Steve

Easy to want it both ways- either greyhound trainers are too keen to kill off their old dogs or they actually may get emotionally attached and not want to kill it which has jaded his ability to make the best decision for his dog. If this were a pet owner? I've seen people on this forum who have not done what I would consider humane in good time for their dogs and usually the reason for not wanting it put down is understood. Im not justifying what he did but if it were a chihuahua it wouldn't have made national news.

All of my dogs are in the system somewhere and every single one is chipped and registered and that is recorded somewhere. I have done what I have been required to do. I dont NEED to do anything to claim them. When I go into my council to pay to register a new dog all of my stuff is in a folder so at their office they are all somehow attached to me so one of these days the council may be able to sort through errors and attach them all online in the new database to me. When I chip a litter of puppies they are also in the system somewhere so if I simply keep doing what I've been doing and sending change of owner details to my council where I simply pop the forms in the post when I go into my local township and somewhere in their system the details are changed, I'm having a hard time seeing whats in it for me to play around trying to 'claim them" work out if there are errors , ring or visit a town during business hours that takes me way out of my way , follow up what errors I need to have corrected come home and claim them to change them over on line into the new owner's name etc. Hopefully when/ if breeder numbers really are attributed to each litter/puppy and they automatically are attached to me on the new database so I don't need to "claim them" before I change the ownership and the microchip forms are changed with data entry able to take into account spelling errors etc by vet nurses and council data entry it wont be so time consuming for people [breeders] who have to muck around with it more than once or twice in their pet dogs lifetime. The obvious question is - if its this easy not to have a dog attached to me so it can be seen to be attached to me on the new data base how is this anymore than an online abaility for pet owners to change ownership? How disappointing.

Im aware of that and I was eager to participate. I would assume any changes would be added to the system by council straight away as they expect us to do. Ill keep coming back to see if its easier to work but Im not prepared to spend hours and get nowhere.

did that, she could'nt figure out why it wouldn't work, still glitches in the system she said. took my number for an expert to call but still waiting Same here and to be honest I dont have the time I've spent so far in trying to make it work . Id rather simply fill out the change of owners forms for my puppies ,send it in to council and let them do the job. Ill have another look in a little while to see if its any easier but Im not up for spending this much time and energy on simply doing councils job for them until its all sorted.

exactly Just doesn't make for such a good headline right now. Which is why it is a headline. Fixed it thanks

Charming generalisation re the Greens, based on what evidence apart from your opinion. There's well established demographic surveys of the features common to Greens supporters/voters. I have no knowledge of the other group, AJP, you've included in your generalisation. Prejudiced, sexist and ageist language doesn't help the cause of greyhound racing. Yep

exactly Just doesn't make for such a good headline right now.

Still not over yet as the inside info is that the court case is looking very positive with a 99.9% chance of success, but it needs to go to High court to get the ban overturned. Let's just hope Baird hasn't got all the judges in his pocket as well, after paying for a holiday trip last weekend for 60 of his MPs to attend so they could be bribed easily not to oppose him last night. Must be so nice to be able to throw taxpayers money around for himself. I haven't given up and neither has many people yet. We must not allow the Greens to have more than a foothold in government, as they will just destroy Australia eventually with a ban on everything. Animal Justice Party is just as corrupt as the Greens, both bribed Premier Baird to allow them to have a place in Government. Both AJP and Greens have a lot of eccentric millionaires who are old spinsters with addled brains that are easily brainwashed into donating their money to these fringe parties to allow them to get into Govt. If you get the chance listen to the speech Troy Grant gave as he went through the figures to show that its no longer a viable industry - costing them more than they make and huge amounts to keep it going - this is the case world wide - its about the money pure and simple. Animal rights will crow about it being their victory but from what I heard last night I believe that if they let the industry die slowly it will cost them heaps and heaps of money for years yet as it contracts and this is really about the government cutting their loses now and taking what they will loose from the casinos and use of the land. They need to answer why - if live baiting has been illegal and everyone knew about happening that they and the RSPCA were not doing THEIR job and policing the laws which came in as a criminal matter in 1953 rather than avoiding it when it suited them financially and politically. The animal justice party is led by the ex president of animal liberation NSW so what did anyone expect when they gave them a foot in?

