You must also note that this proposal was first looked at by the panel early in the year, while our president was on holidays. Of course they wouldn't let us on the panel. The next panel meeting this proposal was again spoken about. Only one person on that panel has a interest in this matter. All other people only own dogs and are not trainers. Which beckons the real question, did they truly understand this policy before releasing it under thoroughbred site in RQ. Never the less you should be asking people on the panel of why it wasn't nipped in the but at that level. In conclusion I am very proud of how far members of come. People are reading this stuff and responding. No longer can RQ or QRIC sneak stuff out without people knowing. hats off to Qld Owners and Trainers.

That will never happen Kev

Government authorities have multiple stakeholders on board now i.e. RSPCA, Vet Industry Reps, Greyhound Racing controlling Body Rep and a Greyhound Participant Rep

The only good thing about it, is that as a document is released the stakeholders, including the participants have a right to respond to the proposal being promoted and that feedback needs to be acted upon by whatever panel or committee is in place

NOW is the time to respond and deliver your criticisms of it

Don't waste any time!!

Dan,

Quite right - a great insight for someone from your highly skilled professions (or Proffessions, as Tony likes to call them).

The harder question is work out how can you stand up. It's relevant everywhere, not just in Qld. Plenty of good ideas (and bad ones) can be belted around the traps but they amount to nothing unless you have the means to influence authorities/governments.

By far the best approach I have seen around the country over the years is from QGOBTA but even that lacks sufficient power and oomph to influence outcomes. So-called "consultative" groups are of minimal value - at best, they might cause minor changes to rules the authority has already made up its mind about.

The missing ingredients are the technical and legal means to challenge what authorities/governments do - right from the time they first think of a change. But that effort needs financing as well as strong support from the troops.

This means expanding the role of QGOBTA and, where necessary, seeking donations via fees, crowd funding or white knights. You must have a lawyer on retainer to at least address improper claims - such as the nonsensical McSporran clause referred to on these pages - and get them struck out before they do any damage. Let them sit there and you will get white-anted to death.

The same principle applies to the faulty McHugh (or GA) numbers or the badly researched "overbreeding" by Milne.

Officialdom is always subject to errors, omissions and illogicalities - no matter what the subject. It's par for the course because they have different methods and objectives to real people. But you have to challenge them professionally and quickly. Never let them get up a head of steam.

If you lead out of the boxes you have doubled your chances of winning.

(Here's a tip: Weir likes to train his horses along the Warrnambool beach. But that's not an approved trial track, is it? Also, I am not sure if the figure 8 circuit at Albion Park is an approved trial track. But it is a nuisance because it hampers the proper design of the dog track. There must be thousands of other examples).

Dan,

Not really - the bureaucrats normally dominate the pollies.

Besides, Qld is surely good evidence that a change of colour does not help much.