We wouldn't be reinventing the wheel here

I know in SA they pay trainers/owners a re-homing allowance of $30 per dog after it has been assessed as being eligible for GAP and whilst waiting for placement into rehabilitation or straight into a forever home

They may not be perfect over there, but they have some positive ideas on these issues

Good idea to utilize a place like yours for such a venture

I think I know where you are coming from (?) but to repeat what authorities say is to re-cycle dumb policies and poorly assessed business decisions. This is one example ......... you say ...

"In the meantime, whilst breeding definitely needs to go up to increase the current racing pool the authorities are also mindful of it getting out of control again and not having a full solution for rehoming these dogs"

At the core, that is nonsense. Numerically, everyone from GA to Newsom to Baird to McHugh jumped on that bandwagon without analysing the facts. For some 15 years prior to 2015 breeding was in modest decline, indicating some combination of unknown forces were in play. Then and since, that has never been properly investigated in the two biggest states - NSW and Victoria.

Yes, there has been some trimming at the edges - dam restrictions, lifetime records, for example. Yes, there were abuses by the odd owner/breeder leading to bad publicity. But nobody addressed the overall problem and therefore could not possibly come up with a decent solution.

If the demand for racing spots is reducing - as it was - then you must expect empty boxes and lower quality to emerge as time passes - as they have. The trauma of live baiting simply exaggerated what would have happened over time anyway.

Knee-jerk reactions by governments and racing authorities have been pointless (except for re-homing, which is a good thing). Even today, after four terrible years, the mighty GRV has finally admitted publicly that there is a "current decline in the population". Really? Yet it will still run the same number of races, obviously with the same number or more empty boxes in total - ie it has moved the deckchairs on the Titanic and ignored the icebergs. Moreover, there will be even more crappy races in order to cater for the runts of the litter. Excellence is out the window.

I am all for looking after the runts but the best way to do that is to have a thriving industry in the first place. More regulation and more staff is not the way to achieve that.

Do you know what you are actually talking about?

You just talk in riddles mate

You are missing the point...heavy regulation is here to stay

Face it...we are in partnership with the Government, RSPCA and the public via the 'social licence' or whatever f%&k you want to call it

All greyhounds bred that can race are trying to be catered for. While it may offend the punter in you to gamble on such low class animals, what you are forgetting that a breeder, owner and a trainer have also invested much time and many dollars to develop that dog into a racing proposition.

They deserve a return on their investment to keep the punting circus alive.

The days of getting rid of a dog that isn't of the highest standard gone except for a select few trainers that can demand that type of dog in the kennel.

The rest of the trainers have to get with the program and cater to train these dogs and the authorities need to get with the program to provide races and prizemoney for them, otherwise the re-homing list is never going to diminish, it will only get bigger.

Punters are punters, they will bet on basically anything if they can turn a dollar on it.

While punting supports all racing, it is not how racing and breeding industries are run.

If sufficient care of the animal across all racing industries is not taken throughout its lifecycle then race punters will need to start brushing up on sports betting to get their fix.

The Weir incident will only be the tip of the ice berg

Our industry, especially in NSW, is in a period of adjustment, because of the high impact on participants of the inquiries, the changes to breeding rules, the imminent changes to Codes of Practice for Keeping of Greyhounds, future licensing changes etc

The bulk of the industry, the participants, are in a time bubble.

They don't know whether to breed more or less, they don't know whether they should take on more dogs because of not being able to rehome them and they don't know whether all the tracks will survive as they know them now

This makes for great uncertainty and its being coloured also by the political arguments and grandstanding going on around it

Until these programs that are in transition are settled then this time bubble will not burst

I just hope we haven't lost too many people out of the industry before the policies are rolled out

I reject your underlying principles but the facts you list are generally well understood.

One main exception - you are addressing what gamblers do, not what punters do. You must differentiate because they are influenced by different factors and gamblers are on the rise, punters the reverse.

One lot could not give a fig for the product while the other is potentially a lifetime supporter and even a future owner or trainer.

You appear to be accepting, or even supporting, a longer list of rules and regulations. I don't, largely because they are poorly thought out, add to costs across the board, and seldom serve to achieve any goals, including welfare. It's a political over-reaction.

The fact that there are "time bubbles" and "great uncertainty" is due to poor management and constantly changing regulations pushed by pollies.

Just as one example, look at all the rumours and innuendos running around about puppy bonds (which have not been denied). Not only is it a dumb policy and probably illegal in administrative terms, it is no more than a belt and braces approach to solving a problem which never really existed - ie "overbreeding". How silly can you get?

the government are not pro greyhound racing. It's as simple as that.

Bruce,

Firstly, ok, you can amuse yourself, punters are great for the industry, gamblers are not!!

When you are talking to me, they are one and the same group that don't really understand the sport and what goes into producing the product that they punt or gamble on.

Secondly, I don't believe we actually accept that we want a longer list of rules and regulations.

Most of these have been forced upon us...supposedly for our own good but mainly for the good of the dogs and may I say, the general public...because remember we are evil criminals who don't look after our dogs and treat them like money making objects

Funny about that, am I describing a punter now. Are we to be put into that basket in future?

