The Greyhound-Data Forum has been created to act as a platform for greyhound enthusiasts to share information on this magnificent animal called a greyhound.
Greyhound-Data reserve the right to remove any post that is off topic, advertisements or opinions they consider to be offensive.
If you answer then please try to stay on topic. It's absolutely okay to answer in a broader scope but don't hijack posts by switching to something off topic.
In case you see an insulting post: DO NOT REPLY TO IT!
Use the report button to inform the moderators so that we can delete it.
This thread in case of being taken off due to unrelated topic , is for anything new or anything you find questionable about any topic !!
My query is about future breeding and its proposed 2000 pups ?? Per year !! Whilst I acknowledge I'm getting ahead of myself in this discussion in the state of nsw but anyway just throwing it out there ...
Here's where my thinking is at , and my question is am I close to on the money ,or, do I have no idea ?? This proposal is in light of the current decision being overturned and we do have a future !! So let's hypothesis !!!
I think there should be 700 mates per year at an avg of 7 pups giving us 4500-5000 pups . Brake this down and its 175 per quarter and further again to make it an even number it's 60 per month !!! Compared to Scotts present proposal 25 litters per month ??? In this these need to be broken down again ,due to restrictions and striving for the supreme or best breeds ... They need to be given proposed or certain designated categories , and this is what I mean !! .1.short course (280-400mtr) 2. Sprinters. (450-550mtr)3. Stayers (600-750mtr) Sprint category being the main is given 55% , stayers given 25% and short course given 20% of the proposed monthly/yearly mates . So to be precise in actual litter numbers to specific broods and their potential or factual throwing ability it's 33 mates to sprinters per mth 15 to stayers per mth 12 to short course per mth I believe whilst I'm just throwing this procedure out there and it obviously would need to be tweaked , I think it can be done like an open book report or a chart and anyone's proposed mating can be viewed whether it gets approved by looking at the list on where your brood sits on the list of ranking. I understand there is another element to broods which is first time broods and so on which would need to be accounted for !! Like I said this is just a thought of mine and I'm throwing it out there to see if it hypothetically has merit or is this already being researched or looked at in other states ... In workshops as such in Victoria ?
Thanks for ,if any response ,regards
Dan McDonald Australia (Verified User) Posts 402 Dogs 9 / Races 0 20 Sep 2016 05:32
(0)
(0)
In all the years that I've been studying blood lines I have not met anyone that can look at any bitch having her first litter and confirm that she will produce or won't. That's because you can't tell. So nobody has the right to tell you not to breed a litter if you are willing to take all the risks. If the first litter doesn't cut the mustard well fair enough, she should be someones pet, that's commonsense. If they start grading broodies by their racing achievements then they may as well choose the matings for us, since they have an enormous wealth of information.
Thank you for your thoughts , I too do not agree that anyone can tell which brood will or can throw !! It's not about this theory or pretend ability ... This system that I have thrown out there is about our industry somehow raising its levels of quality and cutting down on wastage ! Like it or not it's because we haven't had a system in place that we are and were left open and vulnerable for questioning !! Right or wrong !!! We all know it was WRONG! The hypothetical system allows the broods to be picked , justifiably on many surrounding factual allowances , eg litter mates records ,it's dams running records and also brood producing records , it's dams dam records, and this is just for non running first time potential broods , and also it's own racing records for ones that ran and are first time broods !! These factual elements surrounding every potential brood are all reasons to be bred with , not just the fact that it's expansive to breed a litter and if the owner thinks she would be a great mother coz she was a dear little thing !!! Which I have seen many many times on proposed matings on data .
Passing mating numbers forward to next months that weren't used for various reasons is an option , another would be it is saved to the next year for the same brood so the brood and its owners don't miss their chance and it doesn't interrupt other proposed mates and is and can be recorded as an add on to a negative mating the previous year !!
These restrictions / rules go hand in hand with striving for the best , keeping records , and allowing our industry to strike the right volume to use and to REHOME! Also giving us unprecedented proof that we will NEVER have to answer to the outside antis again !!! What I have plucked out of the air (700) mates is debatable ,I used this as a medium (round about) , if this is to be found hard or unimaginable,wrong!! Then I haven't heard anyone point out or complain about the proposed 2000 pups by gbota chief executive Brenton Scott. Wouldn't 3 trainers fill this quota .....??