Well Ive sat up and listened to the debate on the banning of greyhounds tonight and needless to say this is now a reality. However, listening to this debate made me understand that animal welfare only played a secondary role in what has just happened. Statements were made that the industry is shrinking and will not remain viable. The revenue they bring in via gambling doesn't cover what they have to pay out anymore and if they were to go with the recommendations they are saying it will cost 53 million for upgrades of tracks etc ,that there will be less breeding therefore less racing and even less revenue than is currently coming in due to the contraction of the industry without the bans. Fact is they get more money with less pain from casinos etc and they can use the grounds as another method of bringing in revenue. Animal rights and animal welfare just had good timing and they never stood a chance. The moral is in any activity to do with dogs make sure it doesn't cost the government and promote how much it benefits them. Labor is saying they will start it up again if they win the next election but by then the tracks will be gone and the money situation will still be the same - no chance in my opinion of it being reversed.

My link A North-West greyhound owner faces animal cruelty charges after failing to seek medical attention for a sick dog he said he did not have the heart to put down. In March 2015, stewards from the Office of Racing Integrity visited the Somerset property of Ricki Wayne Donaldson for a random kennel inspection. After finding no-one was home, the stewards accessed the back of the property. In his evidence in the Burnie Magistrates Court on Tuesday morning, steward Dominic Tyson said he located a greyhound in a thin condition, with a large growth and dried blood between its back legs. Police and a vet were called to the home and the dog was euthanised on site. In cross-examination, both stewards said they were told by Mr Donaldson the dog was loved by himself and his children, and he didn’t have the heart to put it down. The court also heard evidence from a veterinarian clinician/surgeon and veterinary pathologist, who were called by the prosecution. However, the bulk of the evidence might be ruled inadmissible after defence counsel Greg Richardson raised concerns over the legality of the inspection. Mr Richardson said the property was divided into sections, with only one set-up for racing greyhounds. The stewards located the greyhound, a family pet, in an area irrelevant to their inspection. Magistrate Tamara Jago also expressed concern over the purpose of the stewards’ visit. The stewards entered the property under rule 18 of the racing guidelines, but Mr Donaldson was not keeping racing greyhounds on the property at the time. Ms Jago questioned the purpose of the visit. The case was adjourned until September 9.

My link MP Not happy over the program being stopped. Remember this guy's name. Decision not 'based on science': MP Hinchinbrook MP Andrew Cripps has questioned the government's motivation in shutting down the Pelorus project, calling it a "political stunt". He said he "didn't believe the decision was based on science or environmental grounds".

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.

Well the biggest issue in placing blame on where pound dogs come from is that there is no proof and its unlikely that there will be in the near future. The changes in NSW with the chips is designed [ or supposed to be] to enable them to trace the puppies from birth to death so theoretically they could keep stats which would say who breeds dogs that get dumped. For now because there is no proof they simply say lots of pet shop puppies end up in pounds but if pet shops have been chipping for years how come most that come in are not chipped? Their assumption is that everyone will follow the law and chip all of their puppies before they sell Them. Mandatory microchipping has been in since the mid nineties and still most dogs in pounds are not chipped when they get there. Unless everyone who isn't chipping now starts chipping its still not going to give much evidence on where they come from . Breeders are telling me that they are less likely to chip and they are using other people's names and addresses when they do, sending family members to the vet for chips etc. Breeder numbers are introduced any minute but a local breeder has never chipped a puppy ,tells me they never will, the vet cant and wont dob them in so in other words the only pups that can be traced so we can prove where they came from are those that are chipped by those who are doing the right thing. An ANKC breeder has told me that she will send her puppies off with family members and her staff so all of her puppies dont show up on the council registry as originating from her .then she can still register all of her puppies with DogsNSW with a chip but she wont be targeted by the RSPCA as breeding large numbers. Right now its not necessary for a breeder to show ID to get them chipped - any stranger can walk in and say they are Tom Smith and have them chipped in that name. If they do introduce ID checking then its still chipped in the name of the person who arrives with them. there is about a dozen other ways around it and breeders including registered breeders are working out how to get around the council and RSPCA knowing how many they are breeding. So getting proof isnt as easy as it sounds.

