Bruce Teague
PM meAustralia
(Verified User)
Posts 26
Dogs 0 / Races 0
25 Jun 2017 02:19

FACTS AND THE FUTURE
Sorry for so many words, but the subject is big and livelihoods are on the line.

The Victorian RIS and the Code of Conduct is supposedly about practicalities. Well, thats true but it is only half of it. In reality its about politics, about populism, about how minorities and often distorted views are trying to rule the world.

I will leave the practicalities to others better able to address them. Perhaps other than to say it looks like they are trying to keep the teenagers bedroom tidy. Possible, but it will create angst and is unlikely to achieve much.

The important thing is to know where it is all coming from and therefore how to attack it. And it is war, make no mistake. On one side we have politicians, bureaucrats and anti-racing lobbies looking to emasculate the industry, even to shut it down. On the other side are a rabble, a mixture of owners, breeders, trainers and supporters who enjoy what they are doing and want to continue making money and looking after the greyhound breed.

So far, the pollies are winning. However, being pollies, they can be turned around providing a good case is mounted. Ideally, that means first getting support from the public, which is a big challenge.

Consider why we are here today.

Three dominant factors are in play: (1) Disgraceful incidents of live baiting in three states, (2) Inaccurate data and plain lies about so-called overbreeding and euthanasia, and (3) Incompetence amongst the codes administrators in dealing with the challenges. In short, the industry has always been on the back foot. Its actions have always been reactive rather than proactive. So we lose.

But whats the real truth? It certainly did not emerge during the tri-state reviews, which were superficial at best. Nor in the reactions of state administrations afterwards. Critically, faults in the former were not challenged in the latter. Indeed, often they were reinforced.

LIVE BAITING

Up or down from a dozen people were found to be guilty of live baiting in each state. They were jailed or banned for life, not as an outcome of any inquiries but after the normal processes followed by stewards, police and the like. Of course, the swinger was that they were publicly identified by anti-racing groups, possibly illegally, and then the stories were amplified by the ABC and other media.

Clearly, there was some knowledge of the practice amongst administrations, and certainly amongst participants, but they found no way of dealing with it effectively. Rules and practices are now upgraded as a result.

Today, two points are crucial. First, even allowing for some misses, less than 1% of all trainers were found guilty and most of the other 99% spoke out strongly against the practice.

Second, the incidents have allowed critics to describe the industry as cruel. The 99% have been tagged with the errors of the 1%. Paradoxically, any logical thinking would suggest that proportions like those are pretty normal in any walk of life - from speeding in a car to embezzling from the firm. Yet greyhounds are being roughed up because of the 1%.

These points should be repeated, time and time again, in all publicity.

Having said that, participants have a problem, too. As the Working Dog Alliance found, participant culture is strong but outmoded to the extent that people doing the wrong thing are allowed to get away with it. Trainers and others need to look in the mirror, look to the outside world and re-assess where they stand. Introversion is not a good option.

EUTHANASIA

In current terms, this subject had its genesis in a poorly worded and ill-advised memo from Greyhounds Australasia to all the states. In parallel, unrelated incidents of euthanasia hit the headlines in several areas. While euthanasia in itself is not illegal, the way this was done was clumsy to say the least and the industry deserved condemnation.

Consequently, the GA memo suggesting that some 68,000 dogs were missing over a period of years suddenly transformed itself into a political football, kicked along in NSW by the Special Commission and the Premier and leading to the decision to ban the sport. But both failed to check their figures and so did the interim GRNSW CEO who passed the memo along to the Commission. Very sloppy.

In fact, GA did not say that at all. It simply (but naively) said all those dogs were not accounted for. That is, poor administration and sloppy record-keeping resulted in an unknown fate for all those dogs. Yes, some were euthanised, but many more died from natural causes, accidents, injuries, snake bites, etc, or they were passed on to friends as pets or were reclining in the owners couch. Events like those can happen to the family pooch as well (mine included, I might add).

Euthanasia numbers were significant but grossly exaggerated. Now, procedures for euthanasia and record-keeping have both been overhauled and improved. Lifetime tracking is now compulsory. Re-homing programs have been expanded. But euthanasia is still legal. Thats what the public should know.

ALLEGED OVERBREEDING

In a massive knee-jerk reaction, inquiries across three states suddenly concluded that high euthanasia numbers could be chopped back by reducing breeding. Politicians and critics followed suit.

As far as we know, none of these people conducted any serious studies into the breeding sector and, even if they had done so, almost none of them had the experience or qualifications to assess the situation, particularly when the source data was either wrong or unreliable.

Just as guilty are the state administrations which blindly accepted the reports yet failed to check either the numbers or the rationale. Guilty, too, is the NSW industry Alliance which even descended into negotiations about breeding numbers while ignoring the likely industry impact or the policy failures which would accompany the use of wrong data.

The truth is that breeding numbers have been in modest decline for over a decade. Between 2003 and 2015 they fell by 6.3% (Greyhounds Australasia statistics, minus New Zealand where different circumstances apply). That decline will probably continue as more stringent rules about breeding with aging dams come in to full effect.

