Steve

Then people who are owners, breeders, guardians of their breed need to step up. Just look at what's happened, incrementally, to my favourite breed of cat, the Burmese, because of show ring trends - from a stunningly athletic oriental without exaggeration to a snub nose cat with weeping eyes. I'll never have another one unless I can find a Euro style breeder. The Scottish Fold is another - people argue until they're blue in the face that they should have the RIGHT to breed these cats, every single one of which will suffer from painful arthritis from a young age. And if I get a Dalmatian again it will be from a breeder who is selecting for LUA. Seriously. If you don't want Governent to legislate you out of existence then step up and demonstrate best practice - this is how I breed, this is how I train and this is how I care for my pets. I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it's there for everyone to see. And you would be surprised how well received I am by some of the "animal rights nutters."

Couldn't agree with you more but unfortunately there is an element in the industry that needs to be forced into that. People can adjust their business practise the way things are at the moment most business' are having to do that nobody has the money to spend they used to have. Bit OT aren't Burmese great cats, they are my favourite too with the exception of my moggy I have now.

(Yes I love my Burms to pieces)

So...changing attitudes is difficult but part of that is influenced by what your workmates, friends, mentors think. And whilst large scale education campaigns are ideal they are expensive and unrealistic. As is legislation as it's so difficult to enforce. So be that ripple of change. You don't need to shout it from the roof tops. You don't need to criticise others. Be that person who is not afraid of using positive reinforcement in a room full of trainers who won't use food, that person who shares a joyous celebration with their dog after every competition run no matter the result, that person who freely shares their breeding practices and knowledge, that person who always strives to be better. As a wise person once told me....even a tsunami starts with a ripple.

Except that many greyhound breeders were doing that and all they get for it now is acknowledgement that some were doing the right thing and were innocent. They have still been judged as part of the group and nothing any one individual with a ripple or a wave has made any difference.

Well I was watching the news and Coleman himself said he anticipated the majority would be euthanised going on previous kill rates for the previous year.

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.

You are missing my point. Many here are stating that banning greyhound racing will open up the floodgates for the end of pet dogs. 43 (I think) of 50 US states banned greyhound racing some time ago. There are only a couple of states left with an active industry. If one equals the other, where is the push to end pet ownership? Where is the slippery slope? What legislation has followed that took away people's rights to own pets?

The answer is none because it is absurd to equate the two. Recognising that it is unacceptable for an industry to kill tens of thousands of dogs in a ten year period as 'wastage' so that people can gamble (not to mention all the other issues) and ending that industry for welfare reasons in no way relates to stopping people from owning pets. People can gamble on something other than living beings that suffer based on our greed.

Thank you for your posts Anne. Heartbreaking,

This kind of fear is basic human behaviour which is set in us since caveman days .We are programmed to hear a twig snap and fear the worst . In this case some of the people you are interacting with have some pretty horrific situations which they have experienced that wont allow them to think the twig snapping may be someone coming to bring them dinner rather than coming to take away all they hold dear.

Recent history shows us that each time we turn around there is some new law regarding breeding and owning dogs, BSL, where we can take them ,how many we can own what we can do with them,where and how we can advertise them, where we can sell them,how we are to feed them, when we can mate them etc.

Any activity regarding dogs has had a shot or two lodged at it but especially the show ring via pedigree dogs exposed and any type of breeding . It's a non stop constant barrage and now we see something happening that is completely overlooking the human impact shutting down any opportunity for those affected feeling they have been given a fair go and for those of us watching seeing how easy it has all been to simply decide to change the rules and get away with it.

Why would anyone who gets hammered everyday for daring to have an opinion that doesn't fit with the nutters where the majority have learned to keep their campfires low and stay off the track and don't raise their voices or their heads tell anyone where they live or how many dogs they own because the AR might come after them not hear the twigs snapping and think its something coming to eat them? You may not think that an industry that is accused of killing thousands of dogs a year as wastage is the same as numbers of other dogs in pounds being considered wastage and the stated cruelty of the greyhound industry is not the same in the big scheme of things shouted about by animal rights as the accusations of cruelty in almost every area of dog ownership but its pushed every time we turn around and if you think the fanatics who yell and scream aren't thinking what comes next I'm thinking you may have missed a bit.

So for you the two may not be linked but that doesn't mean there is no basis for the fear or that the feelings and fears of the humans should be so easily tossed off.

