Greyhound Racing Tasmania

[kayla1]

The article and report is available here

Greyhound death toll report reveals 1,600 dogs died in Tasmania over three years

More than 1,600 racing greyhounds have died in Tasmania over the past three years, including 500 because they were unsuitable for racing, according to government figures obtained by the Greens.

Injury was responsible for another 488 deaths, while 400 were destroyed because they were deemed unsuitable for re-homing, a Department of Primary Industries document shows.

The Greens obtained the document via Right to Information.

Earlier this year, nine dogs were killed in one day in the north west, and in 2013 more than 30 dogs were killed on a single day in Launceston.

[mystify]

The article and report is available here

Greyhound death toll report reveals 1,600 dogs died in Tasmania over three years

More than 1,600 racing greyhounds have died in Tasmania over the past three years, including 500 because they were unsuitable for racing, according to government figures obtained by the Greens.

Injury was responsible for another 488 deaths, while 400 were destroyed because they were deemed unsuitable for re-homing, a Department of Primary Industries document shows.

The Greens obtained the document via Right to Information.

Earlier this year, nine dogs were killed in one day in the north west, and in 2013 more than 30 dogs were killed on a single day in Launceston.

http://ngru.org/dawkins-and-mchugh-agree-greyhound-data-is-flawed/

If parliament was a court of law, the Tasmanian Greens MP Andrea Dawkins would be charged with perjury!

Twice now she has lied in Parliament, firstly the Wee Fire debacle, claiming she was dead, only to have the owners prove she wasn’t, and now Dawkins is claiming over 1600 race dogs have been killed in Tasmania in a 3 year period, and once again she is wrong! we’ll explain later.

Clearly, she is on a mission to destroy greyhound racing, and indirectly by creating more bad press is attempting to influence the NSW Lower house to pass the legislation, which will end the near century-year-old sport with flawed findings similar to what Ms. Dawkins produced.

But in a turn of events, all this misinformed MP has done is help prove that not only are her statistics flawed and unreliable, but the Greens MP has also created further doubt over the NSW McHugh report, of which you can read on 12.14 McHugh admits racing data is of poor quality and unreliable, something Ms. Dawkins unintentionally confirmed with her findings and is now on record with The Mercury for saying so.

Embarrassed from being caught out in her lie, Ms. Dawkins posted on her Facebook page that she would have it corrected in parliament, we are yet to see that happen, and also she deleted the post of which she claimed was also an apology. Clearly, she was only sorry she got caught.

The other frustrating thing about her claims is the way she conveyed them. To say 16 (revised to 15) died in 6 months sounds bad without knowing the full story. The fact is there were approx 6300 starters in that same time period, which equates to a track death rate of 0.23%. 15 out of 6300 starters! (figures are an Avg via Greyhounds Australasia) But to say 0.23% won’t have the emotional affect these animal extremists crave, it empowers them, it drives donations and/or results!

But her eagerness to shut down greyhound racing, has again shown her to be a compulsive liar, she is sounding desperate to land a knockout blow to our great sport. So much so she released this bombshell about 1600 race dogs dying in a 3 year period, all based on an extremely poorly put together document that lacks evidence, and nowhere near the numbers she claims… much like the data McHugh relied on, and admitted that it was very unreliable.

This document used by Andrea Dawkins is very vague, it doesn’t list the dog’s name, breeding, ear-brand etc… NOTHING! Just a reason why it “died”, a date and an area/state. It also combines injuries and illness, which as we all know are two VERY different things.

See here how vague each type of listing is, all 31 pages of this rubbish:

Capture.4JPG

Before we even attempt to make sense of these vague entries, which are derived from a very lazy compiled documentation, it’s important to note that EVERY greyhound around the country over the age of 3 months is either ear-branded, micro-chipped or both, making each greyhound fully identifiable and traceable at any time thereafter. Why weren’t these recorded on this important document? Especially when the Greens MP is saying all 1610 greyhounds raced at some point.

