Not when I think I am right.

What makes you think you are correct?

In fact I think you are completely wrong in your assessment of the situation

Your comments don;t make any sense, all you are doing is having a whinge about something you can;t change.

What's your concept of real justice?

The industry was gone, now its not. That's real justice.

Stop feeding the whingers and get on with life mate and breed some winners

Broadly, I agree with Simon's comments below ....

"the 2000 figure was Scott and friends pathetic begging to Baird in his office to change his mind.
instead they should have marched in there and given him a gobfull and let him know he will not get away with it.

it was the same attitude from Scott when the backdown came that everyone is paying the price for now.

they had the liberal/national relationship on the brink of collapse and could have gone for the throat and got a deal for the industry way beyond the crumbs that they have given us.

so although you can say breeding hasn't been limited by anybody, its the rules and regulations and hurdles that has done it and a measly few dollars prizemoney increase will not make any difference to numbers imo".

The industry strategy and tactics were weak - for whatever reason I know not.

The ban and the aftermath are two different things. The ban was purely political in its objective and in its outcome. Baird pitched to the NSW populace and lost, as did Grant.

All that followed was Baird/Grant & co getting their own back with the use of flunkies creating an unfavourable and more costly environment for the industry. This included lies (criticised by the Auditor General) and was coloured by Baird's obvious personal dislike for greyhound racing (an attitude that breaches cabinet or parliamentary ethics). Grant was no better in that his relegation of the of the tax to only 10% was an outrageous and unjustifiable act.

In the end, both got dumped but the mess was left behind.

Scott/Alliance did well in overturning the ban. Everything else was a failure and the industry went down without a whimper. They were leading the race but compounded on the home turn.

As for breeding numbers, Scott has been quoted as accepting a 2,000 figure (see SMH article) but that is not the sort of thing that is put in legislation - not even in regulations so far as I am aware. It is no more than an avalanche waiting to happen but - as I suggested before - it appears to be illegal in concept.

Whatever, Iemma and Mestrov should be battling for a better deal for the industry - which is what they are legally responsible for. Ha Ha Ha. GWIC is a different matter as it is purely an administrative arm of government whereas GRNSW is supposedly an independent body.

In this context, I see little or no involvement of V'Landys. That's a red herring.

What I do see is an industry without a single decent spokesperson. And without a meaningful message to put to the politicians and the public. That's the real problem. The industry is reactive rather than proactive.

Noyce at GBOTA may or may not make a difference but I will not be holding my breath. Structurally, they are part of the problem, not of the solution.

These recommended regulations were put in nationally by GA well before the ban was ever thought of and each State adopted them at different times, again, well before the ban was ever on the cards

These regulations were in place to stop any overbreeding of any particular broodbitch taking into account her performance as a broodbitch to try and limit the pups with no racing ability and also from an animal welfare perspective, to take into account her age and health

Bruce Teague wrote:

As for breeding numbers, Scott has been quoted as accepting a 2,000 figure (see SMH article) but that is not the sort of thing that is put in legislation - not even in regulations so far as I am aware. It is no more than an avalanche waiting to happen but - as I suggested before - it appears to be illegal in concept.

You just won''t accept that its not a law?

I hate State payroll tax and think it is deplorable to tax a business because it employs people.

But because it is law it needs to be accounted for and paid

However, the puppy bond isn't limited by any numbers, its subject to review, change or can be completely ignored if its deemed not to be required, but it must be considered by GWIC if breeding numbers are out of control

They aren;t, its not in place and its not affecting anyone right now, as currently there is no limit.

I liked that there are increases across the rural TAB tracks, but totally disappointed that there is a $30 increase per race for non-TAB. IMO, their plan is obvious.

the obstacles put in place by GA and the uncertainty from the ban itself are just some of the reasons. otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

the issues have been discussed on this forum already and if they do not change then the numbers will likely not change either. but thats exactly what the government wants anyway.

On Wednesday night at Wenty the 280m are getting the same prizemoney as the 520m.

I also noticed at Richmond on Wednesday because the 330m is a 4/5th grade, these dogs are getting more than the 5th grade 618m dogs, with these distance dogs having copped a decrease under the new structure.

Guess it's true, NSW wants 300m dogs.

I have no issues with providing races for short course dogs but to actively promote them and place them at the same level as sprint and distance dogs seems to me a step in the wrong direction.

The quote starting "so although" was not mine but from a previous post by another.

As for the second quote - no, as far as I am aware there is no law, regulation or formal policy about breeding numbers or puppy bonds. I maintain that there could not be because - for different reasons - it would be illegal to restrict trade and/or discriminatory.