If we identify that one problem is that not all breeders microchip their puppies prior to sale and people continue to buy them without microchips then there are ways for them to address that which doesn't make life harder for the breeders who are doing the right thing and which wont make any difference to the outcome. We could introduce a discounted rego fee for anyone who buys a dog or puppy that is already microchipped just as they do for desexed pets. This would help with buyer education and put more pressure on breeders to chip,bring in more revenue for councils. We could also do a yearly door knock to make sure everyone who owns a dog has it chipped and registered. Even if they bought in private contractors for a couple of weeks to do a whip around and issue fines these things plus an education campaign via media for a few weeks would serve a much greater purpose and reach the intended goal much more effectively and quicker than making it a law that breeders must advertise our puppies with a chip number or breeder ID number.

No its not against the law .The breeder is mandated by law to chip the puppy but the buyer can buy a puppy without a chip without a problem for them. There is the crux of the problem, until a buyer is mandated to either buy a chipped and vaccinated puppy or is liable for prosecution if found with an unchipped dog then the underground trade can merrily go on its way I dont think its the crux of the problem but its an example of the problem.

The way it works in the dog breeding world in Australia and most other countries is that the governments come at it all in the belief that the breeders need to be managed and clearly the ones who get busted and make great news stories and those who aren't doing it right do need something to drag them into line or out altogether . Animal rights have been pretty good at drumming up this belief and animal welfare are hot on their tail coat. But they assume that those of us who are living it , breathing it etc are part of the problem and cant see that we all want the same thing. We all want the rotten stuff to stop but because they lump us in together they take the advice of animal rights and animal welfare first over and above really listening to us and finding real solutions. Our credentials, experience, knowledge accomplishments, references etc are not counted because we are disrespected by them and seen as the bad guys no matter what sub group we belong to and no matter what our base philosophy is. Most of us are too frightened to stand up and have a go at telling our story because that brings in the bullies and the threats and so far no one is listening anyway. None of the stuff they introduce works - we all know this - they know it - and it doesn't make less dogs suffer it makes more suffer. Its doesnt make more breeders comply it makes them find ways to dodge it. But because they have no respect for the ability we have to help they simply kick us to the curb and everything they do leaves screaming loopholes and uses more resources on low risk breeders and the ones they really need to control slither off and carry on as usual. Their tasks forces and advisory boards are full of animal welfare, animal rights, vets etc and then if we are lucky a token representative of a breeder group. This effectively leaves us like a couple of sheep sitting down with a pack of wolves deciding on whats for dinner. It allows them to carry on with their assumptions and ideologies without a balanced view and we go to hell one law at a time. So this raises a couple of issues 1. Why have we sat back and waited until they identified what goes wrong in the breeding world and not done this ourselves? I mean generically for the health and welfare of our dogs not making it about whether we are purebred or cross bred breeders, not about are we registered,big or small etc. 2.Why haven't we convened our own task forces and advisory boards where we can demonstrate that OUR first priority is about the welfare of our breeding dogs, have more control over who is having input,more fair representation and ensuring its not biased or loaded in any direction except toward the best outcome for the dogs. 3.Why do we allow the situation to continue as it is now set without becoming more pro active rather than re active then nothing will change. Breeders will not be heard and there will be more and more restrictions as each one they implement is shown not to work. Part of the answer is that breeder groups have become accustomed to making themselves and their dogs look good by making the others look bad . Keeping themselves separate and different - they wont join one group because someone else is in it in case they appear guilty by association of something they do a little differently. Historically one might say that one group now and then has actually been instrumental in thumping the others to try to gain some ground for their members. As I'm writing this I can hear you saying, I'm not getting into bed with the commercial breeder, Im not wanting to sit down with people who sell to pet shops, I'm not getting in bed with cross bred breeders,I'm not interested in working with show breeders,I'm not interested in working with purebred breeders who don't show etc etc. So are we able to come at this and assume we all want the same thing - the best outcome for the dogs and those who are involved in it , have a go at changing the way its being done and have a go at defending the ability for us to breed dogs without ridiculous restrictions into the future? So are we capable of joining together and seeing what we have in common rather than what makes us different, only focus on the welfare of the dogs and the community expectations and make some real progress for dog and cat breeders and their animals? At this point I really don't think we have much to lose by giving it a go but Ive no doubt Ill get a good belting for suggesting it.