A member of a local list I am on is looking for a Pembroke Corgi. Working line was actually specified, but by the absence of Pembroke and Cardigan Corgi breeders listed here on DOL as well as DogsNSW, I'm beginning to wonder if they are yet another breed in decline.

Any breeders on here planning litters or with young dogs available? I would like to nurture this lady's desire to buy a purebred dog and point her in the right direction.

Only 418 bred last year Australia wide and only approx 10 percent of them on the main register - good luck.

Well I was watching the news and Coleman himself said he anticipated the majority would be euthanised going on previous kill rates for the previous year.

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, beecause it was never said).

No they haven't. What has been banned is betting. Big difference.

USA Link

Well I was watching the news and Coleman himself said he anticipated the majority would be euthanised going on previous kill rates for the previous year.

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.

Well I was watching the news and Coleman himself said he anticipated the majority would be euthanised going on previous kill rates for the previous year.

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?

I also heard Steve Coleman say that he felt that most would not be able to find homes and would have to be Euthanised. This was in the original newscast when Baird made the announcement.

My link

thanks Steve for the link. I have read so much over the last few weeks I couldn't find a link to save myself

Yeah Im a bit the same and I don't think the side that is advocating for the ban to be thrown out are the only ones who may be able to be accused of exaggeration. If we are going to go in boots and all and demand links and the like that can work both ways.

There is a hell of a lot that has been tabled that people who are smarter than me have been able to question because there is no real evidence to back up much of what is on the table.

Well I was watching the news and Coleman himself said he anticipated the majority would be euthanised going on previous kill rates for the previous year.

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...

the quote was from some one else and I stated that when I pasted it.

I also stated what I had actually heard.

From who? If you heard the quote from an RSPCA spokesperson it shouldn't be hard to find?

I also heard Steve Coleman say that he felt that most would not be able to find homes and would have to be Euthanised. This was in the original newscast when Baird made the announcement.

My link

When the senate enquiry into the welfare of breeding dogs was being conducted in NSW the MDBA was the only one who stood against the recommendation to licence breeders.

Many of you at the time asked why we would want to stop breeder licenses from coming in. After all what did breeders have to be concerned about if they were all doing the right thing?

Dog breeding is a legal activity however, when a license system is introduced it is then only considered to be a legal activity when you have a license to do so. Lots of you thought this would be a good idea,however, when we agree to a licensing system the government can at any given time change the rules. They can introduce all manner of things which we have to comply with in order to be able to keep the license. This means they really can introduce limits on numbers you can keep, how many litters you can have, what types of dogs you can breed, where you can sell them, where you can advertise them etc.

In most places so far in Australia you don't need a license to breed dogs but it is something that is heavily pushed by animal rights and this is why.

The perfect example of what can happen when breeders are licensed you only have to take a look at Victoria and what is about to happen. Right now in Victoria there are many breeders who did do the right thing and followed every one of the rules and requirements to get and keep a licence to breed dogs. They have invested in kennels they didn't really want and they have done everything that has been required of them. Legally the only people in Victoria who can breed dogs are those who own 3 or less breeding dogs, or who are Vicdogs members and own less than 10 breeding dogs or who are licensed to breed dogs under the current system. Anyone who is outside of this is breeding illegally so it should be a simple matter of when they are caught fining them and shutting them down. Whether they have 4 or 400 dogs they are still breeding illegally so action can be taken to stop them under the current system. Introducing number limits won't stop the bad guys and they will simply continue on as they do now – without a license.

I hear some of you saying that breeders shouldn't need more than 10 dogs but there are numerous reasons why breeders might need to own more than 10 fertile dogs and the removal of anyone's rights without a whimper is of great concern. At any minute the rules can change, they can introduce laws which limit a breeder to less and less dogs,have crazier codes they must comply with and they can take away exemptions. Breeders Have been pushed and have had to spend enormous amounts of money to comply onstate of the art kennels and now that's just money blown. Right now Vicdogs members appear to be sitting in a better position and won't bother withstanding against it as they think it will not affect many of their breeders but surely they can't continue on believing that things will always remain as they are for them when their members have been targeted and there are calls for them having their exemptions removed.

The minister responsible for this is on the record as saying they have consulted with Oscars Law and the RSPCA and that it will only affect about 90 breeders out of approx 10000 breeders in that state but this is not true if affects anyone rights who might want to own more than 10 fertile dogs in Victoria. Chihuahuas or Great Danes .It affects everyone who wants to purchase a puppy of their choice from a source of their choice in that state for ever. But if we dont live in Victoria or if we dont think we will ever want to own more than 10 fertile dogs etc we stay silent . Divide and conquer and we just fall in to line.

