Further to the above, I suggest that rather than venting your spleens on this Forum, that you sit down and draft a sensible submission to GRNSW telling them your views on the matter.

Grnsw has no ownership of the animal so once it is retired they have no say in its future. No council can deny surrendering of a greyhound because it used to race but is retired.

Yes by all means people should seek to rehome greyhounds yet this is not always realistic or possible.

Trainers and rearers also rely on owners, owning multiple greyhounds and reality all grnsw can do is dervishes owners of they don't comply and they will move on to such sports like horses etc and it will affect their lives none.

How about grnsw fits the bill for the gap fee and makes it free to enter your greyhound in rehoming programs and pay for it out of their inflated fees!

This subject was brought up in an earlier post, I think on Page 2. There are some crazy b*stards out there.

These types are the scourge of the pet industry

Uncontrolled factory breeders who pick up unpredigreed dogs from wherever they can and then mix and match these dogs to produce pups for sale at exorbitant prices that more than likely end up in the RSPCA on death row

I would love the RSPCA to start licensing people to breed any type of dog and place strict controls of the standard of their kennels etc and then prosecute non-licensed people for breeding these dogs

We have been persecuted for what good?

If something positive came out of it for the whole pet industry, i.e. less dogs produced, dogs produced under better circumstances, less dogs overall being put to sleep, then I would be in favour of the rules imposed on us.

However, it is merely a witch hunt that ends up treating greyhound breeders, owners and trainers like lepers.

The rest of the dog industry carries on uncontrolled.

You are absolutely spot on, Sean.
Once a Greyhound I'd deregistered for racing, NO authority has any encumbrance over that dog. In essence, it a becomes a pet, like any other breed of pet.
If you challenged that in the courts, you would be odds on to win.
Unfortunately, that's not what it's about.
I couldn't agree more that we are the most over regulated sport in history, some for the good, some for the bad.
What it's about is shutting the filthy lying mouths of some antis.
Yep, a lot of our rights have been taken away.
I hate that and I hate being dictated to by regulators.
What I hate even more than that is being dictated to by people outside of this sport yelling hypocritical demands from some pedestal of self righteous ignorance!

So we have a choice, and a pretty ordinary one at that.
Comply with illegal dictatorship from the regulators or carry on fuelling those ever increasing chants of SHUTITDOWN and carry on the way we were and give them what they want on a plate.
Legally, everyone still has a choice...which result do you want is the question.

In sunny furlongs-in-front QLD, there is NO FEE for surrendering to GAP and it has definitely helped the cause of promoting more surrenders for adoption.
100% agree, they need to get their fingers out, let the moths out of their wallets, and get up to speed, quickly.

Couldn't agree more!

From GRNSW Website:

GAR106 (3) is the rule that covers owners reporting responsibilities throughout the greyhounds lifecycle.

It basically states that owners must inform GRNSW whenever their greyhounds are transferred, retired or deceased.

It is an offence not to comply with GAR106.

In order to comply it is important that all owners notify GRNSW about the status of their greyhounds by submitting the correct forms in accordance with GAR106.

These forms include:

Owners must submit a signed Notification of Retirement form within 10 working days of the date that their greyhound is retired as a pet or breeding greyhound, transferred to an adoption program, is exported or surrendered to another agency.

Owners must submit a signed Notification of Retirement within 2 working days of when their greyhound is humanely euthanised by a vet or becomes deceased.

Owners need to include a Veterinary Certificate with any Notifications of Retirement for greyhounds that have been humanely euthanised by a vet.

Owners need to submit Transfer Applications, signed by all parties, within 10 working days of transferring ownership of any greyhound, named or unnamed.

It is vital that owners do not rely on anyone else to complete these forms for them as penalties will apply for non-compliance with GAR106.

GRNSW is currently developing a policy whereby owners whose greyhounds have been inactive for more than six months will be prompted to notify GRNSW of the status of these greyhounds.

More information regarding this policy will be available shortly.

If you have any questions about GAR106 compliance please contact GRNSW either by phone on 02 8767 0571 or via email at [email protected]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Michael

It's a given that once a dog is retired as a pet then it becomes like any other dog.