No its not against the law .The breeder is mandated by law to chip the puppy but the buyer can buy a puppy without a chip without a problem for them.

i know.... we are a pitiful mob in reality.... i have a real problem with the stunning hypocrisy we display in deciding who and what gets to be treated in a humane manner h I still cant believe anyone ever thought of it let alone get support for it and go ahead. What a bloody disgrace.

Its more about the fragmented dog world Its about breeder bodies too keen to jump in and surrender to try and gain exemptions or to show they are the good guys. This is across the board not just with licenses - it seems anything the loonies yell about they simply give in on even though they know its not what is best for the dogs. Our codes push us toward resting our bitches even though it's not good for them because people who never bred a litter shouted about it and to look good we fell in line rather than stand our ground and tell them to bugger off and get educated then once the premium group concedes it becomes law so we are all stuck with it as a law not just a code. DogsNSW was all for licenses but they wanted exemptions for their breeders so they would be self regulated and do the inspections etc .The pet dog breeders org wanted licenses becauSe most of them are already stuck with them in victoria and they felt this would make them appear as if they had nothing to be afraid of. sounded good to them at the time .The challenge is how to get all breeder groups on the same page and ready to fight as one rather than being so keen to fall in line to make the others look worse than them. Its not about whats best for the dogs its about what is seen to be good PR. Purebred breeders on this forum and everywhere advocated for licenses - still do .Sucked in by the crap about how we will know who is breeding and where they are etc How they wanted everyone inspected before they could breed a dog because they thought they would be special and somehow any negative consequences would not happen to them into the future. Rather than licensing in NSW what actually got through was an attempt to track who is breeding and where they are via microchip kept the government happy. Some think it still not ideal for the government and RSPCA to be able to do this and the big threat is more than 10 litters and you will be inspected anyway but that is much preferable to a licence where they can change the rules and dictate how many you can own, where you can advertise, where you can sell them what you can breed etc. If they turn up and you havent covered part of the code you get a chance to fix it and at worst its a fine but when a license is in play they can simply refuse to renew it or remove it. Then if you breed a dog its illegal. Breeders and dog owners must fight licensing because a license makes owning a dog or breeding a dog illegal unless you have a license and at any time they can simply remove your license and change the rules. We might be worrying about nothing and what is happening in Victoria may not eventuate and the rest of us may never have to worry as they are at the moment but why lie down and allow ourselves to be set up so easily?

From what I can gather the goats havent as yet been completely wiped out .They say it has to stop and any dogs on the island have to be off within 14 days.

They are not proceeding - not because its cruel but because of a bird. My link

So this is the Australian Government website and no one contacted me to let me know the draft report was closing today except the RSPCA . Its not in the land or rural papers either. My link And this was the call to action put out by the RSPCA. on their facebook page Have you got a few spare minutes to speak up for animals today? The Productivity Commission is currently seeking public submissions on its draft report into the regulation of agriculture in Australia. One of the recommendations is for the ‘creation of a national, independent body responsible for building the evidence base on community expectations, as well as for developing national farm animal welfare standards’ - which you might recall, was one of our key priorities during the federal election campaign. You now have a chance to tell the Productivity Commission how important this is - but submissions close today! The submission process is very simple - visithttp://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/agriculture#draft You might like to include the following key points: - I strongly support recommendations 5.1 and 5.2 of the Draft Report, relating to the regulation of farm animal welfare. - We urgently need an independent animal welfare body to develop animal welfare standards that are based on current animal welfare science and community expectations. - The independent body should also be responsible for overseeing the effectiveness of live export regulation and animal welfare enforcement at a state level. - Greater resources must be dedicated to animal welfare policy and enforcement at federal and state levels. - These reforms will improve community and consumer confidence in Australian livestock industries and the government’s commitment to animal welfare. Thank you again for standing up for animals. This is what the Vegan org had to say on it My link Oh by the way - remember the greyhounds

