the time to have a read of that article. Thank you for your suggestion

[ClarePhD]

Hello everyone,

Just to clarify a few things to those who may have concerns about this research and the terminology used in the title of the survey.

Firstly, the term animal caretaker or animal caretakership is one that has become broadly used in animal studies and anthrozoological based literature, as well as the term animal companion as opposed to pet. The term has not been used in this instance to suggest you do not legally own your dog or to delegitimize the relationship you have with your dog. I understand that everyone prefers different terms to describe the human dog relationship, however either way, both terms place obligations on the owners or caretakers to take responsibility to care for their dog and satisfy their needs

Secondly, I am not in any way either personally or professionally associated with PETA or any other animal rights based organisation. As a researcher it is my job to be impartial and explore and consider a range of viewpoints on this issue.

Thirdly, to clarify the purpose of the survey and the broader research, perhaps I should have gone into more depth before posting and in the Participant Information Statement. I am conducting my doctoral thesis at La Trobe University in Melbourne and the survey data will exclusively be used by myself in my thesis, within conferences and journal articles. It will not be sourced to any other external organisation. The overall purpose of my research is to explore if, how and why human and dog relations may be changing in contemporary Victoria. I am focusing on things such as changes in humans lifestyles and how this may be contributing to what dogs we select to be our companions. I will be analysing the greater emphasis on animal adoption, changes in breed popularity and the emergence of designer animals, amongst other things.

This survey and this post was, and is in no way meant to offend anyone or cause any mistrust or anger. Dogs are something I too am very passionate about which is why I have decided to dedicate my thesis to this topic. I hope this has given you some greater clarity on my work.

Thanks for your time and to those who may have already completed the survey.

Clare, you ask why people choose breeds. How can you quantify someone's heart?

ETA on 'designer' animals, please put that in parentheses. There is no design to sticking two unsuitable dog breeds together other than the desire to make money.

Hi there, so far in my reading and research I have found that while a number of people do select dogs based on loving the breed or feelings that as you say they cannot quantify, that other factors also come into consideration. For example their living arrangements, family status, work commitments and so forth. Therefore that is the reason why I have asked the question in the survey. I hope that answers your question.

As for your comment of designer animals, there are a number of perspectives that my research will seek to gather and present, hence why I am seeking the perspective of pedigree owners and breeders to balance out the debate. My survey is also being directed at people with designer animals to canvas the reasons why they selected these particular combinations. I have no interests or opinion on the matter outside of pure scientific curiosity, hence why I am conducting research on this topic. I hope that covers everything for you, and thanks for your contribution.

[Rebanne]

OT, Rebanne, do you have the link for the above, please.

https://www.thedogs.com.au/NewsArticle.aspx?NewsId=7774