The fact is no group can be exempt from poor practice and nogroup can say crap doesn't happen under our watch . We think if one group loses their rights that this will not affect us and stillleave us special and untouched. It enables the noisy crazies to affect government decisions which remove the rights of dog owners bit by bit.

So the MDBA worked hard against licensing and won in NSW. We held off licensing of breeders and we felt pretty good about it at the time and this is why. However, it is on the agenda of Animal rights and Animal welfare and it is very important that we fight against licensing of breeders whenever it is on the table because a license can be revoked or any amount of conditions applied at any time.

Don't simply sit back whilst they chip away at your rights because AR are after leaving you with none.

Either way the tail docking debate was allowed to run and time was given for those for and against to argue their case,dispute claims made etc and The parliamentary system was able to function almost as it should be - no comparison in my opinion.

I think anyone who involves someone's family in their Agenda has crossed a line. You are right, Steve, you don't have to have links to bikies to be scary - that wasn't my point, I was merely passing on the news.

This will be my last comment in a thread which has become downright worrying. I can't believe anyone who owns rescue greyhounds or knows what has gone on can still believe that the industry is worth saving and greyhounds still need to race to make money for people - but that's my opinion, and you are certainly entitled to yours.

I have no stake in this one way or another but I am trying to see both sides and Im very uncomfortable about the way this has moved through the parliamentary process so far.

Two men arrested in Molong over the weekend and charged with making death threats to Troy Grant, his family and a staff member over the banning of greyhound racing. They've been given strict conditional bail. One apparently has links to a bikie gang.

Obviously they are not among the "good men" of the greyhound industry?

The death threats I got came from Animal rights people who apparently had links to Oscars Law

Greyhound people don't have a monopoly on nutterism and you don't have to have links to bikies to be scary.

As an onlooker I read a newspaper article - one guy says "there's no money in Greyhounds" the next guy says "what am I going to do with this million dollar purpose built property?" another guy says "they're our pets, they live better than us" and the next guy says "the government has blood on their hands when the dogs get sent overseas or are all killed."

I guess wherever there appears to be inconsistency there are two main possibilities. 1) Some things are not true; 2) Most things are true. It seems counter-intuitive, but sometimes apparent inconsistencies are attempts to describe a complex and varied situation. Sometimes one thing is the case and sometimes almost the opposite, but both occur. In the case of greyhounds, people are very emotional and upset. I feel they are saying things without a lot of thought sometimes. Whether those things are correct in some circumstances or not is difficult to figure out. Sometimes there is a story in the grey areas between inconsistencies. There are a lot of things I have been unable to get a straight answer on in the greyhound racing industry. It became apparent after a while that this is because there really isn't one. Lots of variation in how things are done and how people are participating in the industry means there is no single answer that encompasses a majority.

agreed and both are true for many.You dont make money out of breeding dogs because all you make goes back into the dogs including infastructure and facilities whch could be sold after you retire but if there is no one any longer needing the kennels etc they drop rapidly in value.

This might be true for companion dogs but it's not necessarily true for greyhounds. When you sell a litter of eight greyhound pups for $3,000* each, there is a hell of a lot of money in it. And while some might put profits back into better facilities, many don't. I'm sure there are a few who treat breeding greyhounds as a profession and try to do it to very high standards but the majority would be hobby or casual breeders- a couple of litters a year and to them, not really worth expensive upgrades to facilities or purpose-building things. Most breeders I've seen down here use little tin sheds in dirt yards- hardly the birthing suites at the Cedars-Sinai.

*This number is not pulled from the air, by the way. Took a random page of classifieds from GD, worked out the mean price of pups on that page. Mean was $3,125 a pup, median was $3000.

It is as true for any breed of dog as any other. There are so many variables that it's impossible for an outsider to judge whether someone is making a profit or not . However, there is no shame in making money out of breeding dogs anyway and if some one is able to do it and still cover doing what is best for the dogs then full marks to them . 8 puppies at 3000 each still doesn't equate to much when consideration is made for vetting dogs from puppy through to adult,vetting of the bitch and the litter ,feeding adult dogs all year and puppies as long as they stay , stud services, and a hundred other things. They sure as hell don't get anywhere near enough to go anywhere near getting paid for their time. If someone is saying things about their state of the art kennels then its a fair guess that this breeder has more than tin sheds and dirt yards, that they have invested lots of time and money into building them and had expectations of getting some of their money back when they sell.

