home - to The Greyhound-Database
Home  |  Dog-Search  |  Tattoo  |  Races  |  Race Cards  |  Coursing  |  Tracks  |  Statistic  |  Testmating  |  Kennels  |  Fighting Fund  |           SHOP-UKFacebook
Login  |    |  add_race  |  add_coursing  |  add_dog  |  Membership  |  Advertising  |  Ask the Vet    Help  print pedigree    
Active-Sires  |  Sire-Pages  |  Which Sire?  |  Classifieds  |  Auctions  |  Photos  |  Videos  |  Library  |  Adoption  |  Forum  |  About_us  |  Site Usage

Welcome to the Greyhound Knowledge Forum

    Sponsored by:-   Rapidvite

The Greyhound-Data Forum has been created to act as a platform for greyhound enthusiasts to share information on this magnificent animal called a greyhound.

Greyhound-Data reserve the right to remove any post that is off topic, advertisements or opinions they consider to be offensive.

Please read the forum usage manual please note:

If you answer then please try to stay on topic. It's absolutely okay to answer in a broader scope but don't hijack posts by switching to something off topic.

In case you see an insulting post: DO NOT REPLY TO IT!
Use the report button to inform the moderators so that we can delete it.

Read more...

All TopicsFor SaleGD-WebsiteBreedingHealthRacingCoursingAdoptionBettingTalkLogin to post
Do you have questions about greyhound racing?
Do you need advice on how to train a greyhound?

QLD Private Traing Track impending debacle page  1 2 


John Watts
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 912
Dogs 6 / Races 6

05 Sep 2018 04:47


 (2)
 (1)

New restrictions are being mooted in QLD for the usage of private tracks,bullrings,runs etc being used on a personal basis on your own property in short you will be required to licence these tracks for personal use and RQ will require Insurance and them being placed on said policy as interested parties. It is yet another arrow shot from the pages of McSporran, and is ridiculous and overbearing, Public fee for service venues no problems but not private installations, All interested participant MUST please, contact RQ and vent at this silly proposal.

EXTERNAL LINK
Please take the time and respond.

Don't sit on your hands and take another blood pressure tablet, EMAIL today and give it to them, in a professional manner of course.




Steven Martin
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 6835
Dogs 172 / Races 66

05 Sep 2018 05:00


 (2)
 (2)

This is ludacris.

Rules Rules & MORE F#%K1Ng RULES.

What next???? A licence to own a bloody walking-machine.

Blow it out your bloody rear end.



John Watts
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 912
Dogs 6 / Races 6

05 Sep 2018 05:06


 (1)
 (0)

Sprint lanes, free gallop runs, bullrings, all included, your personal rights further eroded, please respond.


Brian Terry
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 710
Dogs 36 / Races 5

05 Sep 2018 06:04


 (2)
 (2)

Enough jumping thru hoops at every corner.

Kennel refurbishment is now required to turn it into a Swedish backpackers hostel.
Less rules & regulations.



Sandro Bechini
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 17273
Dogs 13974 / Races 1799

05 Sep 2018 06:05


 (3)
 (0)

Guys its very important that you rally together to protest against these rules

Governments are trying their very hardest to shrink this industry and this infringement of your rights should not be tolerated in any way shape or form

Please make yourselves heard


Bruce Teague
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 881
Dogs 0 / Races 0

05 Sep 2018 06:17


 (0)
 (0)

The time to do this was when McSporran reported and the government jumped on to anything they could see, regardless of its worth (which was not much).

Meanwhile, the subject is put up by RQ, not the government.

If the changes are not comparable to those for horses or pets, then rip into it legally.


Sandro Bechini
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 17273
Dogs 13974 / Races 1799

05 Sep 2018 06:22


 (0)
 (0)

Bruce Teague wrote:

The time to do this was when McSporran reported and the government jumped on to anything they could see, regardless of its worth (which was not much).

Meanwhile, the subject is put up by RQ, not the government.