Anyway, whatever hopes these reviewers had would have been dashed by the fact that breeding is not a state-limited subject but a national one where sires, dams, pups and racers routinely criss-cross borders as everyone goes about their business.

They also failed to consider that, in company with the breeding decline, there has been a rise in the proportion of each litter reaching the track resulting in a smaller incentive to dispose of poor performers. In the main, that change was prompted by more attention to races for slower dogs.

The debate, if any, should have been about what happens to unrequired dogs, but never the quantity that were bred. It might also have considered comparative data about the fate of horses which feature prominently in pet feed recipes.

MANAGEMENT

Why did all this happen? Why the drama? Why the faulty information?

State administrations are legally responsible for several things including administration, welfare, finances and what is termed the progress and development of the industry. On any reading, that means it fights to improve and, where appropriate, defend the rights and performance of the industry.

Yet the events of the past couple of years show that they have manifestly failed to carry out those responsibilities. Generally, the industry is dropping back. NSW has long been fearful of future sources of income well before the current issues. Its new and larger administrative burden looks like being unsustainable. Queensland is under the thumb of the gallops and unable to properly run its own affairs (but did poorly when it did have control). Other states are financially dependent on either cutting better deals with governments and TABs or trying to run more races.

Take no notice of any publicity about bigger incomes. None of it comes from natural improvement, only from inflation and re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The industry is besotted with paperwork and policing and has long lost sight of the big picture.

Governments have been able to bludgeon their way into the industry with threats of cutbacks or excessive controls, pandering to minority groups with an almost complete disregard for the views of the legal authority which happens to be the local board and CEO. In turn, those boards have allowed outsiders the appointed inquiry chiefs, for example to reign unchallenged. Boards and CEOs in the three subject states have resigned or been sacked anyway but their replacements are little different and the system remains unchanged.

Now, new and proposed regulations will have an even bigger impact on surpluses or cash needed to put aside for major maintenance, welfare programs and the like.

In short, the industry has no leverage and no genuine control over its own affairs. Indeed, it does not even seek it but salutes whenever the Minister runs the flag up the pole. This is no more than what a government department does.

The industry must demand to get that control back so it can operate on a level pegging with all other industries in the recreational field. To do that its governance and operational structures must move to genuine independence where it holds both the authority and responsibility to run its own show, to where it can compete aggressively with the opposition, to where it can mount real public relations and marketing efforts to bring the public along with it. And, of course, it must be accountable. Only major reform can bring that about. More regulation will have the opposite effect.

Michael and Mark,
WDA is not a company in the usual sense but a group of academics/vets asked to investigate training practices by interim CEO Paul Newson. By all means sceptically examine their comments but dont dismiss them without good reason.

Here (and previously) I have introduced them on only one premise that they identified a fairly general custom amongst trainers to rely on tradition (what my dad did), regardless of its value or even legality. Live baiting was just the extreme end of that. I can find no argument to dispute those findings, although admittedly a lot of hearsay is involved. For their part, WDA quoted specific comments from trainers they did not make it up.

If trainers do not accept that shortcoming then greyhound racing has a very poor future.

How to proceed? Not easy, as I said. However, I tried to highlight some key points where the system failed badly:

Action following the live baiting episodes amounted to discrimination against the majority due to the breaches of a tiny majority. As public policy that is unacceptable.

Discussion of euthanasia which is a legal function revolved around the use of incorrect figures which were repeated again and again. Nobody bothered to check or challenge.

Overbreeding claims and conclusions were all based on crook figures and a poor analysis. Despite that, they led to fresh policies being adopted.

GBOTA/Alliance measures succeeded only in whipping up support against the ban. They failed to understand, assess or challenge the important other issues which are now impacting the industry primarily over-reaction by governments.

The underlying issue is that greyhound racing structures and management are sub-standard. Proof is in the pudding as we stagger from crisis to crisis, always trying to catch up but never getting there. It is not that we dont have the answers but that no-one has understood the question, trainers included.

If you look at the big picture, you will find that greyhound racing has progressed in some areas but not others. The successes are all in areas where outsiders are responsible eg feed, medicines, veterinary functions etc with the single exception of drug controls. In all other areas the industry has either stood still or gone backwards eg its customers, its poor tracks, its commercial nous and particularly its obsolete governance systems.

My theme was that if I outline those key points then others hopefully hundreds can make use of them as they see fit to counter the nonsense being pounded out by politicians and bureaucrats who obviously are very short of knowledge of the issues.

I have already done so umpteen times over 25 years, including just recently so my card is marked. Indeed, I am often rubbished by some insiders (authorities, clubs, trainers all). However, throughout those 25 years I have made many suggestions, proposals and criticisms only to find that corrective action is rarely taken. My only solace is that my advice has never been wrong.

Finally, my call is to individuals. Much better would be a significant and authoritative group willing and qualified to represent the industry. None is available. Such groupings as do exist are part of the problem, not the solution. By far the least effective is Greyhounds Australasia.

Your spot on there Bruce!