See below for an example of the Department of Primary Industries document, again, no name, age, sex, ear-brand, microchip etc!

Please tell us who 4A – Due to injury/illness was, it died on the 2/7/13 somewhere in the Launceston area??? Anyone??? nope… this is by far the worst document I have ever seen! It’s primary-school level, it’s totally baseless and therefore useless to be able to gauge this industry on! But that didn’t stop this pig-headed MP’s mission on ending greyhound racing by any means necessary!

example

Also it’s equally important to note that, the breakin’ (education on a timed track to get a guide on ability) starts at around 13-15 months, all depending on the early development and maturity of the animal, so this is proof that the dogs listed as “4C – Lack of ability/unsuitable for racing” should be 100% identifiable, but no form of ID has been recorded, therefore these figures are very unreliable and open to manipulation!

Actually, not all of 1610 were RACING greyhounds according to this mediocre document, in fact, it says 2 died at whelping, that’s hardly ready to race! And look at all the unsuitable for racing entries, all 550 of them, this tells me they didn’t even race! Here’s what else the NGRU found:

Listed as “Other Reason”, = 154 of NON-racing life ending injuries etc.

Died on a vets table during expensive operations,

Humanely euthanized with rifle to end suffering, (as any farmer would do)

Already recorded as retired,

Died from snake/spider bites,

Died of old age

Reported late as a result of an audit, these dogs could be a backlog from many years before,

17 Predate the 3 year period.

Found deceased in the kennel, in other words – natural causes, like all of these “other reasons”.

That leaves 1455 dogs that apparently died in this 3 year period, and we still don’t know if they were RACE dogs… again NO PROOF! But let’s play along anyway…

Here is the breakdown of the 1455 dogs:

Not suitable for rehoming/GAP = 410 minus 12 from interstate = 397

Due to injury/illness = 496 minus 9 from interstate = 491

Lack of ability/unsuitable for racing = 550 minus 8 from interstate = 538

Not suitable for rehoming/GAP:

It is no fault of the owner or GAP if a dog is not suited to a home. Like all pets, they vary in temperament, and some are simply not safe to be put in a suburban home. So the 397 can be excused from this exercise, however, it would be great to have more info on why these dogs failed, perhaps a mandatory stand down period could’ve helped them make the transition.

Regarding pet dogs that end up in the RSPCA around the country, 30% of them fail a behavioral test, and subsequently, are euthanized, rather than risking bodily harm in a family home or any home for that matter, why are we being treated any differently?

Due to injury/illness:

Injury and Illness need to be separate. Illness should be in the same category as natural causes. All living things get ill, and some die as a result… All living things die, at various ages for various reasons. If the document listed the type of injury or illness, we could then get an accurate number on this subject. Instead, we are left guessing the ratio of injury vs illness. Therefore these figures are void and completely unusable.

Lack of ability/unsuitable for racing:

Assuming this document is 100% correct, and we have shown good reason to the contrary, as it lacks vital information as previously mentioned, but for the sake of arguing, let’s pretend Andrea Dawkins said this list included race and non-race dogs, and all ID’s were proven. The result would be (hypothetically speaking) we would have the same kill rate as RSPCA (pet dogs) PTS of 30%.

To get that figure CLICK HERE, only focus on the dogs under “EUTHANASIA” & “REHOMED”, reclaimed are pets that escaped for a matter of hours, and reclaimed by loved ones. In the McHugh report, it says 50-70% of dogs are humanely euthanized for NSW, which was proven to be incorrect, the real figure is 6.9%, so we’ll take a guess and say Tasmania’s Humane Euthanasia rate is between(hypothetically speaking) 6.9%-30% based on breeding figures from Greyhounds Australasia.

