Pups etc

The McHugh Report has no special legal status. It is simply a piece of information for government to consider. Nor does Scott, as apart from anything else he does not legally represent all NSW participants - ie breeders etc. The Reform Panel was also advisory only.

What is legal is a properly considered decision/instruction from whichever of the two authorities is involved. Either way, they can be challenged or appealed.

The alleged 2,000 pup limit seems to be plucked out of the air and justified on the basis of a need to reduce euthanasia. If there is another specific reason I have yet to hear it.

Euthanasia is legal in NSW, albeit under certain conditions - none of which relate to quantity of pups.

In other words, any breeding limit is arbitrary. It amounts to someone's thinking that overbreeding is a big hassle and that this is one way, or the only way, to reduce breeding and therefore reduce euthanasia. That is contestable and discriminatory in that it does not apply to other breeds.

Allied points are that many pups are bred to sell to others, to sell interstate or to race interstate, the latter two bringing in S92 - interstate trade must be free.

The confusing but unknown issue is whether the authority is planning to significantly reduce racing opportunities - ie meetings - and assesses that X number of dogs will be sufficient. Yet - see above - it can do that although it is based on on weak grounds. However, it might also use its power indirectly by sharply cutting prize money etc, etc.

All these points are untested, unproven, unresearched and have been found to be inappropriate in other states - eg Victoria has now reversed its (incorrect) attitude to "overbreeding" and is now offering incentives to breed more dogs. Queensland is also in the process of handing out more money.

In any event, to restrict breeding without specific and justifiable reasons is a restraint of trade, in which case it would be illegal. Even more so as it does not apply to other animals.

Some or all of this was pointed out long ago to the Alliance which said no worries, we have all that in hand???? Really?

But there is another practical point; there is no ban - nor could there be - on interstate dogs or pups being moved into NSW if participants wished to fill their kennels that way.

The starting point is to find out exactly what the authority is going to do and then run that through a legal filter to determine what to do next. The administrative order to pay per pup may not be illegal but restricting numbers appears to be.

Such a process should not involve GBOTA. As I have said previously, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

If there is any weakness in these protests, it is that future revenue and surpluses are uncertain, especially since government has forced through a huge increase in operating costs. But first let's define the problem.

Here are my notes from attending the meeting, I refer you to the note commencing "There is a Concern";

I attended the Yagoona Roadshow yesterday.

Here are extracts from my notes;

An extremely poor attendance by participants, lucky to have been ten present (10 excl GWIC) at the start, one other came late and another attended 10 minutes before meeting close;

Allan Brown opened and advised that from 1/7/2018 it will be a familiar process as to what participants are currently operating with, except regulatory functions, will be transferred to GWIC;

The positive unpublicized news is that, current registrations for all will be extended to 30/6/2019;

When an assessment based accreditation licensing will be introduced - Importantly they acknowledged that "their will be an acknowledgement of prior experience for long term registered participants" who have good records of compliance;

There will be a move to extend the racing opportunities for slow/slowing dogs;

There is a concern that breeding number in a period currently reviewed, have risen to a forecast 5000 pups per year - there were 6500 pups bred per annum before the ban and consequential problems with rehoming and euthanizing associated with rising numbers;

John Keniry spoke about the Bond and it will be introduced unless the legislation can be changed and a model is being developed - the legislation acknowledges the breeder to make a modest payment whilst Iemma in his recommendations intended a modest payment by the breeder and then ongoing annual payments by the owner!

Allan Brown stated that GWIC were there to put processes in place to sustain the industry, but another live baiting scandal, over breeding or increased euthanasia will be the drivers the end of the Industry.

GWIC gave a commitment to Inform and educate all stakeholders.

GWIC have embarked on a recruitment process and not all positions have been finalized.

Judy Lind advised and confirmed that there will be a transition arrangement for acceptance to compliance requirements by participants (eg Kennel sizing etc) and it was encouraged that participants approach individually for consideration to modifications.

