"Sorry Bruce but you're full of it. DNA profiling is a small part of genetics. Genetics has been studied for at least a couple of centuries and samples go back thousands of years for comparison. You simply don't know what you're talking about".

Mate, you are lost in the forest. The genome is actually a collection of DNA bits and pieces. The term "genome" was invented in 1920 or so while the science of determining DNA details got a start in the 1940s and 1950s and has been accelerating ever since. Prior to that it was all assumptions, often wrong.

Consequently, your mentions of centuries or thousands of years simply refer to scientists burrowing back into history from today, just as they do for carbon dating of bones, or ice samples from the Antarctic.

The idea then is to work out how a given human, animal, plant, etc got a start and then changed over the millennia. One example of that is that today's humans contain around 3% Neanderthal makeup even though Neanderthals themselves died out thousands of years ago.

Another is that current studies suggest that the alleged Egyptian greyhound was not a greyhound at all and that the current version originated in Northern Europe and the UK. Earlier studies have also rubbished the concept of the introduction of bulldog blood in the late 1800s but that conclusion emerged from breeding records rather than DNA studies or the like.

Anyway, this is not my field of expertise - I can only observe - but it is why I have for years been suggesting that the industry should be establishing and following genetic trends to see how, or if, they affect the product out there on the track. On that, our future depends.

When you say "the current version" of the greyhound, aren't you trying to tell us its genome changed radically in 30 years? Wouldn't that make "the current version" only a couple of decades old? Surely then, a greyhound from 200 years ago wouldn't look anything like those of today? Well guess what?

Bulldog blood WAS introduced to the breed but it seems that that experiment went nowhere. Look up Hecate, Hecuba and Half and Half - it was me who put those pictures and comments in here 10 or so years ago, before you'd even heard of genetics. I think I also put in the pic of the last dog in the line, Hysterics, but stand to be corrected.

Now, I see you did a quick internet search to find some unrelated facts to dazzle us with. Guess what? That 3% Neanderthal is so far off the mark it's laughable how many people believe it. I'm no scientist but I'd suggest it's somewhere around 97-99%. But how can that be when 'the internet' (and it's all over it) told you it's 3%. I'll give you a clue: dogs and humans share over 80% genetically so how can humans and Neanderthals only share 3%? I know, but I'll let you go and find out for yourself (not that you will), I'm done arguing.

I am afraid the conversation has degenerated into abuse, misquotes, verballing and the rubbishing of some of the world's finest institutions and geneticists. It's going nowhere.

Meantime, what we know is that we are breeding fewer dogs but we don't know why this is so or what their inherent qualities are because there is no ongoing scientific assessment of their makeup.

I could liken this to the broken butterfly nut on my brand new Chinese $20 shower rose - cheap steel, presumably.

Further to your query about FTC etc, I have delved a little more into the SA published data. For racing dogs, it appears that a little more or less than 0.01% are pinged for each of FTC or fighting.

Of course, that does not count dogs that did not get to the track, and where a much higher FTC figure would be normal. Fining down that figure is virtually impossible due to the lack of composite (or any) data as well as to the variation in the location of whelping or early education, and to the impact of GAP programs and the like.

At best, some info might be forthcoming if we conducted a serious study of representative samples of litters and the disposition of all the pups. It would involve averaging but it would be helpful.

More importantly, we have no way of knowing how or if the makeup of the typical greyhound is changing, much less the impact on present or future racing. All we have is the evidence of what is now on the racetrack.

Out in the real world, koalas and frogs get much more attention than that.

To all that, you then need to add the influence of economic, political, environmental and management factors to come up with meaningful Strategic Plans. The industry's failure to do that is why the Greens are rounding the home turn a few lengths in front.

Hoop lures and follow on lures have been introduce to hopefully reduce the problem of dogs failing to chase.
A problem that was exacerbated by the blanket decision to stop all training methods that involved a food reward.

EVERY other animal industry that doesn't use force (e.g. whips) for training, uses food rewards.......except ours.

Why? Because it is BEST PRACTICE to use the training methods that work BEST.
Because a band-aid solution to a problem you created is NOT in the best interests of the animals and can never be BEST PRACTICE.

Best practice would be to allow food based rewards AND have hoop and follow on lures.

Most dogs that migrate to NZ improve their chase with the FOL. Sometimes a huge improvement.

I cant talk for all NZ trainers but most I know have never bothered with the food reward because if you can't do it race day most dogs are intelligent enough to work it out. With the FOL there is no need to.

