Steve

Yes maybe to you or I but to many of these owners it is a drop in the ocean, the others take calculated risks. If the risk is too high they won't do it All of the owners I've met throughout my life are just battlers who would struggle to support their hobby .even if they did occasionally breed the greatest dog of the decade it would owe them a lot before they got there and no guarantee that they could do it again.

I may be missing something but is difficult to see how people can say the breeding of them is motivated by money other than the hope of breeding one of the few that end up worth heaps. It COSTS money to buy the dog to breed with, to get the stud service, to feed and house, get to and from races,vetting, training, specialists registration fees and licences etc. It COSTS money -big money- to keep a litter until each pup has either shown it should be kept on or moved out .Racing greys which have failed to prove their worthiness dont fetch great prices for pets and they aren't worth 2 cents for racing .It cost money to have them PTS via a vet and to try to find somewhere to bury them. Even if they are cutting deals - stud service for a pup etc its got me buggered how it is something anyone would do to make money. Hard to believe they are motivated by the whole gambling thing more than the desire to produce a winner and the other rewards that are in the mix.

Personally I think focusing on a potential banning of gambling is taking energy away from a more realistic solution. I think some may be too emotionally invested and too close to be able to see that grown up people are not going to just give up their rights and its highly unlikely that its all going to come together as you are asking - some people happen to think its O.K. to humanely kill animals and you are never going to stop someone doing what they want with their own property if they dont want it any more if its done without cruelty.There are laws already in place to cover animal cruelty issues and Dead dogs dont suffer. So what - we think gambling is bad but adults get to gamble if they want to as long as they dont break any other laws. Sports people have been under the gun for match fixing, gambling on or against their own team, taking drugs - blah blah blah - you dont hear anyone calling for a ban on gambling on footy games and people not being able to gamble on some other sports didnt stop them from breaking the law to try to get a better result . Way before online gambling or as many sports were included for people to gamble on or big sponsors saw it as a way to promote themselves there were all sorts of things going on to get a better go at winning. Other sports and industries [eg trucking] with law makers are looking at better prevention, management and penalties and thats what will be the end result of anything thats happening to bring public awareness to the greyhound industry. It wont be just ban gambling or the activity and it will dry up the motivation. Not a chance in my opinion.

You must be up in the middle of the night too - I thought I got it before anyone would see it . Are you a fellow insomniac Steve? That accounts for me being here in the early hours. No insomnia - I go to sleep as soon as my head hits the pillow but I get up every morning at 3 am to take my son to work - he's a baker and cant drive because of his epilepsy - I stay up because all of our overseas clients are up at that time so I can work with them in real time. Its also a good time to get a heap of work done behind the scenes with the awards as business hours means phones ringing and lots of distractions. Most days I sneak in a Nana nap to make up for it mid afternoon. Re my comments on this topic - Suffice to say before you buy any herbal product do a bit of research

You must be up in the middle of the night too - I thought I got it before anyone would see it .

But hasnt the current owner taken the dog to a vet and been told the dog isnt in pain and no treatment is required - so what is the problem ?

I know what some of the public want but cant see that happening at least in the near future.Too much money in it and I don't just mean gambling- ,vets, dog food companies, canine specialists like chiro etc,transport companies and all of those who are employed within the industry. The only way you are going to stop people killing them when they are not what they want is to ban the breeding of them because if someone owns a dog and treats it humanely you cant stop them from having them killed. You can't make them send them all to rescue and if they did rescue would have to do what they do because its not possible to find that many homes for so many dogs each year. I think all that will come out of it is that rescue groups are banned from being used and its all done by managing it the best they can by financing the services they will use,such as rehoming services, euth services and body disposals etc under confidentiality contracts to cut down the visibility. Im not in any way suggesting that this would be right but I think they will look to their own survival and what's best for their business over caring too much about what some of the public want that doesn't match their goals.

