You would know better than me what best encourages them to chase. However, there are some 46,000 races ever year where 7.5 dogs chase a variety of dummies. Some more keenly than others, of course.

I would go a bit further than you - or Simon.

Now, I have no firm or reliable information about what makes a dog chase. A variety of reasons are offered, some conflicting - so they can't all be right.

After sifting through all this, all I can glean is that (a) it is the nature of the breed (all of them) to chase - as evidenced by its multi-thousand year history in being asked by their masters to run down prey, (b) some are keener than others, which makes them pretty much like humans - some like to play football, some don't, (c) while detailed scientific evidence is apparently not available there is a broad acceptance that chasing is in their DNA, (d) methods to encourage that keenness vary from one breeder/educator/trainer/"expert" to another so it seems that a definitive answer is not possible at the moment, if ever.

Directly, none of that involves me because I am not in that part of the industry. I simply watch and try to categorise racers as they perform on the racetrack. (However, current claims about nonnies increasing in number are a bit suspect - better data is required).

Indirectly, it does worry me because risks in this area put the entire industry in danger. Consequently, your fear about "another study" is likely to be more than useful, it is essential. The alternative is to note down the views of a thousand trainers and take a punt on which ones are correct. They may well agree on some elements but not on others so the task is a tricky one.

The dreaded WDA or some similar group may well be able to get stuck into that job and publish a report that many will rubbish as they have on other matters. Whether it would be valid/correct or not is another subject.

Even so, there is significant evidence that embedded habits of dog breeds can be brought out or encouraged by means other than live baiting or use of skins on lures. In broad terms, many dog breeds, including greyhounds, are noted to be highly trainable. Many trainer claim that is not valid for greyhounds because - for example - WDA was not "expert" about greyhounds, or at least about greyhound training.

On the other hand, nobody has shown the reverse - ie that alternative education methods are not just as good as a sniff and a chomp. For example, I have personally seen a trainer stop short of the track, take his dog and a mysterious sugar bag out of the back and disappear into the bushes. The dog did no good anyway. Then a couple of non-involved trainers at Tooradin mentioned that dogs which took part in live baiting did not improve their performances next time on the racetrack. Maybe they were just desperate cases. Who knows?

Either way, some of the options can be eliminated right away because they are illegal. Others will be noted but downgraded because they are only the unsubstantiated opinions of one or two trainers. Simon's point about a mid-career change from one system to another is a potential worry but still only a guess, as well as a short term matter.

Too many guesses leaves us with the need to run independent, authoritative studies. Chasing, 500m or socialisation issues could all be examined properly. Track design is already undergoing that process.

See some of the other posts to hammer the point home. You dont need to conduct another study when the evidence has been created over the last two-three years. Stop guessing, dreaming, speculating, etc about dogs ability to chase or not chase. Some do n some dont regardless of stimuli, but withdrawing more stimuli, will only create more nonnies, cats, skunks or fighters. Thats what Simon wrote, its a welfare issue when dogs are causing more interference and injury to themselves n others in races.

Basic introduction, for Bruce Teague, WDA, GA, any interested authority, or any child who wishes to train their dog, into the wonderful world of animal trick or treat, designed to educate the public, community, and all holders of a social licence.

1. KISS >>> Reward - kibble...animal by-products.(Please note the word "lure" used in video.)

2. SPEAK >>> Reward - cheese...animal by-product.

3. SHAKE >>> Reward - not sure, doesn't say, but almost sure it's not SYNTHETIC because the little sweetie is EATING it.

4. FETCH >>> Reward - praise, controlled by lead UNTIL he got distracted, then, wait for it, a treat...not sure of the treat, but he ATE it, so again, not SYNTHETIC.

5. ROLL OVER >>> Reward - looks like kibble...animal by-product. Defined by some experts as a Live Baiting derivative. MONGRELS!!! Please note the use of the word "lure" AGAIN.

6. PLAY DEAD >>> Reward - bloody animal by-products AGAIN, a whole bloody BAG FULL!

7. SPIN >>> Reward - Food glorious FOOD treats...animal bloody by-products. It's becoming outrageous when the community is feeding dead animals to teach even POODLES to do tricks!

8. STANDING ON HIND LEGS >>> Reward - yep, you guessed it! I can't take much more of this. Where's the RSPCA when you need them.