People can say what they like to the media. Helps if there is a clearer industry voice counteracting that and not bagging out welfare groups for killing animals with made up or purposely misleading stats, the government for being corrupt and the general public for dumping their pets at pounds. That was the context of what I originally said. But yeah people can say what they like.

Agreed and if nothing more comes out of all of this lets hope that lessons are learned and there is actually someone who can speak for the rest and keep the other crap down a bit - doubtful though.

As an onlooker I read a newspaper article - one guy says "there's no money in Greyhounds" the next guy says "what am I going to do with this million dollar purpose built property?" another guy says "they're our pets, they live better than us" and the next guy says "the government has blood on their hands when the dogs get sent overseas or are all killed."

I guess wherever there appears to be inconsistency there are two main possibilities. 1) Some things are not true; 2) Most things are true. It seems counter-intuitive, but sometimes apparent inconsistencies are attempts to describe a complex and varied situation. Sometimes one thing is the case and sometimes almost the opposite, but both occur. In the case of greyhounds, people are very emotional and upset. I feel they are saying things without a lot of thought sometimes. Whether those things are correct in some circumstances or not is difficult to figure out. Sometimes there is a story in the grey areas between inconsistencies. There are a lot of things I have been unable to get a straight answer on in the greyhound racing industry. It became apparent after a while that this is because there really isn't one. Lots of variation in how things are done and how people are participating in the industry means there is no single answer that encompasses a majority.

I actually do get that. But all I'm saying is that if feeds into the public perception of industry lies, cover up and BS. People don't know who to believe.

Yes I agree but I would suggest that about now most have already made up their mind which side they are on and those for the ban will see it as inconsistent and those who are against will see it differently. Its hardly possible to control what ever anyone who may be interviewed or quoted has to say.

As an onlooker I read a newspaper article - one guy says "there's no money in Greyhounds" the next guy says "what am I going to do with this million dollar purpose built property?" another guy says "they're our pets, they live better than us" and the next guy says "the government has blood on their hands when the dogs get sent overseas or are all killed."

I guess wherever there appears to be inconsistency there are two main possibilities. 1) Some things are not true; 2) Most things are true. It seems counter-intuitive, but sometimes apparent inconsistencies are attempts to describe a complex and varied situation. Sometimes one thing is the case and sometimes almost the opposite, but both occur. In the case of greyhounds, people are very emotional and upset. I feel they are saying things without a lot of thought sometimes. Whether those things are correct in some circumstances or not is difficult to figure out. Sometimes there is a story in the grey areas between inconsistencies. There are a lot of things I have been unable to get a straight answer on in the greyhound racing industry. It became apparent after a while that this is because there really isn't one. Lots of variation in how things are done and how people are participating in the industry means there is no single answer that encompasses a majority.

agreed and both are true for many.You dont make money out of breeding dogs because all you make goes back into the dogs including infastructure and facilities whch could be sold after you retire but if there is no one any longer needing the kennels etc they drop rapidly in value.

If by nutty you mean her religion views.....she's a Christian, nothing wrong with it.

Scott Morrison because he's her local MP, and GBOTA has been emailing every trainer in NSW (with a computer) advising trainers and breeders to send letters to their local MP as the MPs (particularly the lovely Sonia Hornery who supports us) will be going to debate on the petition in lower house in 2 weeks. Hopefully the more info we send to MPs who support the ban, the more we may make them think the ban is unfair and this will get more of them to go against the ban decision. At the moment it's 17 against 12 (I think roughly) so we need to sway more MPs

Fair enough and I agree nothing wrong with being a christian - just thought it took it all a bit far that's all

Ill give you that it demonstrates the injustice but why Scott Morrison? This is a state thing not federal and too bad it was a bit nutty sort of took away the good bits about what she had to say.

where's the link to the proposed changes?

Link

I suppose it could be worse .The grey hound breeders in NSW should simply swap properties with dog breeders in Victoria and both could go on as usual.

My link

Proposals to limit the number of animals allowed to be kept by breeders.

The Master Dog Breeders and Associates is very much against a proposal to limit the number of animals kept by breeders.

Our main objections to this approach are:

Health and Welfare considerations.

1. Limiting numbers will not stop some people who breed dogs treating them badly.

The MDBA is appalled that there are some dog breeders who keep their dogs in substandard conditions but in all activities or industries there are some who break the rules and cause suffering. In dog breeding these are a vast minority. No amount of number restriction will prevent a person who is capable of such things from operating. A person is just as capable of mistreating 10 dogs as they are any number. Every dog should be treated well regardless of how many the breeder keeps.