There is no need to go to court for that.

However, if it stays within the breeding pool it is still caught by, in this case, GRNSW rules

One of the main arguments behind the Greyhound Welfare argument is that GRNSW, GRV, RQ etc couldn't determine how many dogs each year were retired, kept as pets, kept for breeding or euthanized and in the latter, how the were put down.

This has led to a wholesale persecution of the industry and its practices.

Therefore they, being whatever State association you fit under, are now our 'partners', in the lifecycle of the greyhound, whether we like it or not.

Therefore, there becomes a need to track each dog from the time it is born to the time it is retired as a pet whilst GRNSW has a responsibility for it.

I agree with all of you that the progression to GAP should be much easier and cheaper and funded by the Governing bodies, without taking from prizemoney.

My main complaint is that this 'over-regulation' should extend to all persons who breed dogs for resale as pets or for show.

Make it a privilege to own any dog, after all it is one of God's living creatures

I've drafted most of my submission, but for the life of me, I don't know how to get it onto this forum. I've drafted it on Microsoft Word. Anyone got any clues on how to post it to this Forum Topic?

Just copy and paste straight from MS word

To Greyhound Racing NSW.

Re: Introduction of Local Rule 106

With the introduction of the proposed Local Rule, who would want to own a greyhound? Probably no one in time, as who is going to be responsible for the welfare of the animal after its racing career is over? Or maybe the canine athlete is so slow that it will never have a racing career in the first place?. The owner you say, will have to seek out re-homing opportunities from those groups or charities who provide such facilities and if not successful, your permission to euthanize the animal.

Why the need for the Rule. Most owners try to re-home their dogs but realistically speaking, the take up rate is very low so why make the owner jump through so many hoops before deciding to humanely end the life of the animal.

If any other person in wider community decides they dont want their dairy calf, they can send it to the meatworks a few days after its born WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION and no one gives a damn. The newspapers dont scream Animal Cruelty. Ditto chickens, goats, sheep, or a plethora of other "livestock". Once hens have passed their use by date in terms of laying eggs, off they go by the semi-trailer load down the main highway. No one takes a second glance or considers which abbatoir they are going to, to be made into fertiliser. A mining company and/or a developer can knock down vast acreages of gum trees thus sealing the fate of hundreds or even thousands of native animals and the response by stupid entities like governments is to build an escape path under a highway to allow the koalas that arent killed as they fall from the trees, or that dont get ripped to pieces by some domestic dog when trying to escape. Not many individuals in society seem to care about that one, as its all in the name of progress. Or groups of young men can head west on weekends with their dogs and let them rip wild pigs and/or kangaroos to bits and its supposedly all just a bit of fun. But if a greyhound owner makes a commercial decision to get rid of a canine athlete that has no future, all hell breaks loose to the point where the racing hierarchy of the modern day are getting advice from all sorts of groups as to how to manage welfare issues. Its just bizarre in my opinion.

Lets also not forget the same community, you know, the one that issues social licences! Yeah, them, the vocal ones that think that the meat they eat comes from the freezer at Coles and Woolworths, they that live in the Inner Western Suburbs, the North Shore, the Inner City. They are also responsible for many of the 25 thousand dogs and cats being surrendered to the RSPCA every year, again with either no justification or with some bullshit story about the animal being unsuitable. And what does the RSPCA do with most of those animals..one guess!. No wonder they declined to participate in your Animal Welfare Star Chamber.

Lets look at how this welfare aspect may play out in the future. Take for example a dog owned by a Syndicate, lets name him Fernando Bale, who has won a string of Group 1 races. He has 10 part owners. Lets look at the scenario that instead of him being a Group 1 winning dog that hes in fact as slow as a wet week and from an ability perspective he couldnt run a place at Broken Hill in a four-dog field. Who of the 10 people that part-own him would be responsible for his welfare from the time he is bought to age 15 or however long he lives? Or are they all jointly responsible for the horse's welfare? If the answer is that one part-owner, say a syndicate manager, Billy Bloggs, is the person thats responsible for the dogs welfare and Billy is 70YO when he assumes responsibility for the dog, what happens when Billy dies of a massive heart attack at age 74, just 4 years in to his 15-year commitment to his slow dog? Does Billy have to have a succession plan in his will advising his wishes for his slow dog that has got possibly another 8 years to live?