At the end of the meeting when challenged by a participant, Allan Brown confirmed his commitment in trying to help the Greyhound Industry and he and his immediate family were involved in Greyhound Racing in the early part of his life, with him attending his first greyhound meeting in 1956 at Harold Park and his grandfather trained Take a Bow to win the Australian Cup in 1962, which he was there to witness. Allan also advised, he use to walk his grandfathers greyhounds, as a youth.

Every opportunity was afforded to have their say and all questions were answered.

I was under the understanding we had three years to get the ship in order and achieve welfare initiatives etc and the industry would then be assessed as to whether it could continue. This body still has to employ a further 60 staff according to Mr Brown. It will be three years before we even have a clear direction the way were going and just like before the participants will be held accountable for the lack of results while the people in change of the industry will just move on to the next job in the bureaucracy.

Don't get me wrong I'm sure it's not easy fronting up to these meetings but I'm sure these people including mr brown are very well paid to complete this task and I'm a little surprised at the lack of progress givin the time they've had
Just my opinion

I forgot to mention that Mr Alan Brown has a tbred background as well. I believe he may have spent some time with Racing NSW. I appreciate his involvement with greyhound racing when he was a little boy. IMO, the Commissioners are well supported by the Govt who are forcing further change.

Those facts quoted to you are ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. To forecast 5000 pups PER YEAR over a certain period of time just goes to show how inexperience these bean counters really are.

They obviously haven't looked at breeding figures before otherwise they would've noticed a breeding pattern that occurs EVERY YEAR...And that is, during the "HOTTER MONTHS" of the year, whelping's increase "2 Fold". That's mother-nature for you & THAT'S A FACT.

6500 pups bred in NSW before the ban is an UNDERSTATEMENT.

For example, in NSW alone during 10 year period between 2005 & 2014 (before the ban), an average of 1200 whelping's were recorded per annual. That equates to around 7500 pups whelped in the State of NSW each year (I'm being kind here as that figure should be slightly higher).

Then during the ban years, whelping figures were -
2015 - Dropped to under 1000 whelping's or around 6250 pups.
2016 - Dropped to around 500 whelping's or around 3200 pups.
2017 - Slightly up to around 560 whelping's or around 3500 pups.

Early signs for whelping's in 2018 are higher than the above 3 years, but when you compare the latest whelping figures of January & February to the same months over the 10 year period I used above, NSW is still whelping half, I repeat HALF the number of litters as years gone by.

I'd like to see these figures used & quoted to members at that meeting, in black n white...because to me they are very misleading like another REPORT delivered a couple of years ago that what had more holes in it than a block of Swiss Cheese.

I thought Judy Lind seemed reasonable. She was willing to listen to what we had to say and appeared to take it on board. On the puppy bond I gave Nathan's figures and another participant had exact figures for previous years and also came to the conclusion of about 3500 for this year. Alan Brown didn't say anything in response so I am guessing he knows his 5000 figure is a bit hazy. Judy Lind did say if we could show over breeding and euthanasia rates were not a problem she would go to the government to suggest the puppy bond was not needed.

Alan Brown was a different story. He said a few times we needed the GWIC because the community expects us to reform and the GWIC will do that for us. He said at one point that the horses had done all the work to get the tax parity and the greyhounds just benefited from the work of the horses. Not really the way to win over a crowd of greyhound participants. He also said he was impressed with Tony Mestrov. I got the impression he did not want to listen to us but thought we should just accept whatever reforms they decided were best for us. I hope I am proved wrong on this initial impression. They have been on the road for awhile so maybe he is just showing the stress of hearing the same thing from participants too many times.

John Keniry did not speak but I think he has the respect of all participants anyway.

Clare Petre did not speak but was taking extensive notes as participants spoke that suggests to me she is also willing to take on board what we have to say.

We have a State Election in 11 months time, and Gladys & her cronies are feeling plenty of heat. We need to apply pressure on the Racing Minister Toole NOW!! Come March 2019, and the Lib/Nats retain power BYE BYE Greyhound Racing. We need to know where we stand NOW. Not promises into the future. GWIC dead-set snowball job

It was posted in the Hunter Valley Trainers Forum (special group of approx. 200) on Facebook and another forum first thing Saturday morning.

The Illawarra Mercury was plugging it last night

EXTERNAL LINK

The Govt wants accountability, look at its record !