But once again, we are basing these figures on a document that has no evidence of any of the 1610 greyhounds ID, including microchip numbers, or even the very basic ear-brand. Therefore, this entire document is void and should never have been presented as the further reason to shut down Tasmanian greyhound racing, or to add weight to the NSW argument. RSPCA (pet dogs) which are based on tangible evidence and well kept records, 30%, TAS Greyhound Racing 6.9%-30% based on guesswork, just like Mike Baird’s based ban in NSW on.

The point of this exercise was to HIGHLIGHT how flawed ALL figures used against greyhound racing are extremely flawed. Even McHugh admitted this, and Dawkins has now backed him up. We can’t be ending industries based on such “iffy” stats and figures, that will leave every single animal sport and industry, including pets open to severe punishment, such as being outlawed

[kayla1]

The point of this exercise was to HIGHLIGHT how flawed ALL figures used against greyhound racing are extremely flawed. Even McHugh admitted this, and Dawkins has now backed him up. We can’t be ending industries based on such “iffy” stats and figures, that will leave every single animal sport and industry, including pets open to severe punishment, such as being outlawed

As far as I know, the industry in Tasmania is not being shut down.

No industry is being shut down 'based on such iffy stats and figures'. The NSW greyhound racing industry is being shut down due entirely to its own failings. In the decades during which it has been operating, it has failed utterly in its responsibilities in relation to animal welfare. There have been plenty of opportunities for the industry to reform, but it has failed to do so. The opportunity to clean up the industry has now long since slipped away.

Edited August 22, 2016 by kayla1

[Salukifan]

The point of this exercise was to HIGHLIGHT how flawed ALL figures used against greyhound racing are extremely flawed. Even McHugh admitted this, and Dawkins has now backed him up. We cant be ending industries based on such iffy stats and figures, that will leave every single animal sport and industry, including pets open to severe punishment, such as being outlawed

As far as I know, the industry in Tasmania is not being shut down.

No industry is being shut down 'based on such iffy stats and figures'. The NSW greyhound racing industry is being shut down due entirely to its own failings. In the decades during which it has been operating, it has failed utterly in its responsibilities in relation to animal welfare. There have been plenty of opportunities for the industry to reform, but it has failed to do so. The opportunity to clean up the industry has now long since slipped away.

So now we ban pet ownership because some people abuse their pets? That's where that logic takes you.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Haredown Whippets

[corvus]

So now we ban pet ownership because some people abuse their pets? That's where that logic takes you.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place.

[Salukifan]

So now we ban pet ownership because some people abuse their pets? That's where that logic takes you.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place.

It's a slippery slope.

[corvus]

So now we ban pet ownership because some people abuse their pets? That's where that logic takes you.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place.

It's a slippery slope.

No it's not. It's a logical fallacy. Unless you can provide a valid inductive argument or a mechanism by which the banning of greyhound racing on apparently welfare grounds will probably lead to the banning of pet ownership on welfare grounds, then it is a fallacious slippery slope.

[Salukifan]

So now we ban pet ownership because some people abuse their pets? That's where that logic takes you.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place.

It's a slippery slope.

No it's not. It's a logical fallacy. Unless you can provide a valid inductive argument or a mechanism by which the banning of greyhound racing on apparently welfare grounds will probably lead to the banning of pet ownership on welfare grounds, then it is a fallacious slippery slope.

Tell that to the AR campaigners already talking it up.

[The Spotted Devil]

So now we ban pet ownership because some people abuse their pets? That's where that logic takes you.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place.

It's a slippery slope.

No it's not. It's a logical fallacy. Unless you can provide a valid inductive argument or a mechanism by which the banning of greyhound racing on apparently welfare grounds will probably lead to the banning of pet ownership on welfare grounds, then it is a fallacious slippery slope.

Tell that to the AR campaigners already talking it up.

Of course they are! But they are a vocal minority in my opinion. I am in communication with a number of the larger animal welfare groups in this country and banning pet ownership is not something they are remotely interested in. Of course the AR folk will talk it up on their social media pages but the groups themselves are very realistic.