To preserve your precious product that you continually bag and abuse, for the Sky Racing screens for your group of punters/gamblers, the people who actually put on the product have to invest and work a lot harder for less money to be returned to them

That's the long and the short of it pal.

What does a punter invest in the industry...if they win they punt on something else...if they lose the ticket goes in the waste paper basket...oh yeah and those get recycled as well...so maybe it has a better chance of being socially acceptable!!

Until you acknowledge the time and effort and money that goes into producing a racing product to gamble or bet on then you are wasting your time talking about it

I agree with our learned friend Bruce. There are gamblers, and there are punters. The industry needs both to survive.

The punters will take their money elsewhere, if they consider that greyhound racing has become a mediocre offering, for their punting dollars.

As for participants investing their time and money, it always has, and always will be, a gamble for them.

Sometimes it pays off, sometimes not.

I don't believe the industry owes participants anything.

The industry cannot afford to run a welfare system for slow dogs.

Winners are grinners, the others have to learn to cut their losses and move on.

That's life...on and off the greyhound tracks.

Re-homing in Nsw is not being supported by GRNSW.They talk about GAP but are not actually announcing any funding details or numbers adopted.

At present unofficial figures for the number of greyhounds accepted for adoption & kennelled at the holding facility is 10 (that is 10 only) Sounds unbelievable.

However when a body will not reveal the funding figures & numbers accepted &/or adopted it shows they have something to hide.

Hard to understand when we have been promised transparency & the Managers & Staff at GRNSW's jobs depend on the Industry surviving & thriving.

I'm sure the employee's are keen but it's the Directors that dictate Plans,Budgets & Actions.

We need an independent non Govt. Commercial Body.The Govt. just keep on making money from us & ripping us off.

Everyone is chock a block full of retired dogs & there is a monetary cloud hanging over breeding rules in NSW & it is completely due to procrastination & failure of GRNSW to fund & manage these areas properly even though GRV have given them the example by implementing successful & acceptable funding & policies for both areas.

Ian

If you want to play semantics with Bruce that's fine

The major change is that the welfare of the dogs, fast or slow, have become the prime target of importance

No longer are you able to cut your losses and euthanize your dog or offload it to far flung places never to be seen again, like you may have done in the past

There is whole of life cycle tracking being introduced Australia-wide by all the authorities

You own a dog, you take responsibility for it, therefore the situation is that the industry is going to run a welfare system for all dogs

It wants breeding to be cut down to only serve the racing pool, an increasing percentage of that racing pool will consist of dogs who are aged 4 years or more

As someone said to me recently, if they "Chase they Race"

These systems will come at the expense of prizemoney and to keep prizemoney levels up the sport will more than likely contract from its own natural forces

Good luck with offloading the responsibility of a slow dog

That's why rehoming programs are the most important thing on the agenda as this exit program from the sport is the thing that will keep the whole thing moving

One thing for you punting afficionado's, it makes it an easier decision whether to own/train a dog or just to punt or gamble on them

Punting and gambling is far less regulated

In many cases I (and others) actually agree with your individual points. What I am talking about is how you put all those points together.

This business about punters and gamblers is far from semantics. It is fundamental to industry's financial future. Just to mention one aspect - punters not only assess the odds to one degree or another but also read the formguides while gamblers would not know where to look. With the right product and service, punters will stay with you while gamblers could not care less and will wander off to the pokies or the footie. The dollars are good either way but you must consider what the trends are and why they are happening. Today, gamblers are taking the spots once occupied by punters - look at how more business is being done with Mysteries, quickie bets on Iphones and advice from tipsters (who will send you broke anyway).

So where are those former punters going? And why?

As for "That's why rehoming programs are the most important thing on the agenda as this exit program from the sport is the thing that will keep the whole thing moving" - absolutely. That's precisely why I was probably the first writer in the country to point out the folly of claims about "overbreeding". The problem - physically and image-wise - was always what to do with unrequired dogs. I said it umpteen times but it took literally years for some of these guys to wake up and, even now, they have done the right thing for the wrong reasons. If they have done it at all.

Those errors were committed by the three most important groups in the country - NSW, Victoria and GA - not once but repeatedly, together with advisers and inquiry chiefs who came up with conclusions and recommendations to keep the pollies happy, but failed to understand the industry properly. Every one of them was a lawyer or a public servant who did not have the faintest idea of how to run a business. Failing that expertise, all we got was more regulation and more staff to look after the extra rules.

If you need more proof, consider NSW ... take out government grants and the industry is technically bankrupt. Costs exceed income. It cannot pay its way. And it certainly can't afford a new track at Queanbeyan.

That's why I said that we need more "punting afficionado's", not fewer. (Minus the apostrophe - that's incorrect grammar). It's why we need business managers, not bureaucrats. We need a Minister who did not speak and vote in favour of the ban, even though he has a greyhound track virtually in his backyard. We could also use a Chairman who gets out and promotes the industry.