2. Limiting numbers does not take into account the variables in breeder circumstances which affect the welfare of their dogs.

There is considerable variance in a breeder’s capability to manage and own breeding dogs efficiently and effectively. The breeder who devotes their entire focus on their breeding dogs, who does not work in another occupation, who is fit and healthy, has family members who can help out or who employs kennel hands cannot be compared to someone who goes out to work in another employment field and who can only devote a short period each day to the care of their dogs, or someone who has no assistance, or someone who is not in good health.

3. Number limits do not take into account the vast differences in breed requirements and management issues.

Some breeds require little or no grooming whilst others require much more time, care, energy and resources. Large dogs require much more resources and time to manage than small toy breeds especially in the areas of exercise and cleaning management.

4. Number limits do not take into account the benefits for the dogs, the breed and the community of having more, rather than less dogs, to choose from in a breeding program.

Reputable breeders typically test their dogs in either all or some of the following: the show ring, obedience trials, agility, scenting, and breed appropriate tests and trials. They perform health tests and screens to ensure their bloodline and resultant puppies are healthy. This results in breeders often having intact males and females that are not being bred and may never be bred. Many fertile dogs they have in their care at any given time may be removed from the breeding program if they fail health or temperament criteria. Many diseases cannot be tested for until the animal is older, for example joint X rays and heart screening. Some recommendations in some breeds are that an animal not be bred until it is over 5 years of age to be able to eliminate the possibility of breeding a dog which will develop such diseases - for example Mitral Heart Disease. Limiting the numbers a breeder can keep effectively limits their choices for selecting only the healthiest and best dogs to include in their breeding programs and impacts on health and quality of puppies bred and negatively impact the gene pool of a breed.

In order to breed for improvement, a breeder must have more than a couple females to breed and should be breeding with the intention of keeping pups for themselves, for their breeding program. As a result a breeder will have more females, in order to be breeding scientifically and or, towards goals. Some breeders are also working on different lines, for assistance dogs, police, armed forces, search and rescue, scenting etc. or colours that do not carry health issues. This means that some breeders need to own more dogs than someone working on just one line, a different goal or colour. Responsible breeders are breeding to better the breed and their lines, by keeping puppies out of their breeding to select the best they can to constantly improve on the next generation.

5. Limitations in numbers will not reduce the numbers of animals entering and dying in shelters.

Proponents claim number restrictions are necessary to stem the tide of animals entering and dying in shelters. However, in our experience, puppies produced by responsible breeders rarely enter shelters and when they do, they are generally reclaimed by the owners or by the breeders themselves. We assert that there is not an oversupply of puppies. If the demand for puppies was not there then the sale price of puppies would drop, reputable breeders would not have waiting lists for puppy sales two years in advance and breeders who breed in volume solely for profit would stop breeding them.

There’s no question that too many animals die in shelters and pounds each year. However, there is no connection between the breeding of a healthy litter of well temperamented, healthy puppies and the death of a stray dog in a shelter.

Responsible dog breeders sell their puppies to new homes, take back puppies that buyers cannot keep, are available to answer questions and help new owners train their puppies, and protect the health and well-being of their breeds. They are part of the solution to community dog troubles and should not be treated as if they are the problem.

If puppy buyers have fewer options for finding well-bred healthy puppies of a breed of their choice in NSW they will purchase puppies from: interstate; internationally; off the internet and from breeders who keep their animals in sub-standard conditions. Puppy buyers who purchase from less reputable sources will have less education and training from breeders and this will contribute to increasing the number of dogs in shelters when puppy buyers reach the limit of their experiences with dogs

6. Limiting numbers will increase the numbers of breeding dogs having to be removed from a person’s care.

A limit law on breeders would penalize a responsible breeder with more than 10 dogs who is not a nuisance or threat to neighbours, who keeps their dogs in perfect health and conditions, who places puppies responsibly and is a support system for their puppy buyers, facing the loss of one or more of their companions.

Most people who breed dogs see their animals as part of their family and the emotional cost to the breeder and the risk of homelessness for the dogs should not be underestimated.

7. Limiting numbers will not prevent animal hoarding

Hoarding cases involve the psychological well-being of the animal owner as well as the animals themselves, but more and more they are being used as an excuse to impose a limit on the number of dogs a breeder can keep. Due the complexity of this problem we simply say that this should not be linked in an attempt to further regulate dog breeders.