9. SITTING PRETTY >>> Reward - Food, food, DEAD ANIMAL FOOD...once again, the word "lure".

10. HUG >>> Reward, for the most compassionate of all little tricks, apart from the tongue kiss, BLOODY DEAD ANIMALS!!!! I'M OVER IT!!! The world is a cruel, cruel, evil place!
It's full of lures, dead animals being used for reward, all for entertaining bloody SOCIETY!!!!

Now, for the "clicker" sound, that's a sound used to relate reward, how about The Greyhound industry invent a lure with sound like running on a rail to enforce the reward of something smelly at the end?
Great idea isn't it...hang on, you idiot Micky, we already have that!

If any organisation or individual out there wishes to conduct exhaustive research into chase motivation, they are welcome to pay me an upfront fee of $100,000 AUD and I will use this undeniable extremely complex study of reward so they don't have to spend 6 months of grind or request further funds to come at the conclusion of an animal by-product based reward system.
I will gladly apportion some of the fee to these supreme intellectuals appearing in these videos who have discovered what motivates dogs to do tricks that humans want them to do...even a simple trick like running around a track behind a lure.

Repetitive, learned behaviour. Im surprised that the RSPCA isnt investigating.....

With the money, at least it will be going to an industry participant, rewarding for effort and knowledge lol

True, but the battle has been lost mate. We need to move on to the war.

At one end of the scale you have your handbags, hats and (for me) a kangaroo skin golf bag. At the other end of the scale we have a few ignorant pet owners, bull terriers, puppy farm operators and live baiters all doing nasty stuff.

Greyhound trainers were and still are caught in the middle of that scale. They never really had a chance to climb out of that mire. Why? Because the industry already had a doubtful name amongst the majority of the public. Political, media and public pressure meant decisions were always going to be conservative. Only those close to the industry - the MP from Wagga, for example - knew that the majority of greyhound people did not come from that camp.

Baird first won, then lost mainly because the public (and most MPs) recognised that he had gone too far. But that reasoning was not governed by any great love of greyhounds but by the injustice of the action to can an entire industry, including loss of jobs. Even a Queensland professor (a Buddhist who does not much like greyhound racing) wrote a major article in The Australian complaining on that basis.

I like what Borsak has done and I thought he handled the Parliamentary Inquiry well. But he and the SFF argued in our favour because they saw votes in it. They may well continue to do that but they will still have limited influence, barring only any possible deal he makes with the major parties on various subjects.

His influence, and that of the industry, will be improved only by greyhound racing taking strong and sustained action to improve its public image. I am no great fan of GRNSW but it and other authorities were correct in lowering the boom on suspicious areas - eg lure material. They had no choice. It's not a matter of being right or sensitive but of being seen to be right.

Remember there are worldwide pushes by extremists to shift the balance in favour of being nicer to animals. As I mentioned previously, the Canberra Greens next cabs off the rank are thoroughbreds, show dogs and pigeon racing. (The latter is unbelievable as racing pigeons were instrumental in helping the WW2 war effort while their normal operating methods are very similar to that of greyhounds). Then there is a USA group that violently opposes killing kangaroos for any reason - all 56 million of them. Here, too. There is an uproar in Canberra every time they get around to culling excess kangaroo numbers in the grounds of Government House. UK greyhounds have long been under fire for inhumane treatment of greyhounds - and are battling for survival anyway. Spain has already been lumbered for the same reason. And so it goes on.

What comes out in the wash is that every greyhound authority, club and participant has to forget what they used to do, re-organise their platform, and spend money trying to show the public the greyhound's true nature and its wonderful history. Nothing less will do. At the moment, that means finding something else than skins to put on lures.

Will authorities do all that? Probably not.

Can authorities do that? No, they do not have the skills or the right attitude.

Solution? Convince state governments to chuck out the present system and replace it with lively businesslike people who can better anticipate and react to the world we live in.

Doing that will actually put more millions of dollars into government coffers, as well as in owners' and trainers' pockets. It's a no brainer.

Continue bitching about a return to the good old days and you will lose. That's the reality of politics and PR.