deleted

Would appear the answer for the industry is to introduce regs or fix the ones they have to say 1. the owner must be responsible for disposal of excess dogs. 2. they must have a vet PTS or someone experienced in euthanasia all dogs they dont need for what they do 3..Never to use rescue or a third party for rehoming which is not financed by or approved by the board. 4. never to discuss what goes on with excess dogs with media AR etc and bring the industry into disrepute, 5.always ensure they dispose of bodies appropriately. Perhaps they need to set up and help with financing contractors who visit trainers and owners periodically or on request and kill any excess dogs and take away the bodies for burial or cremation to ensure there are no issues with accusations of cruel deaths, body dumping or mass graves which create bad PR. Laws are already in place for animal cruelty to address such things as using live lures and cruel methods of keeping them and killing them,dumping bodies etc.

You may get a case for the breeder breaching the microchip laws but this isn't the person the dog was handed over to and the rest is in the wind. Prove the pup that was said to be handed over not wormed and vaccinated is this pup. It wasnt identified and the second owner is in breach as well as the breeder for on selling without a chip.You also dont know what the agreement was between them. What do you want to get out of it - there isnt a refund or payment for vetting at best you can get the breeder a very small smack on the wrist if you can get anyone to take notice of second hand info.

From what I have heard there is no issue with the health or welfare of the dogs when they are alive.The greyhound is known to be one of the healthiest breeds and the care the trainers and breeders put into looking after them is of little or minor concern. A healthy non stressed animal is more likely to do what it is required to do. The issue is with the perceived over breeding and what happens to them if they don't cut the grade. Its about how some in society view dogs - any dogs regardless of their intended purpose and how others do .Some feel that if a dog cant do what is required of it that it should be sent to God as quickly and humanely as possible others feel that once it is alive it should live until old age takes it. One owner will send their much loved family pet off to be PTS because its getting old and they feel it will deteriorate and suffer if it is able to continue to age any longer - a decision made out of love - and someone else will come along and save it and bad mouth the owner because they wanted it to die because it was old.

Before you can ever get to a solution - you have to identify the problem and in this case what is being identified as the problem is not the same for everyone. All well and good to decide on one cause - gambling - that if removed will miraculously cure all the issues but the reality is that's highly unlikely.

You are describing pretty much what happens across the board - Ive been attacked because one of my dogs turned up in rescue - with all the crap and hype about how my dogs were turning up in rescue and I didnt care blah blah blah .What a terrible breeder I am because one out of 100 dogs I bred was dumped when it was 5 years old by its owner - when the owner had the option of returning it to me. Could you imagine what I would catch if I actually asked rescue to help me find a new home for a dog I had owned. Some of the rubbish they do makes anyone who could work with rescue prefer to stay the hell right away from them. Then they wonder why a greyhound breeder or a big commercial breeder would rather humanely PTS rather than be seen to be needing to move them out. Hard to get the industry to try to identify the ones who might help them without beating the hell out of them so its just a case of stay away from them and do what is needed without them. There would be a hell of lot more in my opinion than the grey numbers in the rest of the dog population that are killed and never make it passed a bullet or a needle.

Yes to this. Clearly defined ethical guidelines that members of an association must follow. With real monitoring & real consequences for breaches. Good, too, the recommendation about independent overseeing. Certain actions may not be unlawful, but according to the agreed-on values of an association, they are not tolerated when done by its members. Which is why I've been trying to find a clear set of ethical guidelines set down by the greyhound racing clubs in the eastern states. I have found 'committees' charged with ethical scrutiny. But I'm trying to find 'scrutiny' of precisely what. Does anyone know? Any such ethical guidelines for greyhound racing will need to take into consideration, the changing public expectations about how dogs should be treated. After all, the continuance of greyhound racing is linked with public support. There's been changes over recent decades in how police & military dogs are raised and dealt with. Even tho' they're 'working dogs', they now fit into the 'dog as companion' value. You can introduce laws and guidelines prohibiting dogs being put down by anyone but a vet but what of the one that's living on a property 100 ks away from a vet which breaks its back, gets hit by a horse or a car and needs to be dealt with so already you have to have exemptions.Current laws with companion animals allow a vet or someone experienced in euthanasia to do the job so that gives permission to using a shooter . Then if you try to make rules about not doing anything other than rehoming them - there is immediately a whole bunch of what ifs too. What if the dog is not suitable for being rehomed for a variety of reasons ,what if you don't have the resources to keep the animal in optimal health etc?

