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.
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.
Graeme Beasley Australia (Verified User) Posts 3265 Dogs 27 / Races 5 15 Nov 2018 03:04
(5)
(0)
Bruce Teague wrote:
Ryan Vanderwert wrote:
Bruce Teague wrote:
.....However, it is relevant to consider the unchallenged implication and finding that live baiting and probably its location were common knowledge to most or all of the industry. In fact, in evidence before the Qld Inquiry, a sitting board member (and owner) said precisely that. Would Vic be any different?
Collateral damage is never fair but it happens.
Bruce you keep harping back to LB...........most of us are well past that.
This is more about how PEOPLES civil rights have been traded for what appears to be political gain.
What normally happens when collateral damage is apparent or discovered, is that the aggrieved parties are compensated.......how do you think that's going for the victims of 'collateral damage'?
Ryan,
It is now clear - following the VCAT decision - that Anderton was adhering to the rules at the time. They have since been changed. That closes a particular chapter (perhaps).
More relevant is the big picture, but first I would add a personal point. Events of the past three years have played a big part in destroying the enjoyment I have had in this industry over half a century. No doubt it has affected others in the same way.
Consider the position of one sector of the industry - trainers. And remember they are just one sector, not the beginning and end of everything.
They break down into three categories:
(A) Those who sought out and paid for live baiting at places like Tooradin. (B) Those who patronised places like Tooradin but did not utilise live baiting. (C) Those who knew what was going on at Tooradin, did not take part at all but did nothing about it.
My guess is that those three groups accounted for a huge percentage of the trainer group - maybe all of them.
For the first two groups I have nothing but disgust, for the last group I am very disappointed. It's not just a matter of breaking a rule but of insulting the community in which they live and on which they depend for their livelihood. Abuse of animals - any animals - is contrary to the spirit as well as the law in that community. And, whether dead or alive, those animals have been abused.
As for "harping back to LB...........most of us are well past that" - no you're not, not by a long way. Numerous trainers are still complaining about the ban on skins on lures, still talking about the FOL, still rubbishing the suggestions from WDA, still complaining about extra regulations. They just won't admit guilt. They won't take responsibility.
Even were trainers to suddenly turn squeaky clean, the public will not accept that. The average man or woman in the street does not believe it and it will take a least another generation to reverse the trend.
You see, at the core, Mike Baird was right, even though he got all his facts wrong (as did McHugh). The community objected to wholesale euthanasia, despite the fact that it was (and is) a legal function, despite the fact that RSPCA and local Councils did likewise. The majority see greyhound racing as a bloodthirsty sport. Live baiting cemented that in their minds - and in the platform adopted by AA, ABC, Fairfax, Greens, etc. You can't just erase that by saying we don't do it any more.
The industry's first task is to change the industry's (ie trainers') culture. The second is to take that refreshed culture out to the public. GAP is great but it must be multiplied a hundredfold, preferably with trainers leading the way.
Mike Baird is (was) responsible to the public. So are you, unless you want to commit suicide.
In fact, if you really want to analyse the industry, first have a long think about why Baird and Grant developed a personal dislike of the greyhound. What would have caused that?
Bruce, there's a fourth category, although I suspect you already know it and have chosen to leave it out. WE trialed dogs at Tooradin and elsewhere. WE didn't know live baiting happened there or anywhere else. WE didn't even know what live baiting was - we thought it was throwing a rabbit into a pen for pups to chase and kill (quickly), which IMO is more humane than the LEGAL option of poisoning, but is something WE'd never done. Sometimes it's best to keep your ignorant opinions to yourself.
David Ward Australia (Verified User) Posts 40 Dogs 0 / Races 0 15 Nov 2018 03:58
(0)
(2)
Oh please stop u didn't know what live baiting was lmao
Ryan Vanderwert Australia (Verified User) Posts 5957 Dogs 8 / Races 0 15 Nov 2018 04:05
(4)
(0)
Bruce Teague wrote:
.........Baird and Grant are out not because of an issue with the dogs, although that started them off.....
who wlda thought
Bruce Teague wrote:
.....Baird and Grant are out not because of an issue with the dogs, although that started them off, but because the public were furious at him banning an entire industry. They realised that was over the top,.......