Yes well thats a similar list to what is peddled by RSPCA . They dont want you to have more than a couple of dogs at your place but if you have guardian homes and the bitch is back at her place by the time the pups go home there is no bitch to see and no boy in some circles actually means that you are not just using the boy because he is convenient and you own him. Do they really expect that every person who breeds a litter and cares about what they put on the ground for future generations actually owns and lives with both parents in every litter ? I have been an ANKC member since 1971 and I too have had puppies stolen, my kids stuff trashed, and our property stolen by people who want to see the puppies and the parents .I have had my dogs baited and one shot in the head from out on the road. I have had people rock up on Christmas Day to look at my dogs and Ill never forget one that crashed my son's engagement party and demanded to see the dogs. 50 or so people in my backyard and they were so rude about me not letting them in to see where I keep my dogs right now that Im still shaking my head over it. In all this time I have never sent home a puppy that was not in perfect health and no one has ever complained about the temperament or quality of the puppies Ive sold them and there are hundreds - but that doesn't count. Some of our members are victims of domestic violence and are terrified of anyone knowing where they are located, some are elderly living alone on remote properties and simply don't feel safe having people coming and going - surely because they want to breed a litter of puppies they dont have to open their homes and have no right to privacy without being judged as bad breeders. I work about 12 to 15 hours a day - everyday. I start at 4am every day I have 8 kids and 15 grandkids and when someone says can we come and have a look that means I have to stop everything and allow them to come into my home and onto my property - to see what ? My Maremmas are all out in the paddocks working so all they see is a dog in a paddock with some sheep. I have 2 beagles that live in my home with a pet maremma and my whelping room is my family room. To have a stranger who might think I pass the test come in and inspect where my dogs live and where the puppies are raised means my whole family is disrupted with them walking through their space as well. So they don't want you to make money out of breeding dogs so you need to have another source of income to feed them and keep them but they want you to front up as if you are a business open for constant inspection. People do come to my place to have a look and to pick up their puppies but Id like $5 for everyone that came here that couldnt or wouldnt control their kids or didn't respect the fact that people actually live and work here and whilst I may not have a right to privacy because Im just a low life breeder my family shouldn't have to have strangers and their kids in their bedrooms and touching their stuff either. One in about 10 that come here arrive on time and the vast majority either come early to try to catch you out or arrive hours after the arranged time ,Some have arrived in 3 car loads and while Im talking to the front person the others are all over my property leaving gates open and going into sterile areas where we process the Lavender and herb oils. If a breeder tells me they prefer not to have puppy buyers come to their place I get it and its just one more example of the crap that's been pushed for years.

