Apparently before you get your pink card now the application has to go before a selection committee.

No word on what the criteria is, who is on the committee, how often they meet etc.

I just know a few people who have spent all the money on DNA testing etc and then when they have asked what the hold up is they have been told that it still has to go before a selection committee.

A. Not won a race.
B. That have won only 1 or 2 races from 40 starts or
C. Bitches that have only won races in the country.
are not WORTHY?????

If that's the case, I'VE GOT ALL THE FACTS OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS to take them to TASK, regarding brood-bitches.

Who are they to think they are GOD.

When it comes to brood-bitches....we all have them.
But when it comes to SIRES.....we don't.

Somebody may buy a Fernando pup out of FLEEBAG but they won't buy a pup from FLEEBAG, out of FRIDA.

This raises two immediate problems for me.

1. People are spending money on DNA testing, vaccinations and the like without knowing what criteria their bitch is going to be judged on.

2. The fact that no one seemed to know about this means that the criteria has been decided upon without input from participants. If participants have had no input then who has? The same people who decided that restrictions would be a good idea in the first place. I'm sure I am not alone in thinking that I do not trust the judgement of anyone who actually thought this was a good idea.

Of course the other option is they decided there would be a selection committee without deciding what the criteria was which would mean that there will be long delays in registrations while they try to figure out the criteria.

UNBELEIVABLE !!!

Did you have any stats on success of broodies that had not won a race or where only average at best on the track and how they produced in the breeding barn? Surely a large majority of them would not reproduce anything of note?

I can kind of see where GRNSW are coming from, in trying to limit or at least screen the breeding so that people don't go back to what they used to do, breeding a perceived, poorly performed broodie to an average sire, then resulting in terrible pups.. then having to rehome them and clog the system up more.

Obviously it is a restriction of trade to an extent, but we need to find a balance in between quality breeding and allowing people to 'Have a punt' on their broodie. Otherwise we are just clogging the system up with poorly bred dogs not performing and dont even make it to the track

And next step will be letting breeders know what sires are allowed to be used with their broodies. Fernando Bale is probably the go to sire at the moment (not me personally), but a lot of breeders won't pay $8800 for a sire no matter how good he's going.

Sam i would say the day's of breeding with inferior stock are behind us due to the cost involved, its just not worth it !

This is a big worry - and the lack of transparency does not help.

It is unquestionably a matter of restraint of trade, presumably underpinned by the thought - but not the law - that less breeding will solve a perceived wastage problem. It echoes the irrational thinking behind the poorly considered GA "confidential" memo - ie cut breeding by one third - and the resultant comments by McHugh, Baird and many others.

As against that, it can be said to be an attempt to cut out or cut back "backyard breeding". That may be desirable in some ways but it may well exceed the reasonable powers of the authority.

That approach has already led to more stringent supervision in Victoria and to the more broadly-based rules on aged dams - in which cases it is hard to argue any wrong doing.

The GWIC action is also consistent with the rumoured puppy bond, which would appear to be an excessive and unnecessary move.

The related issue is whether GWIC can reasonably claim to be competent to judge the worth of a prospective dam or sire/dam and, if so, how can it reasonably write a rule to limit any service. One example of many would be how to assess a fair sire mated to an unraced dam.

In essence, GWIC is effectively saying it has the knowledge and experience to apply bans or limits on some breeding. That is highly contestable, whether or not it employs vets to advise it - ie a skilled vet is not necessarily competent to assess breeding lines.

It boils down to ....

* Euthanasia is legal in NSW. No limits are applicable.
* Most or all of the suggested changes are discriminatory in that they do not apply to other animals, including racing animals or even puppy farms.
* GWIC/GRNSW has the authority to limit races but any claimed authority to limit breeding is arguable and probably illegal.
* At face value, a puppy bond is an excessive, unnecessary and probably illegal move.
* GWIC has apparently not sought to consult with industry participants or experts before taking action. That being so, it has breached its obligations.
* The entire process has become dependent on "social license", which is virtually indefinable and always a matter of opinion anyway - and therefore contestable.
* Broadly, the authority is attempting to make rules which concern commercial decision-making, or supply and demand issues, in which is has for decades failed to demonstrate any competence.

In short, participants badly need to employ legal advice and to quickly challenge perceived incorrect processes. Any delays will be regarded as acceptance.

Totally agree again Sam, but these days you rarely see, if ever, the scenario you've painted above. In fact and to paint my own scenario on today's breeding, all sires that are used these days are either multiple city FFA Class or Group winners. So if somebody wants to test their luck on one of these sires with "No win Betty" the mutt, why should they be scrutinised. They're only having ago & that's what this country has been built on.

Our rights as a human being are slowly been eroded away.

Would be nice if our new commission communicated with us a little more often.Even a weekly update on their Facebook site would help.

Carly, the only reference I can find to breeding restrictions on the GRNSW website is:-

19.6. Breeding females must not whelp more than two litters in any 18 month period. Further, Managers will need to seek approval from the Commission for a female to breed a fourth litter or breed over
the age of eight years of age.

Are the only people who are complaining, are those with bitches that fit these categories ???

Your rights are not just being eroded - they are being given away because of the failure to contest irrational and illogical rule making.

Look at Victoria. Hissing and roaring about overbreeding, closely followed by campaigns to increase breeding. That is sheer incompetence but it has not been attacked effectively.

It's political PR - breeding rules are just the vehicle carrying the message.

I get that they are new and I do believe they are actually trying to be different to GRNSW. In my dealings so far with them they have been very honest with me, which is something of a shock after years of dealing with GRNSW.

However, if they are going to bring in something new like this I think they need to be publicly informing participants straight away.

Also the people I have heard have been people applying not long after their bitch has finished racing to register them before breeding their first litter. We are not talking about those over 8 years or those applying for more than 3 litters.