Anyway lets get back on topic. I do not understand you trying to justify these bureacrats actions/tactics when you, yourself, have often condemned them as incapable of running this industry in the manner that it shld be run ..........then you come onto a greyhound forum trying to defend their actions in this topic.
You cant have it both ways. Do you like arguing for the sake of arguing ? what gives?
If you're going to respond pls do it in relation to the topic. Please. Cheers.
PS. i'd be interested in hearing your take re what will happen from here on in, with other innocent parties vs the bureaucrats and what their(ptb) future tactics might be.
Graeme Beasley Australia (Verified User) Posts 3265 Dogs 27 / Races 5 15 Nov 2018 05:01
(2)
(0)
david ward wrote:
Oh please stop u didn't know what live baiting was lmao
What did you just read? I'll say it again because you aren't very good at comprehension, I didn't know that people still put live animals on a lure. You did I presume, so what did you do about it. Maybe you're an anti that believes everything he reads.
PS. That last sentence in my response to Bruce goes to you as well.
Charles W Mizzi Australia (Verified User) Posts 684 Dogs 1 / Races 1 15 Nov 2018 05:03
(0)
(0)
Anthony McVicker wrote:
Some massive egg on faces today.
I cant wait to see the public statement from Alan Clayton
DONT'T HOLD YOUR BREATH!
There is a new Chief Steward, did you know. O, that's right no media release as yet. Good luck participants, ya gunna need it!
There are two ex Chief Stewards still there, wonder why neither were reinstated after what ever they did.
Bruce Teague Australia (Verified User) Posts 2092 Dogs 0 / Races 0 15 Nov 2018 05:31
(0)
(0)
Graeme,
Ok, I hear what you are saying.
Ryan,
The short answer is both.
This thread is about live baiting and how it has been handled. Obviously, that directly involves both authorities and trainers.
But you then have to go further and consider how it all affects the industry at large and all its stakeholders. That brings in government, politics, anti-racing groups, the public, punters and gamblers (they are very different) and anyone you like to name.
Contributors here claim Anderton and others were hard done by and maybe they are right. I don't want to comment on that because it is a complex matter and I have not got all the material in front of me. Instead I commented on the final decision and left it at that.
What we do know is that previous authorities did a sloppy job of policing live baiting - which has always been illegal in any forum you pick. I have said that often.
We also know that, generally speaking, there is a reluctance amongst trainers to accept outside or different views and some even to want to continue live baiting and related practices. Why? Because they have said so and so have various Inquiries and Investigations, some including expert people. The proportions are small or large depending on the actual question - ie they vary.
OK, the boom was lowered post AA/ABC action in 2015 (part of which was itself illegal) and so the industry got thumped. Its form was splattered all over the front pages, boards and CEOs disappeared, fines, DQs and jail terms followed. I applauded.
Other stuff followed, notably official inquiries and government action/interference, including a proposed ban, and probably excessive extra rule-making. But that is starting to get off topic and is a mighty subject on its own.
However, let me note that I have been severely critical of state authorities and Inquiry reports in three states for a variety of reasons. But, by and large, I have spoken only lightly about the contribution by trainers. I have now changed that approach because it is clear to me that not only are they major factors in the poor image of the industry but they are not amenable to changing tack - or not enough of them are.
In summary, I have not defended GRV actions or even addressed them in the context of this topic. I have adopted a view about live baiting facilities and their use or not by trainers. And also (separately) about the attitude to skins on lures. I stick by what I said above.
Whatever, unless both authorities and trainers look out the window they will never learn what the weather is like.
The industry has problems but neither authorities nor trainers are seriously looking for solutions.
You tell me to keep to the topic but then ask me about the future. Fair go, mate. Besides, I have answered that general question several times on this site. If you are referring to Tooradin episodes then I have answered that question, too. I am not qualified to comment about individual cases but I have expressed an opinion about the principles.
