Anyone who's had any experience with whelping puppies will know how strong & how much these little fellows wriggle & squirm, when they're fighting for a 'TIT'.

Legs will simply get caught behind collars, causing STRESS & BROKEN LIMS.

Where the bl00dy hell were these DO-GOODERS when god was giving out brains?? Wiping their @r$3s by the looks of it.

We all need to stop throwing marshmallows & start throwing stones if we're going to be continually ignored.

AS Geoff stated on the previous page, it says 3-16 weeks. Don't think they're saying to whack them on as soon as theyre 3 weeks old, it just means from that period onwards, when suitable, start teaching them.

Most of the stuff seems pretty straight forward, and is done by most people now anyway. It's just been written down to make official. Most good establishments already do 90% of these things as it's common sense

Ihope you are right Geoff, I see the compliance / record keeping as the most difficult component for busy hands on participants.

Agree, it is miles better than the original COP proposal but that should not mean you automatically accept the second, especially when there is glaring nonsense included.

I understand the concept of "don't rock the boat" but I don't agree with it.
You gain no respect from doing that and you only make it easier to be steamrolled in the future.

So, back to my point and that is some person/s who compiled this COP actually thought it possible to teach a 3 WEEK old puppy to begin lead training.
What is worse is that whoever was responsible for editing the COP to make it practical, didn't.
They either have no idea of canine husbandry or it was for another reason.
Neither possibility is acceptable to anyone.
At best it is just plain sloppy and to accept it and fob it off is just as sloppy.
You might rue the day if a zealous activist turned enforcer holds you to the letter of the law.
Whoever enforces the COP has every right to refer to it AS IT IS WRITTEN.

Read the report again and remember what I just said.

Up to you.

Good luck.

You know what I reckon, after November 24th 2018 none of them will be there and this furphy will be put to bed.

The only thing I will point out is that if you go to the Table on page 27 where it has minimum requirements for the different age brackets being taught to walk on a lead is in the 8-16 weeks age bracket.

It is the wording of the earlier section that says 'from 3-16 weeks of age greyhounds must' that is problematic and misleading. It really should say something like, by 16 weeks of age a greyhound should (and yes noticed I changed the must to should. I have major issues with the use of must. It does not allow for special circumstances or the idiosyncrasies of individual dogs. Having should doesnt get people off the hook it just means you need a reasonable explanation if you are not doing something.)

How on earth am I suppose to be able to read the COP without smiling crazily all the way through it now, with all of the great visions that you have evoked, not to mention John singing all of the baby songs in the background - what hope is there!
I suppose it could be worse and he could be singing - your nothing but a hound dog!
Whatever, thanks for the memories.

Suggested songs for all stages of life, thought and inspiration.
from a person that has nothing better to do!

Heartbeat
enrique iglesias
(always good when pups are being born)

Needle in a Haystack
Dusty Springfield
(when you drop something that you really need)

I aint the one
The Angels
(you wish that someone would tell you)

Smokin' in the boys room
Brownsville Station
(after the births.....)

Time was
Canned Heat
(for those times you should be recording that data)

Pump up the Jam - make my day
Technotronic
(motivational music)

She's not there
Santana
(keeps escaping from whelping box)

Other songs:: to spread the love when your handling those little ones:::

I think I love you
the Partridge Family

My cherie Amour
Stevie Wonder

Brown Eyed girl
Van Morrison

An Old Fashioned Love Song
Three Dog Night

Don't forget:::

You'll never Walk Alone
Gerry & the Pacemakers
(especially up those stairs)

The Number One Hit::::::::::::
I've got you under my Skin
Michael Buble
(no need to explain other than those little rascals)

Other songs available:::

Laughter in the rain
Neil Sedaka
(what else can you do when you get caught in the downpour, you and your dog/s)

Just a few more:::

Let you go
Pete Murray
(good idea if you want them to catch the titty lure)

Round, Round
Sugababies
(helps with the corners)

Fly too high - run too fast
Janis Ian
(some of them, just can't help themselves, those sight hound puppies)

You wear it well
Rod Stewart
(playing dress ups with those rugs with those cute little numbers)

The Last Time - I got burned like this
Robert Clay
( hmm I think the connection starts with a "V")

It's never ending the playlist, but here's to a happy tune !

Sing
Carpenters

the time frame for implementation i think is more than generous ,

id say we will do our own EHMP for the establishment we have here, get it vet and GRV approved , should make it easier for us as we dont race , only breed and rear our own stock ,

i see a bit of discontent with the puppy 3/16 week collars/leads etc
i just think the code is trying to make the point of this important part of the pups life ,

all our pups are collared and lead trained over the 8/12 week period
and im pretty sure if everyone had the pups trained to walk on leads by the time they were earbranded that should satisfy the code ,

id even recommend that a welfare officer attend each earbranding and check that pups are lead trained and sign off on that part of their education ,

the change to fencing in the new code compared to the old draft will save participants a lot of money ,

i also see some people confused with the difference between perimeter and boundary fencing re the second escape ,

i also understand that the code means different things for different people , but within the time frame i think everyone who still wants to enjoy the sport should be able to comply ,

A lot of the problems with it have simple fixes. If this version had again gone to the industry for consultation then I am sure they would have been fixed. Given that this isnt in until 2020 I dont know why the industry wasnt given another look at it. As Michael Geraghty pointed out people are entitled to refer to the code as written. Therefore it is important to get the little things right.