They are trying to justify their program to severely reduce the number of tracks by making it extremely difficult to breed and to remain in the industry. Its been happening for three years and longer. They have the right people in the job, from Govt departments to GWIC and GRNSW, to do it. Its documented.

The Code of Practice will have new features. It will set minimum standards. The first draft has been developed and the Animal Welfare Committee is reviewing it. This came as a shock to me as I though the Animal Welfare Committee was writing it. I asked Alan Brown after the meeting who had written it and he said GRNSW. There will be new requirements around socialisation and reporting obligations at various stages. Owners will need to have a retirement plan for their greyhound from the very beginning. From birth the greyhound must be thought of as a pet and how they will achieve that at the end of racing. I was left feeling very concerned that it is going to be an unworkable Code dictated by animal rights groups with very little say from participants. I hope I am wrong but I guess time will tell.

There will be new licence categories and accreditation schemes attached to each of those. Alan Brown said that it should not affect us but new people in the industry. However, Judy Lind mentioned that current licence periods will be extended in part because we will need access to the education providers and top-up education services etc. To me that sounded like we will be impacted not just new people to the industry. Again, I guess time will tell.

There will be tougher penalties for animal welfare abuses.

On the puppy bond they clearly got the impression we were not happy. Nothing new to add here from what I posted previously.

Thresholds, especially cobalt, were mentioned by participants. Judys background in ASADA was brought up as positive in that she understood the testing etc.

They said they were there for the benefit of participants, dogs and to rebuild public confidence. Alan Brown made a few comments along the lines of you need us, without us you wont have an industry. He kept mentioning community expectations. It was not clear who defined those expectations. (One participant did point out that 9% of people who vote greens are not community expectations). I got the impression the expectations have been defined by the McHugh Report, The Reform Panel recommendations and the current government.

There were not a lot of details in what they were saying. In a way that is good, we get to have a say before the details are worked out. However, I left with no confidence that we will have an industry in the future. They gave no evidence of anything that could provide certainty for us or anything to suggest they will actually be different from the previous administrations we have had.

For future reference, this is rubbish: "He said at one point that the horses had done all the work to get the tax parity and the greyhounds just benefited from the work of the horses".

1. Certainly V'Landys & co campaigned for equality with Victoria etc but that was no more than anyone else had done.
2. GRNSW in various ways also campaigned, not least as an overflow from efforts to achieve Fair Share - ie it would be one way of evening things up if you are not going to intervene in the IDC split argument.
3. Grant plucked the 10% figure out of an IER study which had nothing to do with turnover, efficiency, equity, etc, and specifically said so. The study was into assets employed by the racing industry so if anything, it implied that the dogs were more efficient than horses in the way they gained a return on assets. Disgracefully, Newson supported Grant in this decision whereas a proper representative of the industry would have challenged it.
4. Brown has form. Mostly gallops. Check his background.

In passing, any reference to McHugh claiming "community expectations" is also rubbish. He made no effort to actually determine what that meant by questioning, research or any other method. He just made it up.

I agree that his statement about the tax parity was rubbish.

The IER Report was a joke. Lets not forget the first time The Championships were run it did not justify the amount of money the government had put into it. Then suddenly this report said how much it helps the economy because of things like women buying hats to wear to the races.

At the time of the report no one challenged it because no one realised it would be used for anything. Then suddenly the horses were using it to justify them, yet again, getting our money.

I am also aware of how much work the greyhounds were doing to get the tax parity. They were under the impression they would get 18%. The first we heard of it being only 10% was when there was an email from the horses (to ATC members etc), gloating about what a good deal they were getting. There were then lots of meeting with politicians before the legislation passed but apparently the deal had already been done so no changes were made. (I think Paul Newson was in charge at that point at GRNSW so it was the GBOTA that did this) The SFFP and Fred Nile both put up amendments. I remember watching as it passed the upper house. Dr Kaye from the Greens said something like whilst normally he would have supported the amendments of the SFFP and Christian Democrats he did not believe the greyhound industry would be around for very long anyways so there was no point.

I do wonder exactly what the horses did to get such a good deal.