Kevin Wright Australia (Verified User) Posts 5708 Dogs 1 / Races 1 15 Nov 2018 05:40
(1)
(0)
Quote .. Contributors here claim Anderton and others were hard done by and maybe they are right. I don't want to comment on that because it is a complex matter and I have not got all the material in front of me. Instead I commented on the final decision and left it at that.
What we do know is that previous authorities did a sloppy job of policing live baiting - which has always been illegal in any forum you pick. I have said that often.
Bruce ... It's not a case of MAYBE..bruce these people were 100% set up by the GRV it's now proven in a court of LAW ...
The GRV failed in there job... not the participants
Graeme Beasley Australia (Verified User) Posts 3265 Dogs 27 / Races 5 15 Nov 2018 05:52
(1)
(0)
Bruce Teague wrote:
Graeme,
Ok, I hear what you are saying.
Ryan,
The short answer is both.
This thread is about live baiting and how it has been handled. Obviously, that directly involves both authorities and trainers.
But you then have to go further and consider how it all affects the industry at large and all its stakeholders. That brings in government, politics, anti-racing groups, the public, punters and gamblers (they are very different) and anyone you like to name.
Contributors here claim Anderton and others were hard done by and maybe they are right. I don't want to comment on that because it is a complex matter and I have not got all the material in front of me. Instead I commented on the final decision and left it at that.
What we do know is that previous authorities did a sloppy job of policing live baiting - which has always been illegal in any forum you pick. I have said that often.
We also know that, generally speaking, there is a reluctance amongst trainers to accept outside or different views and some even to want to continue live baiting and related practices. Why? Because they have said so and so have various Inquiries and Investigations, some including expert people. The proportions are small or large depending on the actual question - ie they vary.
OK, the boom was lowered post AA/ABC action in 2015 (part of which was itself illegal) and so the industry got thumped. Its form was splattered all over the front pages, boards and CEOs disappeared, fines, DQs and jail terms followed. I applauded.
Other stuff followed, notably official inquiries and government action/interference, including a proposed ban, and probably excessive extra rule-making. But that is starting to get off topic and is a mighty subject on its own.
However, let me note that I have been severely critical of state authorities and Inquiry reports in three states for a variety of reasons. But, by and large, I have spoken only lightly about the contribution by trainers. I have now changed that approach because it is clear to me that not only are they major factors in the poor image of the industry but they are not amenable to changing tack - or not enough of them are.
In summary, I have not defended GRV actions or even addressed them in the context of this topic. I have adopted a view about live baiting facilities and their use or not by trainers. And also (separately) about the attitude to skins on lures. I stick by what I said above.
Whatever, unless both authorities and trainers look out the window they will never learn what the weather is like.
The industry has problems but neither authorities nor trainers are seriously looking for solutions.
You tell me to keep to the topic but then ask me about the future. Fair go, mate. Besides, I have answered that general question several times on this site. If you are referring to Tooradin episodes then I have answered that question, too. I am not qualified to comment about individual cases but I have expressed an opinion about the principles.
It also involves punters. A lot of the wrongdoings in all sports involves the punt. You were a punter for 50 years you say. Did you ever get some 'inside info'? What did you do about it? Are we here because of punters or just some punters?
By the way, you applaud findings of dodgy inquiries (proven), front pages with dodgy headlines (proven), fines and DQ's that have been proven to be wrong, yet you don't applaud when a trainer rightfully and by the law gets off a conviction.
By the way, you didn't need to be a trainer to trial or look after race dogs until the last couple of years.
Malcolm Smart Australia (Verified User) Posts 12802 Dogs 19 / Races 34 15 Nov 2018 05:55
(3)
(0)
Graeme Beasley wrote:
Bruce Teague wrote:
Graeme,
Ok, I hear what you are saying.
Ryan,
The short answer is both.
This thread is about live baiting and how it has been handled. Obviously, that directly involves both authorities and trainers.
But you then have to go further and consider how it all affects the industry at large and all its stakeholders. That brings in government, politics, anti-racing groups, the public, punters and gamblers (they are very different) and anyone you like to name.