8. Smaller scale breeding operations are no guarantee of improved welfare conditions

In testimony to the Select Committee in SA the AWL stated that many of the animals that end up in their shelter come from unscrupulous breeders - people who “set up a couple of dogs or cats in their backyard and breed for money, without any proper consideration for animal welfare.”

Across the board our rescue members agree with these comments.

9. Limiting the numbers a breeder can care for will not prevent breeders from keeping more than they are legally able to.

A number limit is difficult, almost impossible to enforce without increased presence of animal control or policing agencies and will lead to a decrease in micro chipping and council registration, vetting etc. to prevent cross-referencing. Many breeders will keep and say some of the animals are ordinarily in guardian homes and bring the dog in to have her puppies, dogs are able to visit, be looked after for a friend for short periods, come and go for outings, exercise, stud services etc. At any given time numbers can fluctuate and enforcing over limit numbers is a very difficult task. Some dogs will be hidden; some litter sizes will magically increase as the breeder combines two litters to make it seem there is only one bitch etc. . Any dogs over the number which would now see a vet over the number allowed may not see a vet etc. for fear of being exposed to having over the maximum number. Breeders who have welcomed puppy buyers to their property will be more reluctant to do so if they fear being caught for more than the 10 dogs they are able to have.

Commercial Considerations.

1. Inequitable production and trading circumstances.

Commercially there is a major difference regarding potential profits between someone [for example] who owns 10 Great Danes and 10 Chihuahuas. The Great Dane Breeder can legally potentially produce up to 120 puppies per year, with current average price per puppy, this enables this breeder to legally turnover approx. $300,000 per year in puppy sales whilst the Chihuahua breeder can legally potentially produce 30 puppies per year, with current average price per puppy this breeder can only legally turn over approx. $40,000 per year. There are three serious problems with this

• Limiting numbers will give a commercial advantage to some breeders based solely on breed type or litter sizes a breed can produce.

• The toy breed breeder who can produce fewer puppies has less choice of puppies to include in their breeding program. Number limits do not take into account these types of breed specific variables.

• Limiting numbers will see breeding decisions made on breeding dogs for litter sizes and market value rather than dogs most suited to families in order to be able make a viable profit on less breeding dogs.

2. A limit law would change current development application approvals with breeders entitled to seek compensation.

Those breeders who have development application approvals to breed dogs [more than ten] on their property; who have increased the re-sale value of their property by making improvements to keep more than ten dogs in high welfare conditions; who legitimately earn a living from the sale of their puppies as a small business would be restricted and prevented from using their properties as they have done will be disadvantaged. This will cause a loss of earnings and the devaluation of the breeder’s property.

There will be claims against the state for compensation for the breeders who have spent considerable sums of money on preparing their properties for a legal activity and who now are restricted in their ability to trade. It is worthwhile noting that these claims for compensation would include any potential decrease of property value due to having complying infrastructure that can no longer be used for the purpose it was built and, post number limits, is less valuable and for loss of future earnings from their business.

3. Limiting numbers will impact negatively on regional and state revenue.

If breeders in Victoria are restricted in the number of dogs they can have this will reduce the supply and not the demand for puppies which will have negative consequences on the State.

People will purchase puppies bred outside of Victoria decreasing the sales of Victorian bred puppies which will have consequences for the Victorian economy, for instance: a reduction in the sales of dog food for breeding dogs (as there will be less breeding dogs in the State); a reduction in the services required from veterinarians (as there will be less breeding dogs in the State); a reduction in the purchase of accessories, i.e. whelping supplies and puppy supplies (as there will be less breeding dogs in the State).

This negative impact on the Victorian economy will especially hit rural areas. If this proposed Legislation is implemented by the Victorian Government they will effectively be giving breeders from other states and other countries an advantage over Victorian breeders’ trade.

Federal Legislation Considerations

1. Number restrictions impinge on the rights of people to pursue their legal interests and to have free enjoyment of their property and this may breach Australian laws where people have a right to trade in lawful activities.

2. As Australian consumers under federal law consumers [puppy buyers] have a right to be able to have unrestricted access to the product of their choice and by limiting numbers Victorian breeders can keep, this increases the demand for puppies bred ,increasing prices without the buyer having the same options.

