Then, they'll send you a letter telling you what the consequences of relinquishing your license is, and ask you if you really, really want to quit.

Then you send your license in and fill in a form.

Personally, I just couldn't be bothered.

Gary, he also mentioned going to Harold Park in 1956 at the Richmond meeting. Seemed to think it showed that we should accept him as a greyhound person.

Yes, there were conditions and some were built into the Iemma Reform Panel Recommendations. The Alliance and GBOTA can't navigate around it. Mr Scott was on the Reform Panel. The Alliance gave guarantees.

The Alliance Guarantees were in September 2016.

Mr Iemma's Reform Panel Recommendations have been around since March 2017.

Yes, all of us didn't agree with them and we will suffer the consequences.

There were no conditions attached to announcing the ban being overturned. Mike Baird may have privately promised things to groups like the RSPCA (I'm sure he did) but officially there were no conditions.

The guarantees were not accepted at the time. Once rejected they were off the table. These were not part of the ban being overturned.

The Reform Panel recommendations came after. If you read them, they are recommendations, lots of should etc. There is no indication in there that they must be followed. In many cases, like the puppy bond, it also gave the reasons why they should have them. Meaning if the reasons no longer exist the recommendation is pointless anyway. The government had them before they wrote the legislation so any that had to be followed were put into the legislation.

There are many things that are recommended to the government by bodies, that are accepted, that are never implemented. There is no obligation to do it. They are just using it as an excuse. Probably because they realise the reforms are actually going to be detrimental to the industry so they can't pretend they are doing it for our benefit. Instead they say there have to because of these recommendations.

I get the anger at the Alliance and the GBOTA. The recommendations are terrible and I know I personally would never have agreed to them, even if it meant the ban staying in place.

The way I see it now though is we have two choices on the recommendations.

We can get either angry at the Alliance and the GBOTA for the recommendations and let the GWIC do whatever they want to us by using the recommendations as an excuse, which means accepting the industry is stuffed.

Or we can fight against these recommendations, let the GWIC know the real situation and that the McHugh Report, which these recommendations appear to be based on, was just lies. Let them know that if they want to do what is best for the industry then there are better ways to do it, that will have better outcomes for participants and better welfare outcomes for greyhounds.

I know that I am not willing to go down without a fight. From what I heard at the Richmond roadshow it is clear that other participants are also not going to just let the GWIC bring in ridiculous rules without making their voices heard.

I will also point out that doesn't mean letting the GBOTA and Alliance off the hook. Part of fighting against these recommendations is pointing out that we were not properly represented on the Reform Panel so we should not be held to whatever was agreed to on our behalf.

Your plan to have AWU involved has merit. Are you going to join a political party to fight for the cause ?

Please dont make this personal. I am not nave. I said they were submitted but they were rejected. Once rejected they were off the table. Our side did not put them up again. The other side may have used them against us but our side did not put them up again.

People can choose to fight it in their own way. I will not judge anyone for how they choose to fight it, as long as they choose to fight. I have chosen to do it via the AWU, as have many others, but I do not judge anyone who does not wish to join. Whether people join the AWU and/or the SFFP (of which I am not a member) or simply write to local mps or GRNSW or GWIC or turn up at the roadshows and someone make their voices heard is up to them and I applaud everyone who is fighting in any way that they choose to. I will not question people as to what they are doing to fight this, I only ask that they do something.

Next Road/Show GWIC: Settle down, nothing much is changing. WE are here to HELP you! (As was Mestrov/Brown) Feel a bit like the chook on the chopping block. Settle down sweetie this will be all over in a second.

We are happy to have you. I told you before youre smart and we want the same thing.
.
EXTERNAL LINK

Surely it must be made plain.

Neither GBOTA or the Alliance or Scott or Gordon or their committees were entitled to offer guarantees about the industry. It is a simple fact that many people offered support in general but not in particular. Many others abstained or did not bother or preferred some other approach. No vote is sustainable under those conditions.