Dan McDonald Australia (Verified User) Posts 402 Dogs 9 / Races 0 20 Sep 2016 11:16
(0)
(0)
Putting a limit on 2,000 pups was a desperate attempt to keep the opposition happy in a fragile moment, but it doesn't mean it's correct. At the time the general public were convinced there was a high number of wastage yet now the number of dogs still alive in the system has climbed from 6,000 to 19,000. It is obvious now that most of us either keep or re-home most of our stock, they are not wasted, therefore putting a limit on pups is not as big as issue as first thought with the emergence of the new figures. The best regulation of broodies will be your hip pocket. Breed a bad litter and you would be nuts to breed with her again.
Rehoming should be the governing regulation . Everyone finds the cash , this is wrong !! I hope further ideas by the gbota are done on industry welfare and facts in mind and not for opposition happiness !!!
Regards dan
Mark Staines Australia (Verified User) Posts 4499 Dogs 70 / Races 14 20 Sep 2016 16:27
(0)
(0)
The statement made regarding 2000 pups a year was a big mistake, and should never have been made. I have asked the question "how could the N.S.W. industry continue based on 2000 pups bred per year" several times on both Forum's with no reply.
Nathan Bendeich Australia (Verified User) Posts 1225 Dogs 13 / Races 0 07 Oct 2016 06:58
(0)
(0)
Dan McDonald wrote:
Putting a limit on 2,000 pups was a desperate attempt to keep the opposition happy in a fragile moment, but it doesn't mean it's correct. At the time the general public were convinced there was a high number of wastage yet now the number of dogs still alive in the system has climbed from 6,000 to 19,000. It is obvious now that most of us either keep or re-home most of our stock, they are not wasted, therefore putting a limit on pups is not as big as issue as first thought with the emergence of the new figures. The best regulation of broodies will be your hip pocket. Breed a bad litter and you would be nuts to breed with her again.
The day we have all been looking forward to is coming fast and whilst it looks promising and will be a relief to every participant beyond imagination !! I fear it will also cause a new problem or many !! The basis or core will all come from lack of transparency from our ruling industries persons!! (The alliance) ...Brenton Scott I understood the closed doors on legal matters , but 9 out of 10 persons know what will happen in the next 4 weeks ...looking forward and being on the front foot is imperative,but these actions must be done as an industry collective !!! Not a solo ,yes sir!! Grab !!! This way is no different to how the government have operated and our industries persons do not need or deserve another dose of this behavior ,especially from within its "OWN" governing protectors! Is there any reason why an email that outlines it's future positive plans towards breeding /owning /training can't be sent out ??? This isn't a court matter !!! It's personal !!! It's direct !! And more importantly it's respectful !!!
Have we not learnt a thing ??? Let's look forward to this day .... Not dread it!!!
Noel McCaskie Australia (Verified User) Posts 1122 Dogs 23 / Races 5 07 Oct 2016 08:27
(0)
(0)
NOTHING HAS CHANGED,WILL IT CHANGE ???????
Jamie Quinlivian Australia (Verified User) Posts 8727 Dogs 10 / Races 0 07 Oct 2016 09:15
(0)
(0)
The Wheeler business model needs to be stopped.
At the Sydney march, they introduced Paul Wheeler to the stage and the crowd applauded. That's when they lost me. Then they introduced Marty Hallinan as a 'mini wheeler'....FFS!
I have never met Mr.Wheeler and probably never will and I have nothing against his person. But his business model is outdated and must be stopped. Breeding 300+ dogs every year is not on. This is why our opponents target us as a whole. Because of numbers. Wheeler breeds in one week what most regular greyhound people breed in 2 years, yet the wastage figures are attributed across the board. And dont bullshit me with percentage named, percentage raced etc, because everyone knows that a Wheeler trainer will race a dog regardless of its ability, in the hope of getting a good one, whereas a no name owner will struggle to place a dog unless its proven.
This topic is 'New future any topic'
In the new future, it should be law that one person cannot own more dogs than he has compliant kennels at home.
Nathan Bendeich Australia (Verified User) Posts 1225 Dogs 13 / Races 0 07 Oct 2016 09:32
(0)
(0)
Yes it will change Noel.
And well said Jamie ,first piece of writing with honesty and sense on this broad thread,with a view and yet another possible idea to change for the benefit of our industry !! Contrast to blowing the same tune or coming up with an idea that is straight out ludicrous!!
Meet in the middle ,Can it be so difficult??
Trevor John Rhodes Australia (Verified User) Posts 81 Dogs 0 / Races 11 07 Oct 2016 10:47
(0)
(0)
Stop a successful business model. Really? Copying it would make more sense. Numbers reflect the success of the model they aren't the business model. In the new future the powers that be want every dog racing regardless of ability.