3. Leaving puppy buyers with fewer options for finding locally well-bred healthy pet puppies of their choice which have been bred in Victoria will see them purchase puppies from interstate, internationally, off the net and from those who keep their animals in sub-standard conditions Most who want a puppy of a particular age and breed or cross breed will not purchase rescue dogs regardless of how much easier or cheaper it is to access them. This gives massive advantage to Victorian breeder’s competitors and restrict the ability for to grow their businesses and have equal trade opportunities as breeders who live in other places.

Enforcement of Laws

1. Difficulties of enforcement.

A number limit will be difficult, almost impossible, to enforce without increasing presence of animal control or policing agencies to enforce those laws. It will encourage more people to break the law potentially by not micro chipping their dogs and not registering them with their local council. They may do this to prevent the cross-referencing of their dogs across agencies.

At any given time the numbers of dogs on a breeding property can legitimately fluctuate for the following reasons: some breeders may have their dogs in guardian home off the property but will bring the dog onto the property to have her puppies so they can ensure the health of the puppies and their mother; dogs come to a breeding property with visitors; some breeders look after puppies they have sold when the puppy owners go on holidays; some look after their friends dogs when illness occurs; other dogs come and go for outings, exercise, stud services etc. which makes enforcing over limit numbers a very difficult task.

Some dogs will be hidden; some litter sizes will magically increase as the breeder combines two litters to make it seem there is only one bitch. Any dogs over the number allowed may not see a vet etc. for fear of being exposed to having over the max number.

We do not believe that simply limiting the numbers of breeding dogs will reach the stated goals.

The most important thing people outside the industry have to consider, if they can think for themselves and see for themselves instead of blindly following the words of their corrupt Govt:

1. Industry participants HAVE NEVER denied that the industry isn't perfect, that there are a number of bad trainers who treat greyhounds like commodities and have a turnstile through their kennels to keep the good dogs coming in and the slow dogs going out.

2. They've never denied either that there have been live baiting going on, in years past it used to happen a fair bit with a lot of trainers, however luckily it has been phrased out over recent years by people that were willing to move with the times and to respect the laws.

3. Reforms have already been happening in the last few years, with more regulations and more concern on welfare issues, all of which were being addressed.

4. Most important of all, greyhound racing participants are not allowed by law to take matters into their own hands, they joined the industry thinking that all they had to do was do the right thing themselves and it was the responsibility of their racing authority to keep an eye on things and to enforce the laws and do regular surprise inspections on every single property of licensed trainers.

5. Yes there are too many greyhounds being euthanized for being too slow or not up to scratch, this was being addressed by new welfare regulations in the last 2 years who are now getting on top of this huge issue.

6. The report has been found to be flawed by prominent lawyers as it did not provide appropriate evidence, most of the submissions did not have evidence and relied on anecdotes and guesstimate figures as well as using inappropriate witnesses who had an agenda in wishing the sport shut down.

7. The 3 vets who gave submissions in the report, were later found to not have the necessary qualifications and were found to have lied, so at the moment, they are currently being investigated by AVA.

8. I don't have time to go through every website and post links to all the appropriate evidences and news updates from lawyers who have taken apart the report, but if you google enough times you'll find out for yourself that it is absolutely fact that the report is full of holes.

Because the racing authority didn't do their job, now 90% of law abiding greyhound trainers and breeders are going to be punished for something the other 10% did? The public cannot say that trainers knew about bad stuff and did nothing, because the public wouldn't even know about the number of trainers that reported illegal activities to their racing authority yet the officials either did nothing to investigate the reports or only gave the bad trainers a slap on the wrist with a small fine and short suspension.

People shouldn't judge each individual based on what others are doing. For eg, I'm a pretty much a homebody spending all my time with my dogs, so I don't know what my next door neighbour is doing. Then one day, the police comes to my door to arrest me and take my dogs away from me, apparently because my neighbour has been live baiting and cruelly abusing his dogs, so I must have known about it or either be doing the same thing.

The world has gone mad when a corrupt Govt can punish a whole society just because a bunch of vegan Greens and Animals Australia says the industry is 100% full of cruel live baiting trainers.

Sad times indeed that we live in...:-(

O.K. a couple of points in question.

So given that Dogs are property and we were given property rights under the Magna Carta and our constitution if someone owns a dog and wants to humanely kill it there is no law and will never be a law that prevents them from doing so. they don't have to come in as paddock accidents all they need is for the owners to say they want them put down. If the vets won't do it anyone who has experience in euthanizing animals is able to do so with the owner's consent.