If the changes are not comparable to those for horses or pets, then rip into it legally.

Bruce

The McSporran Report is much like the McHugh report, a licence to rip into the sport, therefore, it was never going to be stopped at that time

Also, RQ is a Government appointed body, its not Private Enterprise

RQ is asking for submissions regarding the proposed policy, if there is enough opposition to it by stakeholders then it could at least be modified to not include facilities used for private usage and only for those that the public can go to and where a fee is charged

In this industry in every State, there is a battle at every corner, therefore participants need to be prepared to respond against any type of activity that effectively denies them the ability to operate in a manner that keeps and trains their dogs by adding unnecessary costs and restrictions

This kind of licencing regime then brings up other issues.

E.G If it s a licenced facility, will the local council allow it to be on the property?

If its allowed will a Development Application and Fees need to be paid?

I cannot see a Regulatory Impact Statement released with this proposal?

EXTERNAL LINK

Such a ruling by RQ could have unintended consequences for participants

They need to be armed with that knowledge when they make their replies and submissions





John Watts
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 912
Dogs 6 / Races 6

05 Sep 2018 06:28


 (0)
 (0)

The section in McSporran relating to this was pointed at Public Venues, RQ has changed it to Private.


Kerry Griffin
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 36
Dogs 0 / Races 0

05 Sep 2018 07:51


 (0)
 (0)

Townsville greyhound track doesn't meet all their put forward requirements.



Kevin Wright
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 4771
Dogs 1 / Races 1

05 Sep 2018 08:39


 (0)
 (0)

John
Surely we all can now see the failings of the system.
Inequality, injustice, unfairness, and exploitation.

Saying it ainít fair, over and over again while you stand in front of a wrecking ball is kinda senseless, I think


Sidney Goodwin
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 6
Dogs 4 / Races 46

05 Sep 2018 08:59


 (1)
 (0)

spot on John. Our representative in the MacSporran panel, I believe is Adam Wallish. I don't think Mac Sporran was talking about Private facilities. He was taking Aim at RQ for their neglect with current public tracks.

This is direct aim at all public trainers with facilities. The guidelines for a track is ridiculous. 56 hp tractor. Fencing ect. QRIC have already put up Track Operator without the word public. Wondering who is writing the rules. 75 bucks to have one is another fee.




Valerie Glover
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 93
Dogs 2 / Races 0

05 Sep 2018 22:24


 (1)
 (0)

Hi Sandro Bob Here,, Yes Gov't Dept's Yesterday I get in the mail a letter from our NSW Roads & Maritime notifying me that I have 21 days to clean dirty topsides { bird droppings} from my boat on Lake Mcq.. because this is seen to be visually unsuitable for the area, as I have not been down as often using it fortnightly for a few days at a time , have had daughters wedding and now my own wife in intensive care in hospital, we are being over done {baked} by Local and Gov't Depts in no small way, We need to change our names Chan ? Chong I think we might be a lot safer, Bob Glover



John Watts
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 912
Dogs 6 / Races 6

06 Sep 2018 00:41


 (2)
 (0)

Following is the McSporran excerpt, the last sentence obviously points to the fact that it is intended for Commercial Providers and was designed to stop people using unregistered tracks/persons for fear of live baiting. How does it degenerate into a motion for people using private facilities requiring licenses. Its a farce.

Recommendation 15
74. The Commission recommends that the rules of racing be reviewed to ensure that
any activity of breaking in, pre-training, training or trialling is only permitted at
registered tracks and in the presence of a person registered as the operator of the
track or a person duly authorised by that person to supervise the activity.


Bruce Teague
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 881
Dogs 0 / Races 0

06 Sep 2018 01:25


 (0)
 (0)

Sandro,

Re ...

"The McSporran Report is much like the McHugh report, a licence to rip into the sport, therefore, it was never going to be stopped at that time

In this industry in every State, there is a battle at every corner, therefore participants need to be prepared to respond against any type of activity that effectively denies them the ability to operate in a manner that keeps and trains their dogs by adding unnecessary costs and restrictions."