Jamie Quinlivian Australia (Verified User) Posts 8727 Dogs 10 / Races 0 07 Oct 2016 11:07
(0)
(0)
Trevor, the future needs to know where the dogs spend their retirement. Like it or not, that is more important than group 1 wins or track records. Copying this business model belongs to the past.
Anthony McVicker Australia (Verified User) Posts 1439 Dogs 24 / Races 126 07 Oct 2016 11:33
(0)
(0)
Jamie Quinlivian wrote:
The Wheeler business model needs to be stopped.
At the Sydney march, they introduced Paul Wheeler to the stage and the crowd applauded. That's when they lost me. Then they introduced Marty Hallinan as a 'mini wheeler'....FFS!
I have never met Mr.Wheeler and probably never will and I have nothing against his person. But his business model is outdated and must be stopped. Breeding 300+ dogs every year is not on. This is why our opponents target us as a whole. Because of numbers. Wheeler breeds in one week what most regular greyhound people breed in 2 years, yet the wastage figures are attributed across the board. And dont bullshit me with percentage named, percentage raced etc, because everyone knows that a Wheeler trainer will race a dog regardless of its ability, in the hope of getting a good one, whereas a no name owner will struggle to place a dog unless its proven.
This topic is 'New future any topic'
In the new future, it should be law that one person cannot own more dogs than he has compliant kennels at home.
whats the difference between 1 person breeding 300 litters and 300 people breeding a litter per year ?
Anthony McVicker Australia (Verified User) Posts 1439 Dogs 24 / Races 126 07 Oct 2016 11:34
(0)
(0)
Mark Staines wrote:
The statement made regarding 2000 pups a year was a big mistake, and should never have been made. I have asked the question "how could the N.S.W. industry continue based on 2000 pups bred per year" several times on both Forum's with no reply.
Agree, the most stupid statement ever made, but they will say its the only way to survive I guarantee it
Jamie Quinlivian Australia (Verified User) Posts 8727 Dogs 10 / Races 0 07 Oct 2016 11:47
(0)
(0)
Anthony McVicker wrote:
Jamie Quinlivian wrote:
The Wheeler business model needs to be stopped.
At the Sydney march, they introduced Paul Wheeler to the stage and the crowd applauded. That's when they lost me. Then they introduced Marty Hallinan as a 'mini wheeler'....FFS!
I have never met Mr.Wheeler and probably never will and I have nothing against his person. But his business model is outdated and must be stopped. Breeding 300+ dogs every year is not on. This is why our opponents target us as a whole. Because of numbers. Wheeler breeds in one week what most regular greyhound people breed in 2 years, yet the wastage figures are attributed across the board. And dont bullshit me with percentage named, percentage raced etc, because everyone knows that a Wheeler trainer will race a dog regardless of its ability, in the hope of getting a good one, whereas a no name owner will struggle to place a dog unless its proven.
This topic is 'New future any topic'
In the new future, it should be law that one person cannot own more dogs than he has compliant kennels at home.
whats the difference between 1 person breeding 300 litters and 300 people breeding a litter per year ?
Really?
Whats the difference between racing 34 meetings a week at Wentworth Park or racing once a week at 34 tracks?
Stupidest question in history
Anthony McVicker Australia (Verified User) Posts 1439 Dogs 24 / Races 126 07 Oct 2016 12:23
(0)
(0)
Tell me what's wrong with one person breeding more the someone, do you have a problem with sheik Mohammed al maktoum and his darley operation also.
If a person can look after his dogs properly and rehome the majority where possible what's the problem
I bet GRV would rather work with and manager 40 top quality trainers with 50 each as opposed to 500 backyard operators with 4 dogs each
Mark Staines Australia (Verified User) Posts 4499 Dogs 70 / Races 14 07 Oct 2016 12:31
(0)
(0)
Well 300 Breeder's get the opportunity instead of 1 and that's the way it should be.
Anthony McVicker Australia (Verified User) Posts 1439 Dogs 24 / Races 126 07 Oct 2016 12:37
(0)
(0)
Mark what's stopping 300 new breeders entering the industry and breeding a litter or 300 existing breeders having an additional litter per year. PAW isn't stopping them
Mark Staines Australia (Verified User) Posts 4499 Dogs 70 / Races 14 07 Oct 2016 12:44
(0)
(0)
I can't see that happening any time soon Anthony, but if limit's are imposed because of ridiculous statements being made like Mr Scotts then such limit's should apply to all breeder's in NSW.
Do you have questions how to use the Greyhound-Data website?