If you bring in this Draconian Rule, The NSW Government, which ultimately controls racing in the State of NSW, will have to apply pressure to the Administrators of the Thoroughbred and Standardbred racing Codes to introduce a similar rule as failure to do so will be grossly unfair. You see you cant be tracking greyhounds from birth to death on the one hand, but turning a blind eye to the other two codes of thoroughbreds and standardbreds going to the knackery on the other.

Animals Australia, who are no doubt driving the introduction of this rule, claim that some 15000 thoroughbreds whose racing life has come to an end (and probably never started) are killed each year and believe me, they arent so humanely euthanized as Greyhounds are. As stated earlier, it is Animals Australias stated aim to stop Greyhound Racing and they have a similar stance towards the other two codes. So its simply a no-brainer that the entire racing industry is just going to get plagued with welfare issues.

From my own point of view, the proposed Local Rule is oppressive, unjust and unreasonable and is another shackle applied to participants. I say this because no other State body or individual is bound by such a rule, not even Joe Blow who breeds Jack Russell Terriers either as a hobby to make some money on the side by selling his beloved broodbitchs pups. (Joe can do that coz he doesnt have to jump through hoops to get permission to breed from his bitch). If Joe feels that he cant cope with his dogs any more, he simply takes them down to the local pound, gives them a sob story about his inability to afford the upkeep of the dogs, after all, he is a pensioner, and leaves them there, no questions asked. The dogs will in all likelihood be put down and no one really knows or cares because Joe Blow was not a member of GRNSW. How is that fair? Why should we be treated differently. Why not introduce similar amendments to the Companion Animals Act? Why should we be made to jump through hoops that Joe Blow and any other animal owner was able to avoid.

And what about farmers shooting or drowning their failed working dogs without anyone being none the wiser. A recent ABC Landline program estimated that some 60,000 such dogs are destroyed in this manner in Australia EVERY YEAR yet there is no public outcry because they feel sorry for the poor farmer..

And finally the crazy requirement to Autopsy a dead dog. Since when has killing a dog become the equivalent of a Homicide? The Veterinarians would love you for this..they get to charge for euthanizing the animal, they charge for the storage and then again for the disposal. Tell me GRNSW, whos going to pay for this. Not from Mr Newsoms salary..no no.

This new rule and its various subsections unjustifiably wants to hold those involved in the Greyhound Racing Industry to a higher standard than other members of the Community and that makes it unfair. It is another shackle on the honest and hardworking participants in this Industry who make a significant contribution to State Government coffers through payment of various Taxes and Wagering Revenue. Instead of being rewarded and allowed to flourish as a commercial entity, which we were prior to the Live Baiting episode, and still are, we are being trussed up with restrictive Rules and bundled into a corner all in the name of preventing animal welfare issues that are rampant in the wider community.

In the meantime, the Thoroughbred & Standardbred Racing Codes, WHO ARE EQUALLY GUILTY of the same welfare issues, get away scot free and are actually rewarded by the State Government by giving them money earned by the Greyhound Code.

This madcap idea to propose the introduction of Local Rule 106A will be the deathknell of Greyhound Racing in NSW if it comes to pass and smacks of input from the newly appointed stakeholder to the welfare panel of that body, and I refer to Animals Australia, whose stated aim has always been to see Greyhound Racing banned throughout the country. It will disincentivize Greyhound ownership and flies in the face of CEO Newsons claim that he wants to see a thriving and vibrant Industry. Fine claim that was..all that Mr Newson has done is to repeatedly throw honest and hardworking licensees under a bus. The Industry in this State has moved on from the issues of Live Baiting and the Enforcement & Compliance powers that are vested in GRNSW have worked effectively. Lets not overdo the Regulatory aspect.

I urge you NOT to introduce this Rule.

Mark

You make very good points.

There is no fight in them.

They just bend over and take it.