Contributors here claim Anderton and others were hard done by and maybe they are right. I don't want to comment on that because it is a complex matter and I have not got all the material in front of me. Instead I commented on the final decision and left it at that.
What we do know is that previous authorities did a sloppy job of policing live baiting - which has always been illegal in any forum you pick. I have said that often.
We also know that, generally speaking, there is a reluctance amongst trainers to accept outside or different views and some even to want to continue live baiting and related practices. Why? Because they have said so and so have various Inquiries and Investigations, some including expert people. The proportions are small or large depending on the actual question - ie they vary.
OK, the boom was lowered post AA/ABC action in 2015 (part of which was itself illegal) and so the industry got thumped. Its form was splattered all over the front pages, boards and CEOs disappeared, fines, DQs and jail terms followed. I applauded.
Other stuff followed, notably official inquiries and government action/interference, including a proposed ban, and probably excessive extra rule-making. But that is starting to get off topic and is a mighty subject on its own.
However, let me note that I have been severely critical of state authorities and Inquiry reports in three states for a variety of reasons. But, by and large, I have spoken only lightly about the contribution by trainers. I have now changed that approach because it is clear to me that not only are they major factors in the poor image of the industry but they are not amenable to changing tack - or not enough of them are.
In summary, I have not defended GRV actions or even addressed them in the context of this topic. I have adopted a view about live baiting facilities and their use or not by trainers. And also (separately) about the attitude to skins on lures. I stick by what I said above.
Whatever, unless both authorities and trainers look out the window they will never learn what the weather is like.
The industry has problems but neither authorities nor trainers are seriously looking for solutions.
You tell me to keep to the topic but then ask me about the future. Fair go, mate. Besides, I have answered that general question several times on this site. If you are referring to Tooradin episodes then I have answered that question, too. I am not qualified to comment about individual cases but I have expressed an opinion about the principles.
It also involves punters. A lot of the wrongdoings in all sports involves the punt. You were a punter for 50 years you say. Did you ever get some 'inside info'? What did you do about it? Are we here because of punters or just some punters?
By the way, you applaud findings of dodgy inquiries (proven), front pages with dodgy headlines (proven), fines and DQ's that have been proven to be wrong, yet you don't applaud when a trainer rightfully and by the law gets off a conviction.
By the way, you didn't need to be a trainer to trial or look after race dogs until the last couple of years.
Don't know why any of you try to justify anything to this CoUNT..
Graeme Beasley Australia (Verified User) Posts 3265 Dogs 27 / Races 5 15 Nov 2018 05:55
(0)
(0)
Kevin Wright wrote:
Quote .. Contributors here claim Anderton and others were hard done by and maybe they are right. I don't want to comment on that because it is a complex matter and I have not got all the material in front of me. Instead I commented on the final decision and left it at that.
What we do know is that previous authorities did a sloppy job of policing live baiting - which has always been illegal in any forum you pick. I have said that often.
Bruce ... It's not a case of MAYBE..bruce these people were 100% set up by the GRV it's now proven in a court of LAW ...
The GRV failed in there job... not the participants
Kevin, can you imagine what this (or any) country would be like if politicians were poorly policed?
Graeme Beasley Australia (Verified User) Posts 3265 Dogs 27 / Races 5 15 Nov 2018 05:56
(1)
(0)
Malcolm Smart wrote:
Graeme Beasley wrote:
Bruce Teague wrote:
Graeme,
Ok, I hear what you are saying.
Ryan,
The short answer is both.
This thread is about live baiting and how it has been handled. Obviously, that directly involves both authorities and trainers.
But you then have to go further and consider how it all affects the industry at large and all its stakeholders. That brings in government, politics, anti-racing groups, the public, punters and gamblers (they are very different) and anyone you like to name.
Contributors here claim Anderton and others were hard done by and maybe they are right. I don't want to comment on that because it is a complex matter and I have not got all the material in front of me. Instead I commented on the final decision and left it at that.
What we do know is that previous authorities did a sloppy job of policing live baiting - which has always been illegal in any forum you pick. I have said that often.