That is a very different statement to what you posted above. Stop exaggerating and being ridiculous. And I'm no fan of the RSPCA. Their kill stats are abhorrent. But he did not say that every single greyhound that comes to them will be slaughtered no questions asked. Pointing to RSPCA kill stats is classic diversion tactics. Again the industry and its supporters try to just point the finger away from their own failings rather than accept the unacceptable issues from within. This is exactly why shutting down the industry is the only answer. Now, anyone want to provide any evidence of the move to erode pet ownership in the many countries that banned Greyhound racing long ago? Or is that all just scaremongering and sky is falling reactions from those who think that the level of 'wastage' needed to support people gambling is just fine and dandy? I think I know which it is... Could you please post the names of the countries that have banned grey racing? The USA for one has banned it in almost all States for some time. As for your quote - again, that is NOT what Asal said, which is that all Greyhounds will be automatically slaughtered without even being given a chance. I want a source for that quote (there isn't one, because it was never said). Some states in the USA doesn't count as a country so if we dont know what countries have banned it how do you expect us to answer your question? The USA is over run by PETA freaks who push for all manner of nutty things and just because the USA do anything regarding animals,trade wages, or people, presidents or wars is not reference for us following suit. USA pushes for desexing all animals and Norway makes it illegal. An assumption that things are the same worldwide are on par with an assumption that most involved here are the bad guys. If the facts point to a ban being justified then why the gag on parliamentary debate and natural justice being delivered. This isn't just about the greys its about how a group of fanatics have been able to press their opinion and will upon a group they dont agree with without due process. Actually that is misinformation by Baird and co... greyhound racing IS NOT banned in USA. I think according to reports I've read, only one or two tracks out of a dozen in USA closed down the tracks because of costs, not because it was banned, but of course the animal killing charities PETA and Greys2k jumped on and took the credit for the tracks closing down lol Seriously? It is not information that is hard to find. " Currently, 40 states and the territory of Guam have standing laws banning the practice, and 5 more states, Connecticut, Kansas, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin, do not practise greyhound racing despite the practice not being illegal there.[44]" From the Wikipedia entry for greyhound racing (yes I'm aware of the limitations of Wikipedia. It has a legit citation). True but that isnt a lot of countries we could reference to answer your original question see consequences and give a fair response I also note that in the states it actually came about primarily as it was losing money due to competitive gambling venues and the addition of the ability to gamble on other things to gamble on at the tracks. they also have a different system where the doggers have their own union and are able to dictate how much they will get from the purse etc .The way you worded your post it implied there were lots of countries that had banned it and that we could judge whether or not there had been any negative consequences. Any info from the states is no evidence of what may or may not happen next here and just because it doesn't fit in with those who are screaming for everyone's rights to be taken from them without a whimper doesnt mean its not real to others who fear they will also lose more of their rights as dog owners and breeders.

Yeah well that all sounds good too except from all reports people did report it and the admin didnt act and didnt see anything wrong with it and I happen to think that some practices that go on in purebred dog breeding are cruel and as far as I can see the shit that is going on has been exposed over and over. Take a good look through threads here and see what happens when someone tries to expose the shit that's going on. Governments are focused on trivial regs controlling even the most ridiculous decisions a breeder can make,everyone wants to beat a drum because they think that someone who has more than an average number of dogs is cruel and the real cruelty is as plain as the dogs faces and everyone in the whole bloody world had a fair idea live baiting was going on. I was warned 15 years ago to keep an eye on my cats because some were being used in the local area for live baiting. It was only bad if they used someone's pet. The people who participated in live baiting didnt have a clue that others would judge them so harshly I mean seriously you have a government who just sent in a pack of wild dogs to use goats as live bait and literally slaughter them and even better inject a slow release poison to get rid of their wastage ! Do you see purebred breeders who breed dogs that have huge health problems due to their conformation see anything wrong in what they do. So what exactly is it that you could expect good people to do when they have no evidence and only hear about it ? Why would they think mass graves is a problem - would it be better if each were buried separately and given a headstone and most who have seen both options agree that a quick bullet is less cruel than a needle. Deciding to have your dog put down still isnt illegal or cruel - its not nice and arguable wastage but who exactly should they report to about someone who euthanizes their own animals and buries them in one spot, they may even let their mates use the same spot to do the same and how is that something that some good people should do something about You cant just go stringing apples out on the fence if that means it puts you and your dogs at risk or if you have no evidence that the apples even really exist or if they do proving who they are. If you knew your neighbour was burying their dogs in one spot when they were legally able to do it as a good person how would you be somewhat complicit and partly responsible for this bad thing happening ? Its only recently that its been spoken if as if its not a good thing by the industry and that's mainly only because its not politically correct not because all of a sudden they see it any differently because most of them see nothing wrong with it just as those who bump off puppies that dont have a ridge or which are born white etc dont see it as an issue.