All true enough, but it's also a question of tactics and timing.

And you should add the Milne report (Vic) to McHugh's and McSporran's. All three contained serious errors and badly thought out recommendations. All three people had no experience in greyhound racing or business and generally either had no expert advice or ignored any such advice put to them. McHugh had a QC with a significant environmental background doing the investigations and reporting to him (this was the "shut it down" man).

My point is that any objections to these reports were sporadic and late and they came from individuals, not meaningful bodies. In two cases (Milne and McHugh) the worrying decisions and recommendations were actually supported by the respective state greyhound authorities (eg overbreeding and euthanasia numbers).

The only saver was the Auditor General chastising Baird on his inaccurate numbers, etc, but that also was well after the shouting had died down.

The NSW Alliance allegedly looked at some legal aspects (but dropped them) but that also was long after the McHugh report was released.

Consequently, all the power was left with politicians and public servants or, in Qld, with a minority representative on the enlarged RQ board. They were riding the favourite because the public were horrified at the picture of live baiting/euthanasia, irrespective of what the "good" part of the industry was doing.

That has meant that bureaucrats could get away with blue murder. They could insist on white picket fences around the kennels if they wished and there is not a thing you could do about it. In Victoria, CEO Clayton even told participants that if they did not like the new housekeeping rules they should write in personally and say so. He had already bowed to another (non-racing) department on that subject.

All that is why Qld has now moved on to trial tracks etc. Remember, the more rules a bureaucrat has to administer, the more money he earns and the more powerful he becomes.

Effectively, the industry has allowed this to happen because of its failure to organise well or to take timely counter measures.

Overturning the Baird ban in NSW had little to do with greyhound racing and everything to do with an over-reach which would have worried tens of thousands of other business proprietors.

The only real solution is to get the government the hell out of greyhound racing, to install commercial discipline and accountability, and to let all the usual state laws do their work without introducing bias.

The way to achieve that is by forming an authoritative and professional body to force through change and keep government in line. Miners do it. Doctors do it. Teachers do it. Even the Greens try to do it. So should we. But always keep your own house in order.

Vive la revolution!



Kev Galloway
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 2300
Dogs 2 / Races 0

06 Sep 2018 02:36


 (2)
 (0)

Sidney Goodwin wrote:

spot on John. Our representative in the MacSporran panel, I believe is Adam Wallish. I don't think Mac Sporran was talking about Private facilities. He was taking Aim at RQ for their neglect with current public tracks.

This is direct aim at all public trainers with facilities. The guidelines for a track is ridiculous. 56 hp tractor. Fencing ect. QRIC have already put up Track Operator without the word public. Wondering who is writing the rules. 75 bucks to have one is another fee.


Straight out of the Animals Queensland how to shut down greyhound racing manual.



John Watts
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 912
Dogs 6 / Races 6

06 Sep 2018 05:09


 (2)
 (0)

Recommendation 15 was pointed at Commercial Operators in the wake of live baiting allegations at unregistered tracks advertising breaking in trialling on a commercial basis, no private facilities were implicated and therefore changes mooted are not in line with the spirit of the recommendation by McSporran.

2. Sprint lanes, free galloping paddocks, long runs are not tracks and rely on the motivation of the animal to be effective, they are not trialling.

3. Country participants rely on their infrastructure because they do not have the option of commercial operator's to trial dogs, this proposal unfairly burdens country participants financially while city participants enjoy commercial tracks.

4. Many country participants are pensioners who have used their private facilities for decades in their pursuit of Greyhound Racing now they are to be burdened with a tranche of new hurdles to jump to continue a practice they have been privately doing for 30 years with no issues.

5. Registering does not mean onerous and financial imposition need apply, it simply means in this case RQ needs to be aware of its existence.