Equally important is that Scott apparently agreed to or even promoted a 2,000 figure although he had no authority to do so. It emerged from a poor negotiation and the questionable approach taken by Alliance.

We all know that Baird & co effectively cooked the books after losing the ban - by implementing a punitive set of rules and installing a tame set of reviewers on the Reform Panel. The industry should have been kicking up a fuss but didn't - ie its representative did the industry no favours.

Anyway, while it/they are not in place now, there is an implication that they could be in future - or authorities might try to. That should be knocked on the head right away, regardless of what GWIC or anyone else thinks.

The subject would be even more acute if any track rationalisation takes place.

As we stand, GWIC is trying to increase its power (and its costs) and GRNSW is failing to adequately represent the industry - as is its duty - by insisting on more positive policies.

Sure, it's all the aftermath of live baiting, but that is just an excuse, not a reason. Baird was wrong, Grant was wrong, McHugh was wrong (in part), GBOTA kowtowed, but they all got away with it because nobody made a fuss.

Its not about power, we are well past that point.

Its about not repeating the mistakes of the past.

It's also about shaping the future of the industry to be more efficient to reduce the wastage figures to an acceptable level

Examples of the means that may be introduced are programs such as encouragement to breed with better race bitches, sires that produce winners and chase well, more focussed education techniques for rearing pups - especially from a younger age, finish on lures in racing to retain chase motivation etc etc

The idea is to get more dogs to the track from each litter born and for them to race longer so as to reduce the pressure to breed more litters to replenish racing stock.

Measures there are higher prizemoney across all lower grades, hopefully a better grading system to take juvenile dogs into account, a better structured masters system, so that all dogs can find their place quickly in the racing system and be justly rewarded for their performances in their grade and distance, improvements in track shape and safety etc etc

On the back of that, we need better resourced and better structured re-homing options around the whole of the State to take care of the dogs that won;t be bred with going forward or can't be kept by participants as pets

I understand and support that - bar the selection of good sires (how do you do that?).

However, the industry has already taken major steps to increase the proportion of pups making the grade. You can't get more blood out of the stone and it has had the unfortunate result of reducing the overall quality of racing.

Even with all that, it is not solving the problem. By all means, up the pressure on re-homing etc but the core of the issue is that there are not enough dogs to fill the boxes we have today. My guess is that - given present efforts - there will not be a return to former glory.

In other words, to maintain current racing activity we need herculean efforts to encourage MORE breeding, not less, accompanied by MORE efforts to promote re-homing. Either of those will take a few years to bring about but it needs to start now.

The #1 task today is to find out why breeding is not recovering - ie to pre-2000 levels. That is a professional task being addressed by amateur guesswork.

While we are at it, it would be a good idea if participants stopped rubbishing UTS and WDA and started thinking more deeply about what they are saying. They may not be perfect but they are not mugs.

They, being GA, GRV, GRNSW etc etc don't ever want dogs born each year, to get to pre-2000 levels.

Without an export valve. its way too many dogs to rehome at the end of their racing life and wastage will be too high

Just face it...those levels will never happen again in this sport

Other things that I have mentioned in the sport need to change

"They, being GA, GRV, GRNSW etc etc don't ever want dogs born each year, to get to pre-2000 levels."

This is simply not a tenable statement.

GA would not know what the question is and has stuffed up too many things to rely on.

GRV and GRNSW have already taken measures to improve breeding numbers and are hoping for still more - particularly GRV. They are pretty facile but they were attempts anyway.

We are now looking at a de facto 6-dog industry. The only other alternative is to reduce races and/or tracks but they are reluctant to go that far for PR reasons - not business reasons.

On current evidence, Qld WA and SA would give their right arms to get hold of more dogs. For one thing it would reduce the proportion of ultra short races now being run (as it would everywhere).

The missing element - and the unknown - is whether a more professional approach would have any hope of bringing better punters back to the fold. I doubt that any of them recognise that option anyway (and it has several strands to it).

Administrators should never be running a commercial enterprise.

I repeat, the powers that be, will never let that happen and it won't anyway, because the participants have nowhere to place that many dogs after their racing life

A balance needs to be struck and that number is still being shaped by the attitude of participants, racing programs and rehoming programs

The truth is, no one knows what that number is yet.

What Are the 2 Horse Racing Codes doing to address these issues ????
Are there "REJECTS" still being sent too the Knackeries ?????

They have their own issues to deal with.

We just have to watch out for our own.

If they keep on putting their head in the sand they will have plenty of problems in future

You have a very good point. I concur. It defeats their previous plan that was introduced only a few years ago.