We also know that, generally speaking, there is a reluctance amongst trainers to accept outside or different views and some even to want to continue live baiting and related practices. Why? Because they have said so and so have various Inquiries and Investigations, some including expert people. The proportions are small or large depending on the actual question - ie they vary.
OK, the boom was lowered post AA/ABC action in 2015 (part of which was itself illegal) and so the industry got thumped. Its form was splattered all over the front pages, boards and CEOs disappeared, fines, DQs and jail terms followed. I applauded.
Other stuff followed, notably official inquiries and government action/interference, including a proposed ban, and probably excessive extra rule-making. But that is starting to get off topic and is a mighty subject on its own.
However, let me note that I have been severely critical of state authorities and Inquiry reports in three states for a variety of reasons. But, by and large, I have spoken only lightly about the contribution by trainers. I have now changed that approach because it is clear to me that not only are they major factors in the poor image of the industry but they are not amenable to changing tack - or not enough of them are.
In summary, I have not defended GRV actions or even addressed them in the context of this topic. I have adopted a view about live baiting facilities and their use or not by trainers. And also (separately) about the attitude to skins on lures. I stick by what I said above.
Whatever, unless both authorities and trainers look out the window they will never learn what the weather is like.
The industry has problems but neither authorities nor trainers are seriously looking for solutions.
You tell me to keep to the topic but then ask me about the future. Fair go, mate. Besides, I have answered that general question several times on this site. If you are referring to Tooradin episodes then I have answered that question, too. I am not qualified to comment about individual cases but I have expressed an opinion about the principles.
It also involves punters. A lot of the wrongdoings in all sports involves the punt. You were a punter for 50 years you say. Did you ever get some 'inside info'? What did you do about it? Are we here because of punters or just some punters?
By the way, you applaud findings of dodgy inquiries (proven), front pages with dodgy headlines (proven), fines and DQ's that have been proven to be wrong, yet you don't applaud when a trainer rightfully and by the law gets off a conviction.
By the way, you didn't need to be a trainer to trial or look after race dogs until the last couple of years.
Don't know why any of you try to justify anything to this CoUNT..
You're right Mal. We need an ignore button.
Malcolm Smart Australia (Verified User) Posts 12802 Dogs 19 / Races 34 15 Nov 2018 05:59
(6)
(0)
I was thinking more of a F coff button..
Charles W Mizzi Australia (Verified User) Posts 684 Dogs 1 / Races 1 15 Nov 2018 06:59
(8)
(1)
Bruce Teague wrote:
Graeme,
Ok, I hear what you are saying.
Ryan,
The short answer is both.
This thread is about live baiting and how it has been handled. Obviously, that directly involves both authorities and trainers.
Sorry Bruce this thread is about the election coming up and transparency, not about live baiting.
It is about innocent people being used as scape goats and absconding from responsibility by both Govt and GRV for political benefit. Labor would not be in Govt if it wasn't for the Greens and the Greens agenda and the RSPCA is to close down Greyhound Racing. Check their policies. RSPCA were invited in, what a joke, the fox into the hen house.
Many others (participants) are on a path to bring to light the tactics of GRV. The people employed by them to harass and intimidate and who are no longer there but not for the job they did but other reasons.
My crusade has been one of fairness and a change in Govt to me is the only way this can be exposed. I have worldly experience in working within different country cultures over 10 years and I think I can recognise deception when I see it.
I have met with Alan Clayton and had Charlie Bezzina and Mr Huntington in my lounge room to discuss certain allegations I made. What I heard out of both these gentlemen would surprise you in what they believed or were led to believe.
Cheers Charles
Kevin Wright Australia (Verified User) Posts 5708 Dogs 1 / Races 1 15 Nov 2018 07:26
(5)
(0)
Graeme Beasley wrote:
Kevin Wright wrote:
Quote .. Contributors here claim Anderton and others were hard done by and maybe they are right. I don't want to comment on that because it is a complex matter and I have not got all the material in front of me. Instead I commented on the final decision and left it at that.
