It will be really important that the two industry representatives Sandro and Brenton are on top of these five domains and understand potential impacts. It is also important that they understand the difference between the five freedoms and five domains.

My understanding is that the five freedoms are based on the idea that an animal should never have a negative experience. It should never be hungry, in pain, get wet outside etc.

These are not considered as credible by anyone other than animal rights organisations anymore. It is not realistic that there will never be a negative experience for an animal. Like humans they get sick etc, things happen.

The five domains instead looks at all the aspects together to decide on the animals mental state. In others words there may be some negative experiences but the positives may outweigh that so the animal is happy.

Now the reason I say our representatives need to be on top of it is that the RSPCA NSW representative will be pushing for the five freedoms. Their website clearly states that an animals welfare should be considered in terms of the Five Freedoms.
I will use the water bowl as an example of the difference.

Five Freedoms
To meet the Freedom from thirst a greyhound had to have the water bowl in their racing kennel. It did not matter whether the chance of dehydration was extremely low, if there is a chance of a negative consequence it must be avoided.
If a greyhound was to be hurt by the bowl the greyhound could not go in the kennel with it as they needed to be free from pain.
Therefore under the Five Freedoms a greyhound who would be hurt by a water bowl in their kennel could not race. (Exactly what the Judge said in my case).

Five Domains
In this instance all the factors would be considered, the impact of no water in the kennel on the dogs nutrition, the impact of pain from the bowl, and the enjoyment of racing itself. If the chances were very low of their being a negative impact on nutrition without a water bowl and the greyhound loved racing then racing without a water bowl would be best for the mental state of the greyhound.

Now I will also point out that I dont think our industry has even had a discussion on whether the five domains should be the basis for animal welfare. There are other options for example a life worth living. Surely as an industry we should have had the chance to have a say on what is best for our animals.

As I said before I am glad they at least used the word domain and not freedom but I was still very concerned when I read the release that we are going to end up with a code of practice that leads to more policy disasters such as the water bowl.

So Who is in charge of the GBOTA now.or is that a secret.

I know the `dog has bolted' but you are very knowledgeable.

Same question I was asking myself yesterday. I'm not sure but I'll look into it.

Think it is highly likely that the 5 Freedoms were used as a basis for the VIC draft Code of Practice given that it didn't have guidelines but ridiculous imperatives.

My understanding is that there isn't any real science or evidence behind these theories. They have just come from people pushing animal welfare or animal rights. Like the idea of a social licence that came out of the blue but people want to use it as a basis for decision making.

I think we can all agree we want the best welfare outcomes for our greyhounds. My worry is that using these types of models as the basis for policies and decision making, rather than listening to people who have trained greyhounds for years, can achieve the opposite outcome.

Lets be honest if you had never heard of the Five Freedoms or Five Domains you would still know that nutrition of your dog is important and make sure it was hydrated and had enough food.

I have to say I wasn't aware of these notions until a few years ago. I can honestly say the welfare and mental state of my dogs were just as good before as after.

And lets not forget "Community Expectations"

Arguments used by politicians, bureaucrats and pressure groups to support a stance when they lack knowledge and facts

Had a quick look yesterday but couldn't see it mentioned in any code of practice for other groups. Doesn't mean it wasn't used just not referred to.

My understanding is that the Five Domains is more of an assessment model. You use it to decide if an animal's welfare is good or not by looking at the four aspects of nutrition, environment, health and behaviour to help assess their mental state. It is not a basis or foundation model that you use as a starting point like we seem to be doing.

Mr Brown,

I read the press release relating to the Animal Welfare Committee. I was particularly concerned with your statement that it will set minimum standards to improve the welfare of greyhounds based on the five domains of animal welfare.
I have a few questions in relation to this.

1. Can you clarify that it is the Five Domains model and not the Five Freedoms? (I will make it clear here that the restrictive standards based Five Freedoms is not an acceptable model.)

2. Can you explain why the Five Domains model has been chosen as a basis for the Code of Practice and were any other models considered? (My understanding is that it is an assessment model not a foundation model so I am struggling to see how it can be the basis for the COP especially if minimum standards are being set rather than just guidelines for outcomes based assessment. I also understand that the Five Domains model requires specific industry and breed based knowledge to make it applicable for whatever industry it is being used for, yet there does not seem to be this expertise on the Committee, such as an experienced greyhound veterinarian.)

3. Given that the Five Domains is an assessment model and that to assess an animals mental state one has to look at all four aspects of nutrition, environment, health, and behaviour together is it appropriate to have minimum standards (which is what the Five Freedoms model would have) rather than just guidelines?

For example sleeping areas in the kennel. In the current Code of Practice it states greyhounds should be provided with raised sleeping boards or trampoline-style beds. The word should was important. I had a greyhound who fell off his trampoline-style bed and would not get on it after that. I removed the bed from his kennel, placed 2 layers of rubber backed carpet on the concrete (to provide insulation) and placed bedding on top of that. If the Code of Practice had said must not should because minimum standards rather than guidelines were used, I would have had to leave the trampoline-style bed in the kennel with the effect being that it reduced his kennel space and left in his kennel an item that he was fearful of.

4. How will the mental state be assessed? I assume there will be understanding that it is a subjective and not objective evaluation and will depend on individual greyhounds and specific knowledge of the greyhound breed.

For example I have a greyhound at home who barks when strangers are at the door, or new people come into the house. For her barking is clearly a sign of fear, worry. I used to have another greyhound who barked when he was happy. When he got to the track, when he played outside, when he was eating. Other signs such as tail wagging demonstrated he was happy. So for these two greyhounds the outward sign of barking actually demonstrated different mental states.

5. Why have members of the committee been asked to sign a confidentiality clause? This is a welfare initiative not a commercial one so what is the reason for the secrecy and lack of transparency.

I ask these questions because the welfare of my greyhounds is my highest priority. I have found in recent times that by following the restrictive policies of the controlling body my greyhounds welfare is actually compromised because they do not take into account individual idiosyncrasies of different greyhounds. The individual characteristics of different greyhounds, and the owner and/or trainer being best placed to know their needs, should not be forgotten when writing policies that are meant to benefit the welfare of all greyhounds.

Regards

Carly

Your last paragraph makes alot of sense & is very true.

It would be good if experienced trainers could receive some kind of recognition of their knowledge through formal certification & then new trainers could possibly sit a test or questionnaire made by experienced trainers to gain the same.
In this day & age, theres nothing more important than a formal certificate acknowledging your experience & expertise

The poor old thoroughbred in the paddock has nothing to worry about. The mangy cats that hunt at night are being overlooked by the Local Govt Minister and cant be touched by the RSPCA. We know what the Greens and AJP do.

They cant justify their existence so they go and re-examine the standards.

EXTERNAL LINK

I will get to one but not until the school holidays start so would be nice to know earlier what they are saying.

I still haven't received a response to my letter. I think they have placed it in the 'too hard' basket.

He Can't respond to something he doesn't understand himself..