Good dogs do make lots of money but they are a very very very small %. This why slow dogs are destroyed to make room for the next Brett Lee hopeful. For those that don't know Brett Lee is the worlds fastest Greyhound, his service fee (straws) was $32,000 last time I looked, not to mention what he actually won for his owners. Thousands of offspring over many years but none are as good as dad. It is very hard to get a good dog, but that doesn't stop people from trying because if they do make it financially it is worth it, at least the unprofitable dogs won't die if legislation is introduced and the industry is monitored and policed, by an independent body. Sorry Im just not getting this bit - unprofitable dogs will still die and in fact I wouldnt be surprised if more dogs die from now on than prior to the last round of bad press .If they are taken to a vet and dealt with legally and disappear the bad press goes away.

Yes I was at the vet about 3 months ago and a greyhound breeder bought in 8 dogs to be PTS and said they would prefer to do that than go anywhere near rescue.Turns out they also breed GSD and do the same with their ex breeders rather than have any attention on them for not keeping them. It happens all the time. The two biggest rescues in NSW, not GAP, are loathed by a large majority of trainers. Seems to me that if you want more breeders to hand over dogs to rescue for rehoming rather than quietly asking the vet to PTS then you cant have a situation where the people who are doing what you ask are beaten up and judged etc.

I might just duck in and put my new litter up there later today to demonstrate the difference to those who are looking for a Maremma baby.

Because the law will say they need to be responsible and each dog will have a paper trail. But how will that stop owners opting to have the dog killed ? Because the law could state that they need to rehome their dog rather than op to euth their dog. I'm not naive enough to believe that all will adhere to the law but if they realise that there are severe consequences that will be dished out .i.e. if it costs a lot more to not obey the law than to foot the bill of looking after that dog until it is rehomed and the chances of them being monitored and caught are also in place, it will stop the majority. How will that work as currently any dog owner can opt to have their dog euthanised, irrespective of their age, health, condition or breed, so I cannot see how they can make a law to make it illegal for just greyhounds to be euthanised. If they did make this law you are proposing, how on earth will be it monitored and policed, given estimates of say 15,000 - 18,000 greyhounds are born each year into the industry. The current rules and regulations are not being enforced, so I cannot see any new ones being enforced. The greyhound racing industry will just carry on as they have for many years with financial considerations of the industry being placed ahead of the welfare of the greyhounds. With regards to removing the gambling/betting from the industry and running the industry as a hobby/sport mentioned in some posts, how will this work given the industry revolves around gambling and betting with billions of dollars involved annually and propped up by the state governments as millions of dollars are poured into government coffers from greyound racing annually. The owners that race their greyhounds as a "hobby/sport" are in the minority and may only own one or a couple of greyhounds and are small fish in a big pond of big players who are responsible for breeding and killing thousands of greyhounds each year. The old argument for keeping the industry going to avoid thousands of greyhounds being killed if the industry were to be shutdown, needs to be questioned as currently thousands are being killed each year anyway and extremely low numbers are being rehomed , so how many of the 15,000-18,000 greyhounds born each year in this industry are actually surviving anyway, to justify keeping the industry going? How do you know owners who do this as a hobby are in the minority/ Where are the stats? When you say the industry is propped up by state government - how? How do individual owners and trainer become rewarded by the state government for breeding and training and racing these dogs? I genuinely dont know these things but it would seem to me the big money would be in the dollars they can ask for stud fees and puppies out of certain sire's and dams or those which have a proven track record - with some prize money chucked in - but where does the prize money come from - is it truly the state governments?