I also want to see the evidence for things such as being able to walk on a lead by 16 weeks of age. Have there been studies done to show that those greyhounds taught lead training by 16 weeks have a higher rates of making the racetrack and higher rates of being rehomed as pets than a greyhound who is taught at say 6 months or 8 months?

I am not against the EHMPs, but I think as written they are a huge administrative task (some of it appears to be doubling up with the treatment records) and are not a cost effective measure to achieve better welfare outcomes. If you are a professional you can just push the cost onto the owners but for smaller hobbyists this is not an option. Again if there had been industry consultation a better method may have been devised. For example when kennel inspections are conducted GRV sight and sign off on them, maybe even help write them if needed. Many of the things in there are what I got asked verbally in NSW when they did my last kennel inspection, and they wrote it on the record of inspection of which I got a copy.

I just think when writing a Code of Practice that has to be used by an industry it needs to be done correctly. Close enough, doable, mostly ok, better than the first draft, are not acceptable when it is something this important.

allowing to you to do your own EHMPs is allowing you to practically write your own code , to suit your needs ,

its a commonsense code , and some times commonsense is easier in deed than it is in print

as i said before , here in vic there is a lot and i mean a lot that are already exceeding the code requirements ,

sure there is a bit more paperwork/reporting/record keeping etc but every business has encountered that over the years ,

im in the building and construction industry and we have have been putting up with this type of paperwork for the last 15/20 years ,

i think here in vic things are going along pretty well , good prizemoney , breeders bonus , some breeding fees waived for now ,

breeding numbers are well up , there is still things to be done its a work in progress , all this is only my opinion of course and ive been wrong plenty of times lol for now ill bow out of the code of practice debate ,

i hope everyone here in vic can work with it , and continue to enjoy the dogs ,

That's it in a nutshell Michael.

To SOME...greyhounds are a business but to MOST, it's a hobby. I repeat A HOBBY.

If I wanted another BUSINESS, GREYHOUND RACING wouldn't be an option as very few make any money. It's more for fun & that 15 minutes of fame...should it happen.

That's why people are leaving in droves.

Put the FUN back into Greyhound Racing & they'll come flocking back.....But I can't see that happening due to those that think they no best.

I cant comment on the detail but the principle of allowing yet another Vic government department into the racing game does worry me.

Once that happens, bureaucracies start puffing out their chests, like peacocks fluffing up their feathers to attract a mate, or banks getting into businesses they are not good at.

The inevitable result is more regulation, more staff, less efficiency and higher costs. It should be fought at every possible opportunity - every new rule, every sentence, otherwise they will nickel and dime you to death, simply because they can.

I have long opposed the split of commercial and integrity functions for these reasons. Well, thats water under the bridge now but what they do from day to day is not. Every new regulation, every sentence, should be queried and fought against from the start. Otherwise they will keep on and on and on. The more they succeed, the more powerful they will become. The end result does not matter to them, its the process that they like. The bigger and messier it is, the more they get paid.

Beware!

I thought the old code was administered by the dept of agriculture and others as is this one. - but to that dept greyhounds are a misfit breed that arnt categorised as live stock. this ofcourse is an advantage in the eyes of the greyhound as they are not dragged down to Portland and stacked doubled deckered on a boat and shipped off to far away places in temperatures of 42% and thrown overboard half dead.

rather they are classified as pets (even before rehoming) but are not treated like ordinary pets who are permitted to roam the streets without vaccinations, undernourished and often in a poor state of health due to mistreatment. community expectations & social license at work

regardless of this there is sufficient time prior to implementation for additional consultation and public comment

this is what the industry will be stuck with regardless of what happens in november

The Victorian shadow minister for racing, Tim Bull, has taken the long stick to racing minister Martin Pakula, labelling him ignorant and out-of-touch following todays Public Accounts and Estimates hearing.

At todays PAEC hearing, Mr Pakula was unable to answer basic questions on the recently-released that has been slammed by trainers, breeders and industry representatives as unworkable, Mr. Bull said in a press release.

The Minister was unable to respond to questions on how he expected industry to meet requirements of the Code described by industry as overreach.

In 2017, the NSW Greyhound Racing Industry Alliance told AustralianRacingGreyhound that the proposed Victorian Code of Practice is clearly unreasonable, unworkable and potentially unviable.

Two specific points that Bull claimed the Labor Government has been unable to clarify included:

An air change rate of a minimum of eight changes per hour (every 7.5 minutes) for greyhounds in enclosed pens.
How the Government planned to enforce the threat of sanctions for pup bullying, as opposed to pups naturally sorting out their pecking order.
Bull accused the Racing Minister of being unable to answer questions on those specific questions Pakula referred them to the Agriculture Minister at the hearing.

Bull stated that a Liberal Nationals Victorian government would review the Code to restore common sense to the guidelines.

Owners and breeders are genuinely concerned as they are facing sanctions over these matters they deserve transparency from the Andrews Labor Government, Bull went on to say in his release.

When even the Minister who oversees the industry and claims this Code has the right balance has no idea how it will work, what hope have industry participants got?

Owners and trainers feel this Code is unworkable and unrealistic, but Daniel Andrews and Martin Pakula are forcing this Code on them despite concerns the requirements will force grassroots trainers from the industry.