The only group legally entitled to represent the industry at the time was GRNSW (ha ha). Anything else is advisory at best.

The minimum the government/GRNSW should have done prior to any decision was to either (a) send drafts to all and request comments, or (b) circulate a questionnaire to all license holders. The former would have been preferable because not all interested parties are licensed. Note that the much maligned WDA adopted the multiple approach.

In other words, government cannot claim the "industry" was consulted at the Reform Panel level. The industry was never asked.

Separately, and apart from the above, the Panel's performance can be criticised on two other grounds; first that the RSPCA rep was biased in that he had repeatedly pushed for a shutdown of greyhound racing, and secondly, the RSPCA has no brief to address the worth of racing as such, only of welfare issues (note the Vic branch was told by government to keep out of racing discussions for exactly that reason).

So, what you said, only more so.

Bruce, agree with you though to be honest I have some issues with the RSPCA being involved in the welfare side given all that has happened.

Again I'll mention those animal welfare models and point out the RSPCA promotes the Five Freedoms, which it appears the GWIC are pushing too with this constant idea of minimum standards rather than welfare outcomes. I still haven't got a reply from Alan Brown to my questions on the models.

The DPI recently learned what a disaster the Five Freedoms model can have with all of its unintended consequences. Hopefully this means groups like the RSPCA have been discredited enough that they are not taken seriously when it comes to our Code of Practice.

I have some hope because I know that our rep, Sandro, has a good grasp of the different models so won't be fooled by whatever rubbish the RSPCA put up. Wish I could say the same for the GRNSW rep but the Reform Panel recommendations suggest otherwise.

You have summed up my feelings perfectly Terry.

A problem we have is that until this point all GWIC know about greyhound racing has come from the government and GRNSW.

So from Tonys interview in the recorder it appears he is committed to there being greater transparency at GRNSW, and GRNSW are dedicated to the welfare of greyhounds.

He must have been turning up to the wrong office for the past 20 weeks if he thinks GRNSW care about transparency and welfare.

He also seems to believe that the Reform Panel and its recommendations are evidence that the government supports us.

TM I would encourage people to judge the Government on its actions to support the greyhound industry and its 4.000 plus participants since the proposed ban was overturned. The Greyhound Industry Reform Panel was set up to consider what was needed in order to ensure the ongoing prosperity of the industry, and the Government subsequently adopted all but one of the recommendations.

Was this interview a satire? He cannot seriously think that the Reform Panel and the recommendations are proof the government is supportive of us. Most of us quite rightly see it as proof they want to shut us down. It wasnt set up to help us, it was set up so the government could save face and say, see they are all bad people see how much they need to reform we didnt do the wrong thing shutting them down.

In his last answer he stated this gem the future of the greyhound industry is bright and promising. It is not one of over-regulation and suppression.

Again I think he must have been turning up to the wrong office for the last 20 weeks. I know I have personally been the victim of over-regulation and suppression by GRNSW and I am not alone. If he honestly believes that then he should apologise to everyone they have charged for caring about the welfare of their dogs, or those they have branded as cheats because they were over thresholds that were hastily arrived at, or because the drug testing is so sensitive it is picking up inadvertent contamination that has no impact on the dogs performance, or those that have been charged because they were upset at stewards because of the stewards being overzealous in their policing of us.

This followed protests and petitions from 22,000 owners of various sorts (SMH 19 Apr).

The subject is different in that these were individuals being lumbered with regulations designed for puppy farms etc. However, the process is similar - ie no taxation without representation.

Any response that the Reform Panel did that job must be rejected out of hand - specifically - and with it any sense that Scott represented the industry.

I think we need to push the point that the Reform Panel was not properly structured.

Make some noise. Its political!

What WE ALL need to do is march on GRNSW OFFICES and dont leave there until we get some truths in writing an not leave until we are satisfied,by splitting US up at different venues for the roadshow plays in their favour,WE need one strong GROUP with a couple of good speakers,its the only way we MAY get anywhere Mick