Because the law will say they need to be responsible and each dog will have a paper trail. But how will that stop owners opting to have the dog killed ? Because the law could state that they need to rehome their dog rather than op to euth their dog. I'm not naive enough to believe that all will adhere to the law but if they realise that there are severe consequences that will be dished out .i.e. if it costs a lot more to not obey the law than to foot the bill of looking after that dog until it is rehomed and the chances of them being monitored and caught are also in place, it will stop the majority. Sorry there isnt a snowball's chance in hell that any law will be able to tell someone who owns a dog that they cant opt to have it PTS .You can introduce laws re having vets do the job and you can have guidelines which give a nudge for no bumping them off and rehoming them instead but its just never going to happen.

Because the law will say they need to be responsible and each dog will have a paper trail. But how will that stop owners opting to have the dog killed ?

Yes I was at the vet about 3 months ago and a greyhound breeder bought in 8 dogs to be PTS and said they would prefer to do that than go anywhere near rescue.Turns out they also breed GSD and do the same with their ex breeders rather than have any attention on them for not keeping them.

No I don't. Why would you say I do? I believe that killing 12,000+ healthy, vigorous, beautiful dogs every year because gambling exists is hideous. The differences in other dog sports/showing are obvious. Typically, for other breeds: Dogs are bred roughly in numbers that meet demand - dogs are sold or shown or go into dog sports- dogs that don't make it go to pet homes For Greyhounds Dogs are rampantly over bred - dogs that show good confirmation or promising speed are sold, those that do not are killed, the process is repeated through the racing career cycle, ie, far too many dogs that can't win or placehave their lives ended prematurely. It is estimated that only 1 in 15 are re-homed. 14 in 15 healthy pure bred dogs are killed. And this happens year in and year out. If you take away state sanctioned gambling on Greyhounds, you don't have the same numbers bred and subsequently killed each year. Sorry I thought when you said 'take away the gambling, take away the incentive for over breeding' that you were saying that you thought gambling was the cause of the over breeding and not the will to win whether there is gambling or not.

Well I think if you take out the gambling not that much would change for the dogs - it wouldnt be such a big spectator sport but just as tens of thousands participate in other dog sports which are not normally on the tab each week you would still get sponsors and prize money and the feelings of breeding , training and winning. They will still chuck out the dogs that dont win and they will still look for methods of training them that might help them get the ribbon. Er no Steve, 16,000 Greyhounds are whelped each year for the express purpose of the sport which is inextricably linked to gambling. So many thousand greyhounds are killed each year due to the rampant over breeding. Take away the gambling, take away the incentive for over breeding. Then you take away the cruelty and the large scale killing. Name a single breed in other dog sports where 55 of the breed are found in a mass grave with a bullet to the head or their skulls bashed in and spent cartridges and a baseball bat are found nearby? Show us any evidence at all from anywhere around the world that has already banned greyhound racing where mass killings persisted 4 or 5 years after greyhound racing was banned. O.K So you believe that every person who is currently involved in the industry has as their only incentive the fact that the dogs can be bet on? Do owners and trainers gamble on them more than the public? Im being sincere when I ask this as I really dont know. I don't know any huge grey owners or trainers but throughout my life Ive met many who owned and trained them for the love of the hobby in the hope of them winning,something to get them out of bed and be responsible for and some place to go and meet with other people etc never expecting huge financial gains from what they do - never getting much to even cover their expenses like many of the conformation show breeders. Its difficult for me to see that if the legal gambling is removed that the gambling would ever really be removed or that there are that many people who do what they do as a hobby for all the other things they get out of it would not continue on.

Well I think if you take out the gambling not that much would change for the dogs - it wouldnt be such a big spectator sport but just as tens of thousands participate in other dog sports which are not normally on the tab each week you would still get sponsors and prize money and the feelings of breeding , training and winning. They will still chuck out the dogs that dont win and they will still look for methods of training them that might help them get the ribbon.

You can offer a repair, refund or replacement but there is no requirement on the buyer to accept it. This is becoming more common and at the end of the day its about what the implied warranty was and the fine print. Registered breeders are even more at risk of this than pet shops are because people come to them in the belief they will get a superior product. Since we researched consumer law regarding the sale of live animals we now advise our members to be aware of certain things they may say or imply when selling their pups and changing the wording in their contracts.