NOTHING MORE THAN POLITICAL PUPPETS WHO HAVE NO EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA. THIS IS THE WEAKEST LINK, MESTROV IS ONE THING I WOULD BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE 2 I C IN NSW.

i'm sure they'd be interested in this type of thing.

they hate seeing people like this woman copping it unfairly.

EXTERNAL LINK

In NSW - a major welfare issue not to have a water bowl in a racing kennel.
In Victoria - no water in racing kennels.

Chiefs of what?

There would be two that have got any idea and even they could be politically manipulated. Public servants only accountable to their political masters. No price to pay.

Wouldn't if make sense for there to be one interpretation of welfare for the industry?

There is even a framework for this to happen, so that uniformly industry guidelines could be developed, and the funding costs shared, via Greyhounds Australasia.

An objective fact-based industry submission that proposed industry uniformity for welfare directed at all States does hold some sort of appeal.

Instead, States seem to be going it alone on welfare.

Unfortunately anti-greyhound racing groups have sufficiently muddied the waters such that fragmented and subjective views on welfare have overridden objective standards, common sense and practicality.

States will respond differently to such influences, adding to any differences, and resulting in industry-threatening standards.

Perhaps the best example is the shambolic (and lazily based) Victorian public service greyhound welfare proposal (which was funded by GRV via a government levy).

It is made worse if State governments hide behind the convenient "community expectations" cop-out that seems to be underpinned by Greens-appeasing governments and vocal minorities.

That non-compliance with such a debatable rule got to a Supreme Court decision is not only overkill, but highlights such unacceptable differences in welfare rules. To the extent that it suggests at least one regulator has NFI as to whether this is really a bona fide welfare issue is a concern.

Participants should expect better.

Note : NFI = Not the faintest idea

Common sense might suggest that dogs could have access to water (club-supplied) during kennelling. It would be reasonable that if a trainer determined it would not for the good of the dog (or even gave rise to destructive behaviour), it should not be made available.

(I have one retired dog that would have ripped such a bucket off its attachment to the wall and then gone on to play with it - not ideal race preparation).

To me, a minor issue arising out of a questionable rule, blown out of proportion by officialdom, that should never of itself have even warranted a reprimand.

I believe that my greyhound, Prying Eyes, was one of the first to get an examption. Had to jump through many hoops before she got it. The final straw with me was when she ripped apart one of this 'spring toggle' clips like you have on leads. She split the steel in trying to get the bucket off the door. That was the third time she had broken a steel clip so I put my foot down and refused to take a bucket in when she raced at Dapto. She won by 7 lengths and I copped a $100.00 fine for my stand.

The crazy thing about it all is that there are a lot of dogs knocking over their water bucket/bowl, probably in the early stages of kennelling, so there would not be any water to drink anyway.