SBS writer Matt Connellan (13 Mar, 2020) quotes McHugh in saying "The report, by former Justice Michael McHugh, found that between 48,000 and 68,000 greyhounds had been killed in the previous 12 years in NSW alone because they were too slow or unsuitable for racing".

Not even the badly written "confidential" memo from GA said that - only that many dogs could not be traced (a shortcoming which has long since been corrected).

The latest GWIC quarterly report (Dec 2019) emphasises the reality when it points out that of 150 euthanasia cases 67.3% were performed by vets due to "a wide variety of illnesses including cancers, gastric dilation, volvulus (GDV), arthritis and various co-morbidities associated with age". Another 10.7% were due to catastrophic injury during racing (ie 16 dogs out of 10,000-plus actually racing and many more relaxing happily on the owners' couches etc, etc).

Further deaths would have occurred amongst pups and mature dogs for natural reasons such as illness, accident, snake bites and so on - events which are "normal" amongst any animal group but which are seldom reported.

This sloppy and inaccurate reporting continues unabated because racing authorities have failed to work hard enough to combat misinformation in the public sphere.

(Pawnote: It is also why I was mostly forgiving of the recent article by Frank Robson in the SMH as at least he tried to unearth the facts - unsuccessfully as it happens as the Australia-wide data is simply not there).

Assuming you are fair dinkum, I have to tell you I have done all that many times but it seems my welcome has worn out. That still does not stop me commenting when a fresh case appears - regardless of much abuse on these pages.

Anyway, I cannot speak for the industry. I am just an interested bystander. A group of participants might do better, or perhaps a group of voters in the Minister's electorate (as they did in Orange - which also included many bystanders).

Here and elsewhere - on request - I have often outlined the bones of a case that needs to be put yet nothing never happens. Why not? There is little point in me drafting a case again unless the mob is behind it and prepared to push.

In any event, the more important question is why haven't the PTB done more about it? They read this stuff.

Keeping the public informed is standard management practice. Not only is there a need to respond quickly but it is essential to get out there and ensure the real story is widely known before the event. That's not happening despite many reminders. Note that the first thing Hogan did when LB emerged was to hold a meeting to discuss how to react to it, not how to fix it in the first place (see McHugh evidence). Apparently, he did not know it was going on. Really??? Much the same occurred in Queensland (see McSporran evidence).

McHugh was actually supported by the PTB, not corrected. The reduced NSW tax parity share of 10% was supported by the PTB even though based on the wrong evidence. Premier Baird was criticised by the Auditor General for faulty figures. The Reform Panel was actually supported by the industry rep (and included breeding limits and puppy bonds). The PTB spend 99% of their life worrying about trainers, not customers. The PTB is a bureaucracy so initiative and innovation are not part of their job description. The GBOTA (NSW) is formally part of the same process (see the Strategic Plan), yet is underwritten by a corporate bookmaker, and only one third of trainers belong to it. The PTB fiddled with Wenty and Gosford tracks (and others) but still failed to tell us what they did and why. Why do the corporates pay smaller commission than the TAB? What is being done about the loss of breed stamina and the resultant drop in staying performances? What are the real reasons for reduced ownership? And what is the actual reason for scrapping the 10-years old PTs, for example?

Anyway, I am doing no more than Presnell, Pengilley, Roots and others do at the SMH yet that won't stop V'Landys wiping the floor with them if he feels like it. Admittedly, Randwick's Kensington circuit got smartened up, but only when trainers refused to use it and the Bathurst gallops got fixed only when jockeys refused to race on marbles.

The only thing that works is the power of the people. But first get them onside.

Good stuff but the subject is segmented.

You will never convince antis of the practice and the worth of promoting racing. However, authoritative and regular publication of genuine data and background stories will balance their biased offerings. Remember a vast amount of their effort is directed just to being anti, not to promoting the breed or any animal as such. If I remember correctly, investigations showed that over 90% of Grey2K expenses go to wages and travel expenses, not to the dogs.

Second, some media (eg ABC) have an inbuilt bias against greyhound racing, usually coming from particular individuals. SMH has improved a bit since the era of the Million Dollar race, giving them some advertising and generating a permanent box on the racing pages. Even so, its environmental or other arms remain sympathetic to the antis, always from a leftish viewpoint. That was evident during the Parliamentary Inquiry.

Third, any medium will be tempted to do things on the cheap - ie being lazy about facts - if they can get away with it, partly because staff, wages and expenses are tight these days. The short answer is to make info easy for them to access, to keep telling them where it is and to keep punching it out as early as it is available. This is where we are falling down. The lack of national co-ordination does not help.

(Note - stories like those posted on Authority websites are a waste of space. What Tom, Dick and Mary won last week or might win next week is of no interest to the public).

If you recall, the handful of MPs who opposed the initial banning decision came from places where they were already in contact with dog people and where they bothered to discuss the problem and get to the truth. The lesson is to keep in regular contact with such people as well as the various media outlets. (Country media in particular will always appreciate hearing interesting stories and facts - whether they use it or not they will appreciate the effort).

Anyway, the first card in that information pack will always be a comprehensive story of the greyhound breed and its development. Or, as I suggested the other day, commission a story about "A Day in the Life of a Greyhound". And then do a dozen more.