I know you Aussies consider yourselves the guru's with the hounds and maybe not without reason but your resistance of positive change is hamstringing you.

Just my opinion of course

On "Best practice would be to allow food based rewards AND have hoop and follow on lures" - I assume you are referring to skins and lollipops on lures, which are now banned.

Yet it was precisely those practices that almost killed the industry and had a massive downward effect on the incentive to breed and on actual breeding. Still does.

It might be argued that authorities went too far - in which case educators and trainers are free to mount a well researched case calling for modifications. So far as I am aware, that has not happened.

In any event, I note (ex Tooraddin) that on the spot observers pointed out that after live baiting there was no obvious improvement in the dogs' on-track performances. (That's a bit anecdotal but it does not help your case).

On the other hand, there is massive evidence that a move to NZ can produce big changes in dogs' attitudes solely as a function of the FOL. We may hear more when, or if, any Geelong experiences are revealed.

Meantime, until proven otherwise, the current rules are "Best Practice".

Since I am a mug in the training caper, you may well ask how would I know? True, but so are the majority of the CEOs and board members who make these decisions, using whatever evidence and advice is available to them.

You also claim that it was "A problem that was exacerbated by the blanket decision to stop all training methods that involved a food reward". That is not evidence but merely an opinion or an assertion which some others may or may not support.

Either way, for the short and medium term at least, the biggest barrier you face is not authorities or the regulatory regime but the public viewpoint - that awkward but important thing known as "social license". Just a whiff of a possum and you are dead for all money.

Bob,

Your comment is obtuse so I will have to guess what you mean.

I have responded in a balanced way to the minority of trainers on this site who - directly or indirectly - still favour live baiting and related practices (which includes skins etc) as the best way to go. They also rubbish outside opinions such as those from WDA and other experts simply because it is not the way they like to do things, or not the way their old men did in their day.

In short, they ignore the world around them, thereby endangering themselves and the sport, as you put it. They are not "doing their best", but just indulging themselves like four year olds in kindy who can't get the toys they like. Even sillier is that they have no hope of winning - none, nil, zilch. My only hope is that the majority of (sensible) trainers will start leaning on the minority who are still bent on stuffing up the industry.

There is one reason, and one only, to explain "Litters - Australia - Dropping". Offending and uncaring trainers. The good news is that it is fixable.

Bruce

Its been a long and painful wait ........ but this post is dead on and by far your best post I have ever read !
Pour yourself a scotch

Just for the record .....

"P1. Long distance times will never be broken or even come under threat as we witnessed when real champions once raced !
Within weeks ..... enter tornado tears !"

Never said that in my life. It would be stupid to even think it.

" P2. Long distance runners need more time then 6-7 days to repeat or better their previous performance!
Enter Poco Dorado
In 5 days misses the Richmond trec by 0.01 and then goes 41.7 at wenty !
Excuse ...... it's the only one or rare few that can do it !"

Correct, I have said that. If you check more carefully, I have said - with evidence - that two thirds of distance racers cannot repeat their performance 7 days later - including dogs Like Space Star and Xylia Allen. It's not tripe but fact.

No Bruce we just had to listen to you bang on about how the WHOLE crop of stayers pool couldnt get within 10-20 lengths of rec times and its a serious problem and an embarrassment watching them go round , and going to get worse !
Whether you said trec will never be broken over long distance word for word
Your insinuations were clear ......... and they were not long after annihilated!
You wrote the whole crop of the stayers pool and the industries techniques and breeding methods off , repeatedly using the clock as the measuring stick

Well not just ONE greyhound put all your theorys to bed , but a few others have aswell since , and with the sires going around at present (apparently overused now)
The quality and results (by the clock ) will only be repeated and solidified more and more .

Ps The cherry on top of this is they are doing it week after week aswell , you know every 7 days !

How many weeks has Poco been on top now ? By your clock standards,Is it 6 weeks on the run now

This is a site used for opinions and debate , I get that
But some of the negativity or supposed alarming theories being raised , I will never understand

There will always be something to fix or better for our sport ,but from where Im sitting and watching , it isnt clock times or sires pedigree or sire volume usage ! These things should be congratulated and enjoyed at present .

Its all the 1% things at grass roots that should be magnified or have alarm bells attached to them !

Fire can be dangerous...it's destructive in the wrong hands.

Ross,

A little more again.

GRNSW data for 2016/17 tells us that 0.20% of starters were pinged for fighting and 0.16% for FTC.

In other states the data is not stated or I cannot find it.

Whelpings in the Classifieds now down to a low of 29.