What we do know is that previous authorities did a sloppy job of policing live baiting - which has always been illegal in any forum you pick. I have said that often.
Bruce ... It's not a case of MAYBE..bruce these people were 100% set up by the GRV it's now proven in a court of LAW ...
The GRV failed in there job... not the participants
Kevin, can you imagine what this (or any) country would be like if politicians were poorly policed?
Graeme It has been the rash actions of the Politicians that has seen us all go through pure agony and many are still struggling today this is not Australia Mate this is a place where the soft C$cks and greenies rule .
It has to change or our Kids are doomed
nothing surprises me anymore i have seen way to much and heard so much more . What i and others recognize is just how poorly our PTB treated the INNOCENT PEOPLE ..
It has been life changing for many ...and many have had very ill health because of the actions of this Government and the Actions of the GRV ......
I along with others will never quit until justice has been served and all Innocent parties are awarded costs and damages ..
It's the vibe of things Mate ...
Simon Moore Australia (Verified User) Posts 2366 Dogs 32 / Races 393 15 Nov 2018 08:18
(7)
(1)
why do people bother to argue with the guy?
it's easier to just head butt a brick wall, lol.
i think he's employed to comment on here cause he comments on EVERY one of these type of topics without fail. And he seems to switch between being an anti and then the exact opposite at the flick of a switch. surely i'm not the only one to notice this.
Ryan Vanderwert Australia (Verified User) Posts 5957 Dogs 8 / Races 0 15 Nov 2018 08:43
(2)
(1)
Bruce Teague wrote:
.....I have not defended GRV actions or even addressed them in the context of this topic.........
Yes you have Bruce when you make callous remarks like this
Bruce Teague wrote:
.......... I have to point out that if you thumb a lift in the bank robbers' car then you will almost certainly get charged as a bank robber. It will be hard to convince the judge that you were only going to use the ATM.
They're your words Bruce
Bruce Teague wrote:
You tell me to keep to the topic but then ask me about the future. Fair go, mate. Besides, I have answered that general question several times on this site. If you are referring to Tooradin episodes then I have answered that question, too. I am not qualified to comment about individual cases but I have expressed an opinion about the principles.
What am I being unfair about Bruce ?
I'm NOT asking your thoughts about the future of greyhound racing re post LB(which as Charles has re stated is NOT the topic).
I am asking you specifically what your thoughts may be about how the ptb will possibly react to the Anderton ruling which only occurred a day ago with regard to how other innocent trainers may have also been victimised in a same or similar light to how Paul was. I'm NOT asking you to comment on anyones specific case.
Ryan Vanderwert wrote:
PS. i'd be interested in hearing your take re what will happen from here on in, with other innocent parties vs the bureaucrats and what their(ptb) future tactics might be.
You appear to have an insight into how bureaucrats operate/think, so I just thought you may have some idea post the Anderton ruling. If its too difficult just ignore the question. Cheers.
Michael Geraghty Australia (Verified User) Posts 4138 Dogs 14 / Races 15 15 Nov 2018 09:57
Kev Galloway Australia (Verified User) Posts 2447 Dogs 5 / Races 0 15 Nov 2018 21:43
(0)
(1)
charles w mizzi wrote:
Bruce Teague wrote:
Graeme,
Ok, I hear what you are saying.
Ryan,
The short answer is both.
This thread is about live baiting and how it has been handled. Obviously, that directly involves both authorities and trainers.
Sorry Bruce this thread is about the election coming up and transparency, not about live baiting.
It is about innocent people being used as scape goats and absconding from responsibility by both Govt and GRV for political benefit. Labor would not be in Govt if it wasn't for the Greens and the Greens agenda and the RSPCA is to close down Greyhound Racing. Check their policies. RSPCA were invited in, what a joke, the fox into the hen house.
Many others (participants) are on a path to bring to light the tactics of GRV. The people employed by them to harass and intimidate and who are no longer there but not for the job they did but other reasons.
My crusade has been one of fairness and a change in Govt to me is the only way this can be exposed. I have worldly experience in working within different country cultures over 10 years and I think I can recognise deception when I see it.
