Its a shame Kevin but true, so when they wonder why there is no industry left they will be able to whinge and whine and wonder why they hadn't spent a couple of hours putting their submissions together.

And, if 'hope' fails....those that haven't signed are buggered???

What about us poor souls that actually work for a living.
If 'hope' does fail.....what's the strategic plan for those who find themselves standing in the middle of a building site, or working the check outs, at 4.30 tomorrow arvo???

Legal advice or not.....this is just ridiculous.

From my own experiences over the past month, I know where my money's going down.

I don't like guessing games, and have no interest in spending more hard earned money, chasing bad money.

The fact is, RQ offers 2 options....return the document signed by the 19th, if you're comfortable of no wrong doing, or don't sign and forgo your right of nomination.

Whether the document is legally ambiguous, or not, is something for the great legal minds to ponder....if the document needs to be challenged in a court of law?

With no other advice coming from RQ, concerning extensions of time.....I think it's now ridiculous to encourage participants not to sign because of a 'hope'?

In the same regard, I think it's ridiculous expecting participants to sign, acknowledging full understanding of the Welfare Act, when RQ have neglected to provide licensees with a copy of the Act....what about RQ obligation to inform participants?

The best I can come up with, if comfortable of no wrong doing, but worried the goal posts might change AGAIN ....sign the declaration, return by email, and hang on to the original copy....or stipulate the declaration was signed under duress???

Either which way, leaving this to the 11th hour is just ridiculous.......the majority of product providers will have already made their choice because they'll be at work tomorrow.

Well said Nick, and that was the advice we received.

We're lucky where we have lawyers in the family and because there not looking to make money of us, they didn't see any issue with the document.

It's a line in the sand to move forward. There's always a grey area in any legal document, that's why lawyers like to spend peoples hard earned to come up with the best argument.

It only took us an hour, and in that time we found NINETEEN separate questions that STILL required answers from them ... some of which backdate over 3 weeks! Even more scarily, several directly relate to WELFARE ISSUES with several of the seized dogs.

Another day on, they've managed to address PART of JUST ONE of the NINETEEN points; and we are STILL waiting on progesterone results for 3 of the 4 pregnant Broodbitches!

But then again, maybe I'm expecting too much. Seeing they've STILL not correctly identified where at least one of the dogs even is!

Be assured, it's barely if at all better than a shambolic mess. We've just about had enough, especially given the 'tone' a certain high-level RQ Boffin decided to take with me late today.

I would agree to a certain extent. The clause which concerns me is

2) I will not allow greyhounds that I train or own to be trained using methods or practices that are harmful or cruel to animals, including the practice known as live baiting.

We own greyhounds which are trained by other people in different states. We trust they train with out the aid of live baiting. If they do break this law this document will have us guilty as well. I feel the word (knowingly) should be inserted . I will not knowingly allow---- What do you say?
At the moment owners who had no idea their trainer was using live bait are being punished so you can't say it will not be used. Posted by Brian Young on Evelines computer.

As Brian (who I presume like myself is a 'legal layman') has easily spotted, anyone who signs the current document as an owner is at the very least, setting themselves up for possible failure and serious consequences.

It is NOT (or shouldn't be) up to our Owner's/Trainer's/Breeder's associations to have to get it right; THAT IS ONE OF MANY BASIC RESPOBSIBILITIES THEY (RQ )HAVE TO HONOUR AND 'GET RIGHT' for our industry.

For goodness sake, if they (RQ) even bothered to understand their primary function is to SUPPORT AND FOSTER the industry, and serve to HELP AND BENEFIT the thousand's of participants that their very roles exist because of!

I'm sick to death (feeling quite literally that way a couple of days of late) of RQ continuously getting away with botching this up, and in the process taking a hatchet to the industry and the lives and livelihoods of thousands of basically GOOD, INNOCENT people.

Wake up to yourselves, the damage done by half a dozen participants a few months back now is done, but it's no longer them that's failing us.

It's been "knee jerk" alright ..... with emphasis on JERK!

Brian, I've always argued that owners should show more due diligence with who they allow to train their greyhounds, whether it's rearing, breaking in etc. We don't just send our children to any school, or allow them to play with the local moron down the road.

We have also had dogs trained interstate, as well as broken in and reared, and we have gone to the extent of travelling interstate and visiting the trainer and facilities. We've also asked people in the industry for feedback on them.

That to us , is knowing exactly who is getting our dogs and having a good understanding of what environment they will be in. That allows us to say that we will not allow our dogs to be trained in any methods or harmful practices. You can never be 100% certain! and that clause is asking people to show more due diligence.

Brenton - completely agree with your comments regarding owners conducting their own due diligence.

Rather than banging on about the rights, wrongs or otherwise of RQ's behaviour, submissions should be prepared for the review, providing factually correct examples of why the current RQ Board and senior management should be sacked and then providing solutions as to how the greyhound industry in Australia and more particularly in Queensland can be changed, improved and regulated to ensure that we still have an industry in the years to come.

So Brenton, answer me this: A month ago, would you have felt comfortable sending a Group-class race dog to a Mr D.McDonald? Mr R.Kay? Mr N.King? Mr P.Anderton? (Etc).

