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.
Kenneth Markham Australia (Verified User) Posts 252 Dogs 0 / Races 0 19 Aug 2019 08:11
(8)
(0)
A recent inspection by GWIC at my property unveiled some of which Hadley mentions about policing by stealth.They identified an issue of a dead tree near a fence located near my kennels.I was told to have it removed or be dealt with under POCT prevention of cruelty to animals act.Now Im no shrinking violet and my reply was only if the neighbour agrees as it was located in his side of the boundary.I also have many retired greyhounds and was given 2 weeks to have 4 dogs teeth cleaned.This cost was near 1k.Holes where oldies dig had to be filled another 400.They identified other issues and put a 4 week ultimatum to have these rectified.I work full time and manage some 30 dogs and become very time poor.Most work has been done with huge stresses.I have sent updated photos of completion but feel there is no trust as they intend to reinspect.If they are trying to make it too hard for me then they will know about harassment laws.
Russ Forno Australia (Verified User) Posts 274 Dogs 0 / Races 0 19 Aug 2019 11:00
(2)
(0)
kenneth markham wrote:
A recent inspection by GWIC at my property unveiled some of which Hadley mentions about policing by stealth.They identified an issue of a dead tree near a fence located near my kennels.I was told to have it removed or be dealt with under POCT prevention of cruelty to animals act.Now Im no shrinking violet and my reply was only if the neighbour agrees as it was located in his side of the boundary.I also have many retired greyhounds and was given 2 weeks to have 4 dogs teeth cleaned.This cost was near 1k.Holes where oldies dig had to be filled another 400.They identified other issues and put a 4 week ultimatum to have these rectified.I work full time and manage some 30 dogs and become very time poor.Most work has been done with huge stresses.I have sent updated photos of completion but feel there is no trust as they intend to reinspect.If they are trying to make it too hard for me then they will know about harassment laws.
Russ Forno Australia (Verified User) Posts 274 Dogs 0 / Races 0 19 Aug 2019 11:29
(2)
(0)
Oops, any one have any trouble with the new registration cards? How about receiving your card and someone else's card in the same envelope or your card but the photo is not you, or just the wrong card altogether. I know of too many cases for this to be incidental.
Bruce Teague Australia (Verified User) Posts 2092 Dogs 0 / Races 0 19 Aug 2019 22:38
(5)
(0)
GWIC has just responded to recent public commentary by issuing a media release informing everyone about the hundreds or thousands of things it is doing and rejecting claims it is attempting to shut the greyhound racing industry by stealth.
No doubt.
As a non-owner and non-trainer, I am not qualified to address the itty gritty of all this with one exception. However, I can make a few points.
The author of the release is not stated or quoted. All you get is a future media contact. That alone is bad PR. It is a defensive document. It therefore indicates contentious matters were not sorted out at the time or soon after. Thats a management failure. It references the McHugh and Iemma reviews but both of these were flawed one using incorrect data and evidence and the other sponsored by public servants with a conflict of interest or someone with an axe to grind (the anti-racing RSPCA rep). In any event, GWICs claim that McHugh found that the previous model of industry self-regulation failed is to ignore that McHugh also offered dozens of other options for the future, not just a ban. Baird and Grant were not interested in those. In that context, the concept of separating the organisation into two parts (GRNSW and GWIC) was based on a feeling, not a serious evaluation of the options including a previous failure in NSW. GWIC is now responsible to government alone, not to the industry and may therefore have objectives which differ from GRNSW. The creation of GWIC adds to industry costs. Neither the industry at large or GRNSW have any control over what GWIC does or how much it spends. No compensating benefit has been shown.
Back to the exception. I wrote on these pages that the GWIC handling of the Tornado Tears hot paw case at Wenty was unsatisfactory as it lacked independent analysis of the handling of such an injury or of the preparation of the track which apparently caused it. The GWIC response was simply to repeat what had already been said by on-track vets and others ie nothing much. It was a bureaucratic treatment of serious veterinary and engineering shortcomings which cost investors tens of thousands of dollars in losses (not including me) and rubbished the image of the industry. To this day, no real answers have emerged.
Charles W Mizzi Australia (Verified User) Posts 684 Dogs 1 / Races 1 22 Aug 2019 08:47
Do you have questions about greyhound racing?