Incidentally, I am pissed off with all the hoohaa at the SCG about Glen McGrath and breast cancer. I don't mind the cause but breast cancer is numerically one of the lesser cancer types in this country and is less important than, for instance, prostrate cancer. But my main point is that NSW dogs made a big effort to support it a year or so ago yet McGrath and co did not bother to turn up for the final ceremony and cheque presentation at Wenty. Not even an apology. Pretty rude, but perhaps it illustrates just how effective the industry's influence it.

That's sooo true, Mark...about the money I mean.

How do we get our greyhounds to chase harder?

PS: In a hundred words or less......

I already said what the solution was.

Chasing - you are asking the wrong person.

However, your premise is that they are not chasing hard now. Or, alternatively, that fewer are chasing hard now, or chasing at all. There is no reliable evidence of that. Anecdotal stories don't rate.

Having said that, I have mentioned in the past that a higher proportion of each litter is now getting to the track. By definition, that would mean that there would be more slow dogs in the mix and possibly more nonnies.

Terrific chasing by POKE THE BEAR last night though.

Not so much in the small field of 725m runners. That's more relevant to the 500m/stamina topic. The winner did nicely but not in flash time. The rest might have been "rounding up the usual suspects" as the police inspector said. (But that's just an anecdote - sorry).

The NSW RSPCA is specifically, strongly and publicly opposed to greyhound racing. It is a major part of the reason that breeders and trainers got thumped with tougher rules. Some "participant"!

Until banning of the carcass on trial days is lifting, the WAR as you say Bruce will never be over & things will only continue to go down hill regarding the "CHASE".

You talk of evidence Bruce. How much evidence do you require before you agree with everyone's thoughts on this forum as you seem to be the only one that doesn't...or certainly not convinced?

You should have 30 months of evidence by now.

Do you require 4 years of evidence? Maybe 6 years or is 10 years needed before you turn the corner.....because one things for sure. The industry hasn't got 10 years to wait.

Der ! You dont say.

They were asleep at the wheel when AA struck. Furthermore, they were put on the panel to justify their existence n to support the demise of the greyhound industry led by the NSW Lib/Nat Coalition. They still have enforcement powers, but were dormant. We were smacked harder to make an example out of their shortcomings as well as to justify the ban. It was the biggest over-reaction you have ever seen.

Cods Wallop Bruce, I'm sure you know what that means.

You portray to be in the know with "everything greyhounds".
Why don't you ask your contacts to give us statistics for the last 12 months for dogs that have had a Fail to Chase or Marring charge compared to the previous one or two years?

Re evidence of non-chasers. Statements by 10, 20 or 30 trainers on this website do not amount to evidence. They may well be right (and I have sympathised with the view) but they are still anecdotal claims, probably about a limited number of dogs. And there are some 6,000 trainers in this country

"How much evidence do you require". A definitive comparison of before and after experience, preferably of some 400 dogs each, all corrected for the conditions - eg class and race experience.

Right now all this is theoretical because the rule is not going to be changed in the foreseeable future. As time marches on, and real evidence is gathered, it may then be a good time to re-visit the subject using a strong case to have the rule changed back or modified.

An additional factor is that I see no official comments which suggest that FTC is on the increase - recently or otherwise. That may well understate the alleged problem as there could be some half and half offenders but that is also yet to be established. Either way, you can be sure that a rule change will first require hard data.

However, my guess would be that if the fresh proposal is based on what we could call "a good sniff", it will not get to first base.

Codswallop is one word, not two. However, I have mentioned that evidence is short and then pointed out a fact about litter numbers. How do you manufacture codswallop out of that?

As for "You portray to be in the know with "everything greyhounds"", I do no such thing. I am cluey about some stuff and ignorant about others - which I have always made clear.

Re asking for stats - I am forced to wait for publication of official stats as personal inquiries are seldom fruitful (as I explained elsewhere).

I might also ask why all the speakers on this site don't ask themselves before sounding off.

So what publications, "Official publications" do you rely upon Bruce?

Studbooks?
Greyhounds Australasia?
GCA?
Recorder?
Fasttracks?

I'm sure the reply will be breath taking.

And it will be more than 100 words. :-)

I have no stats on this but my impression is that "Marring" (which is incorrect English - should be Fighting) mostly involves dogs which are keener and better gallopers, and possibly stronger, so they should not be included in a discussion of 500m/FTC. They get pinched because they want to get to the front on their own, not the reverse.