.... and those "media outlets" who also chose to use the word "slaughtered" as well, Anthony McV.

I believe Mr Rushton SC to the Inquiry may have used the same sort of strongly emotive (albeit entirely inaccurate) terminology for "added effect".

'80% breed just one or two litters every three years so limiting hobby breeder litter numbers will not solve the overbreeding problem'

Which gives rise to the question...........the little guy has been copping the blame for so long for his/her bad matings........well, well, well !

Pretty obvious where the ptb shld be looking, so why then increase the expense to include the small guy ?

By increasing the expense of breeding across the board does it then slow the larger breeder down with the added cost ?

A large successful breeder, the increased expense wldn't affect all that much but it wld hurt, nonetheless not irrecoverably......................if one of the largest breeders breeds 300 pups and wins 10% of the prizemoney nationally per year, that's at least 3000 pups accounted for winning prizemoney.

There must be some large breeders not getting results......yes ?

Is the answer to limit the number of matings per person per 3 yrs, with obviously a few exceptions if they can prove their successes ?

Due to their name I would say that they appear to get a large proportion to the track wether they win one or none in places like adelaide, new zealand, tassy or Nt! as due to sheer volume and training deals with trainers etc. what one trainer will not do for the smaller guy, they will do for the larger guy?

in addition to this there are reports from south australia that owners, trainers or breeders push it up hill to even be able to get a dog in gap because "you guess it a certain big breeder" is being given prefference in accomodating thier pups and greyhounds over everyone elses?

the point people are forgetting to mention is if the entire indusrty just retires their race greyhounds which removes them from the books of any governing body they then become a domestic pet and then its no ones business where their pets are!

now if the rspca then wishes to go on a crusade and crack down on breeders in the domestic market of all animals, wastage and cruelty well bring that one on because alot of people throwing rocks feed their dogs canned dog foos which is known to contain horse meat from the horse industry that most of these people in the media sinking the boot in would be attending melbourne cup functions that rpomote the industry that has its own "wastage issues"

hypocritical much?

yes we need someone in power not affraid to front our cause, and someone not scared to answer the tough questions or hit back with mirrors to other industry?

Exactly, but not necessarily get out. Just have to change the way some think about breeding.

Yes for sure people must change breeding habits and reality it's not cheap all round so as you see breeders that sell are who will be affected. Look at the level of straws for sale it simply tells you people are either out or getting on in mass at the present, yet the tide will turn if they see people getting returns and winning races they will get back in the game.

Right now it may be a case of who endures will pave the road for the resurrection of the industry!

If a Greyhound bitch is accepted into the official Stud book, it remains my position she should be eligible to be bred. End of story.

If we accept anything less, we're on the downhill slide.

We need to speak up and stand up for our RIGHTS, and not be dictated to.

It might pay to remember, WE are NOT "the problem"!

Ryan, We have no true, accurate figure of dogs put down, or polly speak WASTAGE. GRV could produce the only accurate figure, as our state tracks dogs from birth to death. There is no proof of overbreeding.

Until someone produces accurate stats we will not have a true picture.

An old rule of thumb when breeding is you will lose 10% of a litter in the rearing process, Dale and I have bred four litters in five years. Collision litter all got through to racing with 2 out of 7 not winning, one put down not suitable for re homing, 2 rehomed, one broody(Haniera)and one still with us waiting for a home.

2nd Litter 9 pups(Fabregas), one put down at 12 months because of peritonitis, one should have been put down because of spider bite in the head, we saved him but mentally he was unwell and was unsuitable to rehome, 5 are in work and one was rehomed. One of the five we know is not suitable for rehoming, he is the alpha male and has bitten and hurt a half brother and a brother.

The other 2 litters are 7 months (6of) and 4 months (1of)and all still with us.

So in a five year period we have put down 3 of 23 roughly 10%..........so much for the slaughter of healthy young greyhounds.

I don't like denigrating the other codes Billy, but I got a bit pissed off with Rushton's attention grabbing rant about the number of dogs put down and the way the press reported it, particularly the Daily Telecrap here in Sydney.

It's quite well known that the Murdoch Press is cosy with the Thoroughbred Industry but guess what, news about the current Cobalt scandal makes neither front or back page news in the Murdoch stable of papers because Newscorp earns millions of dollars from publishing the daily racing formguides. They just bury the information somewhere in the middle pages...just print...no headline grabbing banners....just plain anonymity.

If Newscorp Journalists or those from the ABC, or for that matter, Mr Rushton, were so shocked about the number of greyhounds put down each year, why didn't they turn their attention to the wastage that occurs within the Thoroughbred Industry, some 10,000 per year, instead of creating a media frenzy focused on greyhound racing that labelled all greyhound owners/breeders/trainers as spivs and criminals.

That just gets my ghoulies!

We had a well known large breeder claim over 90% of his pups make the track, and that's terrific.

If the PTB can prove that breeders numbers are correct then other large breeders(those who breed more than 2 litters every 3 yrs) in general need to make an effort to achieve a much better strike rate as distinct from breeding hoping to achieve btb stats - that's all I'm saying, and what I've always said.

The problem with those breeders that do that, is they may achieve multiple times less than btb CW stats as the breeders who create those stats actually know what they are doing from a pedigree & rearing perspective, that's why they are successful. Where as the others don't and therefore their wastage is prob high, yet they incorrectly and poss even unknowingly place their faith in achieving those btb CW stats .

The 'breeding is a nos game' mentality has to change for these large breeders, if the greyhound industry is to move fwd, that's just my opinion.

If a handful of people can do it then so can others, they just need to find a way. They need to make an effort to improve their breeding knowledge and until they do, need to be put on some incentive scheme. I'm not advocating they be kicked/forced out. There will be a way for everyone to enjoy this gr8 sport.

Remember according to that document it's not the person who breeds 1/2 litters every 3 yrs(80%) as I was previously led to believe , that's creating the wastage, whatever that accurate fig is.

"7,000 greyhounds a year do not make it to the track (40% of all greyhounds whelped)"

It will at least buy the industry some valuable time.

That breeder is achieving over 4x better figures in the above category.

Ryan

Our biggest problem with wastage is the BIG COMMERCIAL REARING FARMS ...

Many of these farms produce nothing to reach a country track let alone a city track and I personally know of a few who have TERRIBLE STRIKE rates of pups reared on their farms per winners produced .

This area is what needs to be looked at and the smaller rearer who breeds and rears and racers there own stock are so far in front of a non racing establishments who do it just for the money and nothing else .

Please don't take this the wrong way but we do need a program aimed at rearing farms and what % of winners come from their farms .

Simply put every greyhound must be registered at that farm so a full trace history can be calculated over say a 2 3 4 year term if if those greyhounds reared on so and so's farm have not got a good strike rate of greyhounds to race then that farm should be limited on how many dogs they can rear in the future for the industry and only once they get to a reasonable figure of % per reared per raced then they then should be allowed more dogs to rear for outside customers .

If Trainers have to conform then the commercial rearing farms also have to stack up or ship em out

there r many sensational litters resulting from bitches that never made it to the track. would these bitches not be permitted to breed under the new rules?

how on earth can someone make a clear judgement on them?

and what about the well bred and performed bitches that produced very little, even when mated to great studs? does that mean the breeder should now be prevented from breeding anymore cause they have a bad strike rate through bad luck?

so if paul wheeler had bad luck with 3 litters in a row should he be stopped too then?