6. At time of trainer licence renewals, we should simply be asked what facilities we have, we have then registered their existence with RQ. No further action is needed.

7. RQ and QRIC are overthinking the McSporran proposals, KISS reckoning should be applied, there is no need for onerous registration requirements when ticking a box on my licence renewals would suffice.

8. The greyhound consultative committee is not representative of the industry as the industry is not consulted by them,no free thinking person would agree to the impositions being put forward in this proposal, it is even less representative when a QGBOTA delegate was not allowed to be present when Steve Lennon was travelling overseas.

John Watts
Bundaberg




Kev Galloway
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 2300
Dogs 2 / Races 0

06 Sep 2018 05:43


 (1)
 (1)

John Watts wrote:

New restrictions are being mooted in QLD for the usage of private tracks,bullrings,runs etc being used on a personal basis on your own property in short you will be required to licence these tracks for personal use and RQ will require Insurance and them being placed on said policy as interested parties. It is yet another arrow shot from the pages of McSporran, and is ridiculous and overbearing, Public fee for service venues no problems but not private installations, All interested participant MUST please, contact RQ and vent at this silly proposal.

EXTERNAL LINK
Please take the time and respond.

Don't sit on your hands and take another blood pressure tablet, EMAIL today and give it to them, in a professional manner of course.


The Racing Qld greyhound Board member should resign immediately,this discriminatory garbage should never have been allowed to see daylight.


Bruce Teague
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 881
Dogs 0 / Races 0

06 Sep 2018 06:46


 (0)
 (1)

John Watts wrote:

Following is the McSporran excerpt, the last sentence obviously points to the fact that it is intended for Commercial Providers and was designed to stop people using unregistered tracks/persons for fear of live baiting. How does it degenerate into a motion for people using private facilities requiring licenses. Its a farce.

Recommendation 15
74. The Commission recommends that the rules of racing be reviewed to ensure that
any activity of breaking in, pre-training, training or trialling is only permitted at
registered tracks and in the presence of a person registered as the operator of the
track or a person duly authorised by that person to supervise the activity.

John,

It is not a matter of adding private tracks to the licensed list. That clause specifically says there cannot be private trialling under any circumstances. All the mentioned activities must be conducted at a registered trial track. Ridiculous, but that's what it says.

However, it is only a recommendation so that is why you have been asked to comment on a draft rule.

That is why I suggested elsewhere that any outcome from an inquiry must be carefully analysed and opposed AT THE TIME the report is released, not after bureaucrats have fiddled with it and come up with good or bad rules.

Your objection should therefore be to McSporran as well as to the proposed rule.

All the more because the McSporran clause is rank stupidity - eg you cannot do any sort of training at your place, but only at a registered track. A strong and successful attack will weaken the validity of the entire McSporran report, so it may help you later as well.

This is an other case where the normal laws and various inspection rights can be used by authorities (and RSPCA) to check on what any animal supervisor is doing. But they are adding to the trainers burden by making up costly rules to go much further. The example swabbing 80 dogs at Albion is another illustration of excessive use of power. Call the bluff.





John Watts
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 912
Dogs 6 / Races 6

06 Sep 2018 07:57


 (1)
 (0)

Bruce at the time McSporran was released the code was under threat everywhere, when it was apparent Qld was spared from the closure that was threatening NSW we in QLD saw a light,the thing is from memory the report wasnt released in draft for comment, it delivered to Govt and formed the framework for the predicament we are in now. 20/20 hindsight would see your action followed, we werent exactly in a position of power to achieve anything at the time.



John Watts
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 912
Dogs 6 / Races 6

06 Sep 2018 08:11


 (0)
 (0)

Bruce,I agree, when QRIC or other institution is given the opportunity to formulate rules and then enforce them, you are on the road to oppression. The policeman should have no input into the formulation of rules only policing.

I know I now feel part of an oppressed minority subject to extraordinary scrutiny and invasions of my privacy simply because I want to race dogs, it is draining.

posts 29page  1 2