Were Marty Hallinan, Greg Board (etc) "poor naive idiots" for sending their dogs to Wiltshire Park? Did those and other owners not do enough "due diligence" for you?

Mate for a bloke who I've come to respect to a high degree due to your usually well constructed and thought out ideas, I reckon you're way off the mark on this one.

Take it from and trust someone like myself who's been put through the torture of having to deal with one or two of these egotistical, overpaid and self-important clowns for a month now: Participants need to exercise MUCH skepticism when dealing with this mob.

Heck, they can't even manage to acknowledge emails (or 'lose' the ones they get); paperwork must fall into cracks or get hidden in their ceiling, or something like that; phonecalls, well expect to be leaving 2, 3, or 4 (I've heard recently of a case Whee SIX were left for NO RESPONSE!); and by no means should you expect simple, reasonable requests to be followed up (at least by those who think themselves to be 'big wigs). You might be half a chance with some of the Licensing ladies, who at least seem to try their best to work with us ... at least where someone isn't looking down over their shoulders, ready to criticize or condemn them for an honest mistake.

Like I said Brenton, trust me on this one.

Ps, prior to writing this, in the past half hour I've been unable to reach ANY of THE FOUR RQ STAFF I am supposed to deal with. Given the extreme time sensitivity of a lot of the matters I'm trying hard to work through with them, do you think one may find that a tad frustrating?

So you are saying you would have been able to do enough due diligence to know not to send a dog to any of the people that have been outed. I think there is a couple there who if you had the opportunity or a dog good enough for them to take you would have been delighted for them to do so. I might well ask where you have had them broken in. Brian Young

Anthony, I can honestly say this, NO!

I have had the experience of sending a good dog to a top trainer in Victoria, and was let down significantly by them.

After this experience we decided to move dogs to people we trust and will look after the dogs. They may not be the high profile trainers, but at least I know their looking after the dogs best interests.

This in no way is to cast aspersions on that trainer either, the reality is they made promises and didn't keep them, its a business for them, and that's fine, but I work on the you come to an agreement, you stick to your word.

By the way, if you want to go by the word of the lawyer the UQGA gets, that's your prerogative. But that does not mean every lawyer will give the same advice. Some charge $200 per hour, some charge $600 an hour, some charge $1000 per hour. You have to make a decision that is best for you, I just believe that people are making the stat dec to be more than what it actually is.

When are you all going to understand that just bleating on about the RQ board is going to change anything because its not.
If the board was going to be stood down it would have been by now, so assume nothing will be done until after the review by Mr MacSporran SC.

In an earlier post I thought I would get the thought process going for everyone but obviously it didn't.

Well my conscience will be clear that I have tried to change things for the better and to save our industry by getting my submissions in.
So I suggest you get your heads down and do some work getting your submissions into the up coming enquiry otherwise you will wake up in the morning with no industry and wonder why.

Marcus, I agree with you in the part about several of us getting submissions in to the MacSporran inquiry.

HOWEVER if YOU were the one that had 31 DOGS FORCIBLY REMOVED (like myself, who is both INNOCENT and NON-IMPLICATED!), you too might be doing some "bleating"... and then some!

In addition to the CONSIDERABLE effort and time I've devoted - and simply, HAD to devote already - (and fyi, that's approaching 50 HOURS all-up over a 4 week period), what I am trying to do is do my best to keep other participants informed, aware, and FOREWARNED about what is now understood to more than likely be the 'agenda' of some.

I felt it important that someone who is experiencing the fallout and problems from the 'inside' (ie, as an affected person) was able to give FACTS, and dispel RUMOURS and INNUEANDO that often run rife in these types of situations.

I am NOT wanting sympathy; merely trying to help raise awareness of how POORLY some of the matters and PEOPLE affected are being treated.

Just concentrate your energy on getting things changed for everyone as hundreds have been affected and not just yourself and we need more than just several we need everyone to put submissions in.

What I'm saying Brian is that we've been around long enough to try several break ins, rearing establishments etc to know that we haven't been happy with the outcome and never gone back their, and none of the reasons have to do with the current industry predicament.

We actually moved some dogs after a month because we didn't feel right about where they were being reared, nothing to do with the people, just a decision we made that we thought was right for our dogs.

As far as I'm concerned we use the best breaker in the business John Collins, but we have used several others in Victoria, NSW and Qld and weren't happy with the outcome, same with rearing. Daryl Schafer was wonderful with rearing our dogs until his untimely passing, we had no idea who to send our pups to, but we were lucky that Ritchie Wisener took on our pups and did a wonderful job with them.

You can do all the due diligence you want, but ultimately you will only learn from experience.

My question for you is what stops any participant in the future who passes on a dog to a trainer etc from asking the question about live baiting or any other outlawed practice?

RQL should have one done up as part of an agreement between parties, they both sign it, that gives clear intent of both parties involved.

I will remind you of a SIMPLE FACT.

RACING QLD will NEVER get INVOLVED in disputes between parties.

So your idea of a agreement overlooked by RACING QLD is a NON STARTER.

Racing Qld CLEARLY states their view on LEASE AGREEMENTS.

Sorry, Sounds a good idea.

Just that RACING QLD are NOT INTERESTED.

Elsie...