I have met with Alan Clayton and had Charlie Bezzina and Mr Huntington in my lounge room to discuss certain allegations I made. What I heard out of both these gentlemen would surprise you in what they believed or were led to believe.
Cheers Charles
Charles,a change of government will make NOT one iota of difference now that the anti moles in all our administrations are dictating greyhound policies.sad but true.why do you think the FOL isn't nation wide like in NZ?because it would promote greyhound welfare?
Bruce Teague Australia (Verified User) Posts 2092 Dogs 0 / Races 0 15 Nov 2018 22:50
(1)
(3)
Ryan,
How could I possibly know what GRV will do now in the context of the VCAT decision on Anderton? For a start, I don't know the precise circumstances of the other "innocent" victims - and it was the fine detail that governed the end VCAT decision.
Anyway, it is a pretty fine line to draw between a live bait and a dead one. Both disgust me (and the community) and both are now illegal. Nor is there any proof that a sniff of the possum will do much good.
Yes, I have some idea of how bureaucracies, their Ministers and Departments operate because I have been dealing with them for decades. Others would, too, as it is not rocket science.
The first point to note is that bureaucracies are very necessary things in their right spots. But running a commercial operation like greyhound racing is not one of them.
The second point is that there are some highly proficient bureaucrats around who I could admire. But I don't want to see them running greyhound racing. They are square pegs in round holes.
Thirdly, a bureaucrat's first duty is to make life easier for the Minister. No nasty surprises, please.
Fourth, be kind to other bureaucracies - which is why you saw Clayton bow to the pet department on kennels, etc, rather than tell them to mind their own business as GRV already had all the necessary power to do that itself.
Allied to the last point, you saw the Premier and Ministers jump in quickly to overhaul the handling of animal abuses and welfare, repeating the mantra wherever they went so that the whole state knew what good fellas they were - ie no need to vote for the Greens. A by-product of that effort is that it further emasculates the power of the authority (GRV).
Lastly, whenever something hits the fan, the immediate reaction by a bureaucracy is to ask for more money and more people to handle the problem. Other solutions are seldom pursued. Ministers are sympathetic because they are then seen to be attacking the alleged problem. Everyone got support from two other bureaucrats who were asked to conduct official inquiries. It mattered little whether they were doing any good or not (they weren't), only that they were seen to be acting strongly. Media releases flowed, GRV saluted the flag, grants to raceclubs followed, ribbons were cut.
NSW was pretty much the same. Still is.
You now ask for my view on future GRV actions on Tooradin cases and then say "I'm NOT asking you to comment on anyones specific case". Well, yes you are. But I can't and I won't. I might talk about a lot of things but not about stuff I know little or nothing about.
On the bigger scene (and this will not help here) I have long and aggressively petitioned all Racing Ministers (and Shadows), directly and in media columns, to modernise the greyhound industry by scrubbing all the bureaucracies and installing independent bodies, structured on commercial lines, to run their own show. Most other primary industries have already done that - wool, wheat, etc. But not racing. That's the real problem.
Jamie Quinlivian Australia (Verified User) Posts 8727 Dogs 10 / Races 0 15 Nov 2018 23:28
(8)
(0)
Bruce Teague wrote:
Anyway, it is a pretty fine line to draw between a live bait and a dead one. Both disgust me (and the community)
This proves just how much of a bubble you live in Brucey. Live baiting disgusts me and the vast majority of peope also. A dead animal is dead, doesnt matter what you do with it. Does it disgust you every time you bite into a sausage??? What a wanker! And please Brucey, can you or any politician anywhere in the world, show me any document, that clealy tells me who the 'community' are and what the 'community' believe? In this country, diversity is held up as a strength. A dog biting on a dead animal may disgust you Brucey, but please dont pretend that it disgusts everyone. My community is rural. Up here we have many people who hunt, shoot, fish, use dogs to kill pigs, foxes, rabbits, roos. Whether you like it or not, these people are part of your 'community' Not everyone wears rainbow jackets and attends fashion week Brucey.
Do you have questions about greyhound racing?