Other people may not like it that one person decides to terminate their dog's life or many of their dog's lives but there will never be a law to prevent this. The GRNSW board has said that their members must apply to get approval to have them killed but why would NSW breeder want to be members of something and be told what they can do with their dogs if its obsolete? So everyone seems to be assuming that dogs will be meekly handed over to rescue but the only place that will get them is that rescue gets to brag about how many they have had to handle.

So unless they make new laws which affect everyone in this state to outlaw gambling on grey racing they are not going to stop people from gambling on grey racing in other states and even if they did make a law to try to stop someone living in NSW from being able to gamble on this how the hell are they going to police it? People gamble on how long it will take paint to dry and they may be able to stop racing in NSW but seeing is believing that they can prevent people who live in NSW being able to gamble on races elsewhere.

Are they going ban owning greyhounds ? So far if you live in NSW and own a grey that's no offence so if you want to take it to another state or leave it in another state on lease or guardian home for it to race there or lay on someone's bed and mooch - nothing stopping you.

You can for now breed them or even if they ban that and where will that leave - people like Rebanne - you can still send them over the border to breed and whelp. Usually the trainers didn't even own the dogs anyway so all they have to do is find trainers in another state.

You can buy or lease property in another state and take all of the money that's been paid to vets, feed and equipment stores and wages interstate and do what ever you want .

How are they going to stop you training them here? Is a couple of dogs running around together a race? What makes it a race? Can I throw a ball and have a couple of dogs chasing it without it being a lure or a bait or a race to see which dog gets it first? How does any law change impact on EVERYTHING else and how can we as a community say its O.K. to have such enormous legislation dealt with as it has been for what some see as the greater good?

In Victoria they banned the hunting with foxhounds so everyone started using beagles - the hunting still continued and for a minute they could say the beagles were smaller so didn't damage the undergrowth as much as the bigger foxhounds until they started breeding bigger beagles which they haven't seemed to notice yet. Will we see Saluki racing, Whippet racing,Afghan racing any form of lure coursing etc? Why not? Will this be O.K. ? Will we be able to bet on or compete in agility events, flyball etc after all its a bunch of people selecting dogs for a competition which brings them a reward isn't it?

As with most of these things AR have some vision of what this will mean but because its based on a fanatics view point they have no care about the removal of people's rights nor can they see the possible unintended negative consequences that will affect many more than just the grey industry.

If it is really possible in this country to wipe out an industry based on reports that are being questioned as being bone fide and false currently being tested in court, where the process is rushed , and put through differently to most other legislation which is usually used for matters of urgency dealing with security, where a report [via corvus who is highly credentialled] is simply thrown aside where only a handful of people have ever been charged or found guilty of live baiting, where the leader of the Animal Justice Party who is the Ex president of AL is having his pockets piddled in then I think the game has new rules.

Live feed Parliament debate now - being fast tracked Link

So what happened? As I missed it.

--Lhok

Its still on go and follow the link they are still debating it now.

Its gone through - they are arguing some amendments now but looks like its a done deal

In answer to some questions raised

Looking at her records, this is the only time this has happened to the breeder, there's always only been a litter every 4-6months. This is not a puppy mill. My understanding is that the dog responsible ???? Is a bit of a 'man whore' and while there are measures to keep him away from females in heat, this one day he got lucky. Also one of the bitches wasn't 'showing' that she was in heat at the time, but obviously was still fertile. I'm not suspicious at all as to how this happened, and the breeder hasn't tried to excuse it. Accidents happen. I'd much rather this kind of accident happens with an experienced breeder than with your average backyard mistake litter. When I visited, it was clear she'd delegated some of the duties to her teens, although I imagine like most mums she'll end up directing and doing most of the work!

The four litters were born within less than a week.

All parents are tested for TNS, CEA, CL and hip and elbow scored.

I think I only raised the position of the whelping box to ease my own unease. I think all the puppies will receive as equal attention as possible.

I'm not worried about the puppy's welfare. To be honest I'm more worried *for* the breeder, especially as the pups get more mobile and momma dog withdraws, I can just imagine the lack of sleep, the mess, trying to keep track of buyers, etc.

And a tiny bit jealous, soon it'll be like a ball pit of puppies!

If the breeder has that much experience she will do 4 litters and all that goes with it easily.

I actually prefer to have a couple of litters within a few weeks of each other rather than spread em out but I like to get the choice because the timing has to be right for me to be able to do what needs to be done without stress to me or my family or the dogs. it depends so much on what else the breeder does while the pups are there and how they are organised. Big difference to someone who is with them all day every day and someone who goes to work etc.

So far in 40 years Ive never had an accident but geez Ive come close once.