[Salukifan]

Of course they are! But they are a vocal minority in my opinion. I am in communication with a number of the larger animal welfare groups in this country and banning pet ownership is not something they are remotely interested in. Of course the AR folk will talk it up on their social media pages but the groups themselves are very realistic.

Really?

Lots of steps are being made to achieve just that.

Mandatory desexing is another step.

[The Spotted Devil]

I'm not going to post personal conversations but yes. Really.

[corvus]

I'm not going to post personal conversations but yes. Really.

I said the same thing. Really.

[corvus]

So now we ban pet ownership because some people abuse their pets? That's where that logic takes you.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place.

It's a slippery slope.

No it's not. It's a logical fallacy. Unless you can provide a valid inductive argument or a mechanism by which the banning of greyhound racing on apparently welfare grounds will probably lead to the banning of pet ownership on welfare grounds, then it is a fallacious slippery slope.

Tell that to the AR campaigners already talking it up.

"Animal Rights activists said so" is not a valid inductive argument.

Edited August 22, 2016 by corvus

[Salukifan]

So now we ban pet ownership because some people abuse their pets? That's where that logic takes you.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place.

It's a slippery slope.

No it's not. It's a logical fallacy. Unless you can provide a valid inductive argument or a mechanism by which the banning of greyhound racing on apparently welfare grounds will probably lead to the banning of pet ownership on welfare grounds, then it is a fallacious slippery slope.

Tell that to the AR campaigners already talking it up.

"Animal Rights activists said so" is not a valid inductive argument.

No but since valid inductive arguments seem to have little role in what is shaping the political agenda for animals here in NSW, I'll stay focussed on what is.

As a student of political science it concerns the hell out of me that based on what everyone admits is a deeply flawed report, people who have done no wrong will have their livelihoods destroyed and be offered not compensation. Frankly it should be concerning a lot of people but most, poorly if at all informed and reacting emotively on an issue that has no blow back on them, are crowing about the win for greyhounds. It won't be for those dogs in NSW from where I sit.

[Steve]

The idea that pet ownership would ever be banned is way beyond what I'm prepared to accept as possible even though we know that is part of the AR mentality. However, if we are discussing banning some activities with dogs based on welfare grounds or the prohibition on being able to breed certain breeds based on welfare grounds to me is capable of being in the frame.

We are already looking at campaigns to ban where a dog is sold and where they can be advertised.Right now we are looking at restricting how many dogs a person can own. This is based on propaganda and sensationalism circulated by animal rights. Apart from the obvious in how it restricts the numbers bred and the rights of breeders and numbers available for sale it completely removes the right of a dog owner to buy a dog of their choice from a place of their choice.

In three states if the dog is not purebred and if the person who wants to breed a puppy is not registered with a state canine org it must be desexed - sure lots of you will think this is a good thing but like it or not there are only 3 and a half thousand CC registered breeders in the whole of Australia and people should have the right to be able to choose what they breed [if they comply with codes and laws] and they should have the right to be able to find a dog or their choice and take it into their homes without their choices being restricted. People should also have the right to keep an entire dog if thats what suits them and their dogs.

We see these things pushed by RSPCA who actually are given our tax payer dollars to wage campaigns against us and get their own product into being able to be sold and advertised without restriction where others are banned and we say that's a good thing because THEY tell us that this will shut down puppy farmers.

Seems to me that everywhere I look we have people pushing for someone else to loose their rights and its based on little more than crap but things like this affect EVERYONE . As a dog owner your ability to choose where you buy, what you buy, what you want to live with, what activities you want to do with your dog, where you want to take them, etc is in the frame. Some of you want a rescue dog and are happy to only have the dogs YOU want in a pet shop, yet ban anyone else from buying a puppy from the same place

If the grey industry needs to be shut down we need to see due process

This is about dog owner rights - freedom of choice.

