Sandro,

Your point, and others as well, is telling us that greyhound activity is to be controlled by bureaucrats using probably illegal means - ie restricting breeding - and the tail is to wag the dog as re-homing options (however calculated) must limit numbers to some unknown level.

Obviously, administrators can put obstacles in the way of progress if they wish but, so far, there is no specific indication they are doing that. Waffle regulations are a pain, but that's as far as it goes. So I reject your "never let it happen" threat.

What you overlook is that both GWIC and GRNSW are legally bound to further the interests of greyhound racing (particularly the latter mob). Being anti-growth (or re-growth) will not cut the mustard. It would be dereliction of duty.

The other thing you overlook is that success of any of those measures is dependent on a decent product being put before the public. Reduced income equals reduced programs, good or bad, irrespective of "attitudes".

The additional risk is that should any rationalisation occur there will be immediate downturns. Following soon after will be flow-on shortfalls as supporters in cancelled regions will be less inclined to offer direct or indirect help (eg betting on "away" meetings). Services such as vets, feeds, equipment will be harder to access and more expensive to get at. Patronising more distant tracks will be more expensive to do.

Another barrier is the confusing business approach. On one hand we are promoting 280s at Wenty but in the next breath we are lifting prizes for mid-distance racing. So which is right or better for the industry?

(Note, in passing, that mid-distance bonuses have proved an abject failure in several states so whose idea was it to launch them again?)

Mush the same reasoning can apply to the current mania for "safe" racing - illustrated yet again by the radical proposals for a new Traralgon track. Safety is good, essential even, but you are letting the tail wag the dog. Safety is just one of several qualities that go to make up the greyhound racing entertainment package. You need them all. Any athletic pursuit is subject to player injuries, including to the foxie in the backyard.

"No one knows" is dead right.

Having said all that, were you the boss of Woolworths or Aus Post or Toyota, you would take a quick look at al the figures and immediately limit every race in the country to 6 starters for the next 3 to 5 years. You would then hope to maintain enough income to hold the fort while developmental programs served to build up the quality and size of the dog population again. When that happens you could return to 8 starters, preferably on better designed tracks and with a national tote.

Anyway, you aren't making a lot of sense just ranting and whinging away as usual with no real solution or positive thought

I am mot going to address every point you wish to make because we will just be going over the same old things and having the same old arguments, there is just no point to it, there is nothing new to add at this time

But I will pull you up on one thing

GWIC is there to apply the new Greyhound Racing Act and any regulations and policies therein

From their website:

The Greyhound Welfare and Integrity Commission is the independent regulator of the greyhound industry in NSW.

The Commission was one of the main recommendations from the Greyhound Industry Reform Panel, which was set up to provide new animal welfare and governance arrangements to reform the greyhound industry.

The Commissions Objectives are:

to promote and protect the welfare of greyhounds,

to safeguard the integrity of greyhound racing and betting

to maintain public confidence in the greyhound racing industry

PS Greyhound Racing has always been controlled by bureaucrats

The recent prizemoney increases are a good thing as they do return money to the people who need it the most, those with lower class dogs with nowhere to go before they retire as pets

My only complaint was that it was rewarding too many 300-400m distance band dogs, however, with the subsequent announcement fo the new staying circuit around the TAB tracks including new feature events, it has somewhat mitigated my concerns

I hope more can be done to increase the prizemoney for 500m-700m dogs in the future

"You have just gone off on 5 million tangents and still saying the regulations are illegal, even though they are actually a passed law".

What regulations/law? Show me.

My subjects were a limitation on breeding numbers and, previously, the puppy bond. Both are either illegal or improper or both.

The puppy bond would not last 5 seconds in an Administrative Tribunal. Breeding limits are part of a Baird wish list and have no legs (despite quotes attributed to Scott).

Restrictions on dams is a grey area but is sustained on welfare grounds although its prime purpose is to improve the quality of progeny. Somewhat the same reasoning applies to monthly/quarterly restrictions on sires' services. Whatever, any restriction on breeding numbers would be a political and/or economic measure, not a technical one, and may therefore be challenged.

And, if I don't like what GWIC is saying, I will say so. They are servants of the public, no more, no less. And they still have not properly answered the Tornado Tears queries. All we got was a bureaucratic shove-off. Not good enough.