In relation to retired dogs, its the owners responsibility to look after their retired dogs. I dont have a problem with the Industry assisting where possible and maybe on a 50/50 basis. It should be capped and we should be utilising available spaces at licensed kennels that are available due to the `downturn' in the industry. Let GRNSW / GWIC fill them and provide financial support to the carer.

Are we doing enough to find homes for retired dogs ? I would write that I never hear or read much about GAP in NSW and they do get well funded to the tune of over a million dollars p.a. Where is the data ? S.A. has an 80% rehoming rate that is expected to increase, VICs is high, but I dont know anything about my own State.

Ill compare one of our rules and regulations with the TBreds. There is a loophole with the TBreds where they can take their horses over the border to the knackery to Caboolture or Shepparton. Do they have a `cap on breeding ? Whos accounting for the T/Breds ? Whos accounting for all of the domestic dogs that are slaughtered every year ?

All we want is a level playing field and some compassion when our dogs are permanently injured or become non-competitive. We dont want to decimate our industry by half to two-thirds just because we cant find homes for every dog when not even the best is there yet. We have to look at the entire life cycle, not just the end of it.

just cause the government wants to hold greyhound racing to account on an unprecedented level than every other industry doesn't mean it should be accepted.

its victimisation at its best.

they are taking the piss imo with the way they want to rip the industry apart.

There has certainly been some misallocation of resources going on

1. Spending millions on new premises in Darlinghurst

2. spending more millions on legal witch-hunts to prosecute people for exporting dogs without a passport years from years ago

3. Another waste of money was the million dollar race (sorry Pete, glad you won it, but not good for the whole of the industry in my book)

These funds would have been better served developing rehoming options for greyhounds, breeders bonuses or reducing breeding costs and spreading prizemoney more equitably around the State

I would 'love' to know how much more was wasted along the way

Item 3 - the million dollars - had relatively little to do with greyhound racing and lots to do with the upcoming election. But note that the $m program included allocations to GAP etc anyway.

The fundamental issue here is that bureaucracies spend everything they can, and sometimes a bit more, simply because it is there. Neither they nor their governments are weighing up the commercial benefits - ie the outcomes of their spending. Raceclubs are the same.

Similar reasoning applies to distance bonuses (in all states). None of them had objectives, none of them had forecast profits, and none achieved anything. The cash should have gone to everyday racing.

On top of that, authorities have political inputs which end up costing money. The Queanbeyan study is a classic example - in an era when track rationalisation is the topic of the day, how crazy is that? Another is the white picket fences they want in Victoria.

Few of these things would happen were the states run by independent commercial organisations.

Some of your other aims would be better satisfied if clubs/authorities stopped allocating unnecessarily large lumps to feature races. It's just chest-thumping. Prizes of a quarter to a half a million for big races are out of kilter with their worth. The same dogs would turn up for much less, the same crowds and the same betting would follow. More could then go to standard 5th Grade provincials, thereby benefitting hundreds rather than just one bloke.

As a matter of interest, my assessment is that the half million spent on a single race was in fact worth it, but only just. Judge by the value of the publicity and the column inches which continue to this day.

Ladbrokes put up a similar amount so obviously their commercial judgement was also that it made sense (albeit the cash came from losing gamblers).

But basically, you're right. Sensible business auditing of expenses does not exist.

Other than for lip service from GRNSW that they are going to allocate can you fellas please tell me where I can find the actual proof that this has occurred.

Allocate is a nice way of saying we might give the funds to that area or when push comes to shove we may decide to use them somewhere else.

I think GAP do a great job with the funds they are provided but if it's $1 mil per annum to pay wages /feed dogs/pay vets,rates,water ,vehicle costs to transport dogs & staff,advertise,attend shows etc.etc.then they are probably receiving a third of what is needed.

Grant,
The relevant parts of the Minister's July 2018 release are ...

"The NSW Government will contribute $500,000 towards the series, which will include races in Bathurst, Lismore, Maitland, Wagga Wagga, Bulli, Dubbo, Temora, Grafton, Nowra, Richmond and Newcastle, culminating in a finals series at Wentworth Park.

The Million Dollar Chase marks a fresh start for the NSW greyhound racing industry and is a great opportunity for owners, trainers and breeders across the State, Mr Toole said.

Im very pleased to be making this announcement, which follows months of work behind the scenes with Greyhound Racing NSW.

Entry fees from every race will include a donation to the not-for-profit Greyhounds as Pets. All participants in the Million Dollar Chase must rehome their dog into Greyhounds as Pets or a similar program after its racing career or keep it as a pet".

Ladbroke's matching contribution was assumed at that stage, which was why the half million turned into one million in the release. Later amendments to the race conditions suggest GRNSW was still scrambling to tidy up all the Minister's bits and pieces - ie it was all his idea.

For proof that it happened, why not ask the bloke who won it? Anyway, I am not sure how the disbursement would be handled as the Minister's contribution came from an account which had nothing to do with GRNSW - or not initially. (That cash - unclaimed dividends - is purely a matter for TABCORP and the government. It may be allocated at the Minister's discretion).

I am not well briefed on the mechanics of GAP processes or the numbers but presumably they would be covered in GRNSW annual report (still not published for 2017/18).