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.

Rules Rules & MORE F#%K1Ng RULES.

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

Blow it out your bloody rear end.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.