Live baiting is illegal - prosecute anyone who does it and if anyone is they are way past stupid now its out like it has been.

As dog owners we have the right to choose whether we euthanize our own animals - dont be too quick to give up that right because the grey people are considered to be wasteful.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Steve

[Steve]

My link

The Tasmanian Government has again committed to keeping the state's greyhound racing sector afloat after the Greens attempted to move a motion to end the industry.

A Greens motion calling on the State Government tofollow the lead of New South Wales and the ACTand shut down greyhound racing was voted down in the Lower House on Wednesday night.

Greens MP Andrea Dawkins said revelations last week that 1,600 greyhounds in Tasmania had been killed in three years was further evidence of cruelty in the industry.

She also had doubts about a Tasracing promise to re-home all racing greyhounds unless there were health or behavioural reasons for not doing so.

"The Greyhound Adoption Program (GAP) has suggested 100 per cent of greyhounds can be re-homed, well if that is the case, why weren't they?" she asked.

"What made them unsuitable to be re-homed and what's going to change now to make those unsuitable dogs now suitable?

"Either they always were or they never will be — there's no way it can be both."

Ms Dawkins accused the Government of "rolling over" to an industry that receives taxpayer dollars.

Racing Minister Jeremy Rockliff told Parliament the industry's problems were well publicised, but it deserved the right to reform.

"In the past 12 months, significant progress has been made to address this," he said.

"The Government believes firmly that the industry deserves the right to reform.

"The Tasmanian Government will not close down the greyhound racing industry, the industry has not shied away from the problems that have been highlighted, it is making every single effort to address them."

Labor also voted against the motion, with shadow treasurer Scott Bacon telling Parliament it pre-empted the findings of a parliamentary committee investigating greyhound racing, due to report in September.

Tasracing already working on NSW report's recommendations

Tasracing said it was already implementing 84 per cent of recommendations in the report that led New South Wales to close its industry.

The report made 79 recommendations for the NSW sector if it was to continue operating.

Tasracing said 66 per cent of those had already been addressed and another 18 per cent would be addressed.

Interim chief executive Mark Tarring said the remaining recommendations related specifically to NSW legislation or were not applicable to Tasmania.

"From the outset, Tasracing has said it was unfair to draw comparisons between the industry in NSW and in Tasmania because they are very different," he said.

"The Tasmanian industry has introduced a number of reforms over the past five years with animal welfare issues a significant considerations."

[teekay]

The idea that pet ownership would ever be banned is way beyond what I'm prepared to accept as possible even though we know that is part of the AR mentality. However, if we are discussing banning some activities with dogs based on welfare grounds or the prohibition on being able to breed certain breeds based on welfare grounds to me is capable of being in the frame.

We are already looking at campaigns to ban where a dog is sold and where they can be advertised.Right now we are looking at restricting how many dogs a person can own. This is based on propaganda and sensationalism circulated by animal rights. Apart from the obvious in how it restricts the numbers bred and the rights of breeders and numbers available for sale it completely removes the right of a dog owner to buy a dog of their choice from a place of their choice.

In three states if the dog is not purebred and if the person who wants to breed a puppy is not registered with a state canine org it must be desexed - sure lots of you will think this is a good thing but like it or not there are only 3 and a half thousand CC registered breeders in the whole of Australia and people should have the right to be able to choose what they breed [if they comply with codes and laws] and they should have the right to be able to find a dog or their choice and take it into their homes without their choices being restricted. People should also have the right to keep an entire dog if thats what suits them and their dogs.

We see these things pushed by RSPCA who actually are given our tax payer dollars to wage campaigns against us and get their own product into being able to be sold and advertised without restriction where others are banned and we say that's a good thing because THEY tell us that this will shut down puppy farmers.