This is a separate issue so I comment separately.

"Anyway, you aren't making a lot of sense just ranting and whinging away as usual with no real solution or positive thought".

Try this one ... roughly quoting my earlier post:

Given all the information to hand, the only logical solution for the next 3-5 years is for the industry to shift to a 6-dog pattern across the board. It is half way there already and breeding trends offer no hope of a recovery to former glory.

This may cause some belt-tightening across the board but you have to cut the cloth to suit. This would include expenses for racing authorities but not efforts to improve breeding and racing quality or measures to better promote the industry.

As an overall principle, I think owners/trainers deserve more money but not for the moment - ie not until the industry is placed on a sounder footing. Good prize money is an outcome of an efficient industry, not a reward for taking part. Nor is it a golden pot for authorities to dip into as they feel like it.

The Greyhound Racing Act 2017

12(c)

GREYHOUND RACING ACT 2017 - SECT 12

Functions of Commission

12 Functions of Commission

The Commission has the following functions:

(a) to control, supervise and regulate (subject to this Act) greyhound racing in the State,

(b) to initiate, develop and implement policies relating to the welfare of greyhounds,

(c) to undertake research and investigation into any aspect of the breeding of greyhounds and of greyhound racing generally,

(d) to consult with animal welfare bodies in developing changes to legislation relating to the welfare of greyhounds,

(e) to provide the Minister with such information, advice or reports as the Minister may request,

(f) to inform the Minister about any event or matter that may adversely affect the integrity of greyhound racing,

(g) such other functions as are conferred or imposed on the Commission by or under this or any other Act.

Note : The Commission's other functions under this Act include registering greyhounds, greyhound racing industry participants and greyhound trial tracks, preparing the code of practice for the welfare of greyhounds and making greyhound racing rules.

Lovely list of things to do.

No breeding numbers. No puppy bonds.

It reminds me of GRA's first five-year Strategic Plan, which was neither strategic nor was it a plan. It was just a list of things to do. Face was the Minister then and he said it was great. He was later convicted of nasty goings-on.

It could also be equated to GWIC's response to the Tornado Tears saga. That was not a review or an investigation, it just repeated what had already been said.

The Bulletin once ran a cartoon with two drunks sitting on a park bench looking at skyscrapers in the background. One says to the other, "I used to be a big shot, but I lost my list of things to do".

Nothing has changed, has it?

c) to undertake research and investigation into any aspect of the breeding of greyhounds and of greyhound racing generally,

The Act is what gives them the power to introduce any measures they see fit to restrict or promote breeding numbers.

You are stuck on the terminology.

A puppy bond or no of litters a bitch can breed or how often a bitch can breed, or breeders bonus or any other method or idea to control breeding numbers is just that, a method to fulfil that objective which is empowered to them in that Act of Parliament

You said it wasn't legal, well there it is, in black and white, GWIC Commissioners have the power to control or promote breeding with any methods they deem necessary after making whatever investigations or surveys that they deem appropriate.

If you still think its not legal, then I suggest we agree to disagree and leave it there

Ray, exactly - as I keep saying.

So far, restrictions on breeding are based on quality or welfare grounds - which is probably fine - but any attempt to do it on numerical/economic grounds would run into huge problems.

Baird/Grant used the welfare/euthanasia weapons to justify their radical schemes but quickly came undone due to their faulty information, criticism from the Auditor General and a groundswell of public opposition.

So then they set up GWIC - which was not necessary at all - and made it responsible only to government, and armed it with rules concocted by a Reform Panel which had little experience with racing and none with business. The extra funding needed for GWIC is then taken out of cash needed to improve prize money and install beneficial commercial programs, etc. It is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake and now controlled mostly by professional bureaucrats.

Still, whatever their basis, neither GWIC or GRNSW can make rules which contravene other laws of the country - discrimination and restraint of trade being just a couple. This is why participants need to have legal advice on tap - but not via GBOTA which has often demonstrated it is just part of the establishment (and which represents only a third of participants anyway).

A short example is that police are empowered to keep the peace but HOW they do it is another matter altogether - and subject to separate court oversight.