Seems to me that everywhere I look we have people pushing for someone else to loose their rights and its based on little more than crap but things like this affect EVERYONE . As a dog owner your ability to choose where you buy, what you buy, what you want to live with, what activities you want to do with your dog, where you want to take them, etc is in the frame. Some of you want a rescue dog and are happy to only have the dogs YOU want in a pet shop, yet ban anyone else from buying a puppy from the same place

If the grey industry needs to be shut down we need to see due process

This is about dog owner rights - freedom of choice.

Live baiting is illegal - prosecute anyone who does it and if anyone is they are way past stupid now its out like it has been.

As dog owners we have the right to choose whether we euthanize our own animals - dont be too quick to give up that right because the grey people are considered to be wasteful.

Could you elaborate on the bolded bit please. In which states is mandatory de-sexing crossbreeds, the law?

[RuralPug]

The idea that pet ownership would ever be banned is way beyond what I'm prepared to accept as possible even though we know that is part of the AR mentality. However, if we are discussing banning some activities with dogs based on welfare grounds or the prohibition on being able to breed certain breeds based on welfare grounds to me is capable of being in the frame.

We are already looking at campaigns to ban where a dog is sold and where they can be advertised.Right now we are looking at restricting how many dogs a person can own. This is based on propaganda and sensationalism circulated by animal rights. Apart from the obvious in how it restricts the numbers bred and the rights of breeders and numbers available for sale it completely removes the right of a dog owner to buy a dog of their choice from a place of their choice.

In three states if the dog is not purebred and if the person who wants to breed a puppy is not registered with a state canine org it must be desexed - sure lots of you will think this is a good thing but like it or not there are only 3 and a half thousand CC registered breeders in the whole of Australia and people should have the right to be able to choose what they breed [if they comply with codes and laws] and they should have the right to be able to find a dog or their choice and take it into their homes without their choices being restricted. People should also have the right to keep an entire dog if thats what suits them and their dogs.

We see these things pushed by RSPCA who actually are given our tax payer dollars to wage campaigns against us and get their own product into being able to be sold and advertised without restriction where others are banned and we say that's a good thing because THEY tell us that this will shut down puppy farmers.

Seems to me that everywhere I look we have people pushing for someone else to loose their rights and its based on little more than crap but things like this affect EVERYONE . As a dog owner your ability to choose where you buy, what you buy, what you want to live with, what activities you want to do with your dog, where you want to take them, etc is in the frame. Some of you want a rescue dog and are happy to only have the dogs YOU want in a pet shop, yet ban anyone else from buying a puppy from the same place

If the grey industry needs to be shut down we need to see due process

This is about dog owner rights - freedom of choice.

Live baiting is illegal - prosecute anyone who does it and if anyone is they are way past stupid now its out like it has been.

As dog owners we have the right to choose whether we euthanize our own animals - dont be too quick to give up that right because the grey people are considered to be wasteful.

Could you elaborate on the bolded bit please. In which states is mandatory de-sexing crossbreeds, the law?

I read that to mean that any person wanting to breed either from dogs that are not purebred or crossing breeds without permission of the state canine org has to desex the puppies before sale. Dogs already owned that are not purebred are not mandated to be desexed, although it is encouraged. Certainly that seems to be the case with the new SA legislation.

Puppy farmers will love it because the cross breeding BYBs will take less of their sales. And those that believe 'designer' type mixes are purebred, will no doubt be ratified by the idiots in state government who agree with them.

[Sheridan]

So now we ban pet ownership because some people abuse their pets? That's where that logic takes you.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place.

It's a slippery slope.

No it's not. It's a logical fallacy. Unless you can provide a valid inductive argument or a mechanism by which the banning of greyhound racing on apparently welfare grounds will probably lead to the banning of pet ownership on welfare grounds, then it is a fallacious slippery slope.

You mean the same AR activists who have just got greyhound racing banned in NSW? Those ones?

[m-j]

You mean the same AR activists who have just got greyhound racing banned in NSW? Those ones?

The up side is there isn't 10acres of land smack bang in the middle of some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it won't be so easy for them.