" The system is broken - big time"...Bruce Teague..

So...same old same old...this is what was being said when I first joined the sport nearly 20 years ago...and was being said about finish ons when it was tried...and welfare issues...and track design...and prize money...and...and...and...now we've got 8 races and only 1 full field...think you might be right Bruce...

When I look at this paragraph of yours, Bruce, I realise how far your detachment of the truth can sometimes be...quite extraordinary.
It seems some of it is from pure ignorance, some from amnesia(selective?), and some from being just plain wrong.

"(A LURE IS JUST ANOTHER TOY)"
You are 100% right.
With the current restrictions on training materials for Greyhounds, many dogs see the lures used on race days and trials as TOYS - no scent, no taste.
Once the realization hits the brain of the Greyhound that the "prey" they have been chasing their guts out for isn't connected to their DNA, many quickly lose interest.
Geoff Collins posted earlier the suggestion of using "toys" in progression of rearing and training of young dogs that resemble what is being used at race tracks...he is also right IMO as it is the best outcome we could possibly hope for in the now "synthetic world of Greyhound Racing".
Here is the problem...
Greyhounds aren't there to "play" with "toys".
Greyhounds need to race with focus and CONVICTION!
To become a genuine HARD chaser they need a reason to "run through brick walls".
For the rare ones with strong DNA induced prey drive, it is enough to get them through some kind of career.
For the others, they need every single thing going for them, including the engagement of ALL FOUR CHASING SENSES! Without them, they won't run through a rice paper wall.
Many Greyhounds who are taught today with "toys" have no reward based training except for a playful "toy".
More and more results like the recent post where half the field "played" and one dog lost its life come from lack of CONVICTION in their chase instinct.
That dog, Bruce, was probably loved dearly by someone and an enormous amount of work put into it...the thought of serious consequences really didn't matter, hey.
So your inference that "a lure is just another toy" therefore is a "good thing" is completely WRONG!
When half their senses to chase are taken away it is DISASTER for many!
Very few dogs have strong enough prey drive to carry them through the rigors of racing 7 other dogs without even a sniff of a reward, BRUCE!
You continue to ignore common sense that has been previously explained to you by people who have PRACTICAL experience...bit like some regulators and antis.
"A lure is just another toy" SHOULDN'T BE!!!!
It is compromising the DNA of the animal.

"IT ALSO IGNORED POINTS MADE BY WDA AND OTHERS THAT TOYS TO PLAY WITH ARE A GOOD THING, ALMOST REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY ARE MADE OF."
Completely UNTRUE, Bruce.
QUOTE - "Based on its findings, WDA made a range of recommendations including: ALL lures to be synthetic, of non-related animal material and not resembling an animal shape."
How can your beloved WDA put forward with any authority that "toys" are a "good thing" anyway when there was no comprehensive studies done, Bruce?
Please point me to where these exhaustive tests were done, Bruce.
They didn't ignore them at all, they got what they were after and went BANG!.
WDA's suggestions were based on the directive of GRNSW to find that animal based rewards were not necessary in training a Greyhound to CHASE...and they dutifully delivered.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POINT - CLEARLY, THE BAN ON VARIOUS LURE TYPES WAS IMPLEMENTED AS A GUESS AND AS A PERCEIVED METHOD OF COMBATTING BAD LIVE BAITING ACTS. IT DID NOT ADDRESS ANY OPTIONS, INCLUDING (DEAD) SKINS.
Wrong, Bruce...there was no guess work at all.
Newson(GRNSW) used the findings of WDA to ban any animal by-products for lures.(see above)
WDA were given a directive (and money) by the authorities to declare animal derived products were not necessary in the training of Greyhounds to chase.
WDA found their amazing revelation WITHOUT ANY COMPREHENSIVE STUDIES, giving GRNSW the "proof" to ban anything except synthetics.

From grnsw website
WDA found that many common approaches to greyhound management and training do not compare favourably with best practice from other working dog industries. Crucially, the report found there was simply no evidence that it was necessary to use animal-derived products in lures to teach greyhounds to chase.

GRNSW also banned the use of rabbit carcasses and, pending further research by the Working Dog Alliance, stipulated that professionally tanned skins could be used instead. 3.265 On 2 November 2015, GRNSW announced that it would amend its policy on lures by prohibiting the use of tanned and professionally processed animal skins for the purposes of trialling or educating greyhounds from 1 December 2015. The effect of the amendment is that for all lures used in greyhound training, education or racing must be made of purely synthetic materials only.

"pending further research by the Working Dog Alliance"
Pending on WHAT?
On WHAT, Bruce?
They delivered.

No need for any more money spent on "incentive to chase".
No more needless wastage of good dogs who are deprived of having a racing life based on the basic of ALL things...their DNA.

Please contact the WDA and get them to try and teach a monkey tricks with a synthetic banana.
Also get them to teach a dog agility with synthetic kibble.

Time for NATURAL common sense to prevail...for the safety and integrity of our hounds.

Besides all that, it's AGAINST THE LAW. (Perhaps WDA and GRNSW should have read the law before delivering it's groundbreaking findings.)

Normally I skip your contributions because you persist in attacking people, rather than the subject - usually for no good or any reason. I make an exception here.

1. I wrote almost exclusively on the subject of research or the lack of it. FOL and lures just happened to be one of several examples.

2. You have written almost exclusively on the subject of lures which is fine for you but getting off topic.

3. Broadly, I don't have many problems with your claims and theories but the detail is lacking. As I have said several times, my view is that the lure bans were a hasty overreach. I also challenged complainants to stop moaning now and start getting together data and other evidence to show the new rule is a bad one. How to do that is beyond my knowledge or experience.

4. Your claim that GRNSW issued a "directive" to WDA to reach a certain conclusion is preposterous and an insult to the professionalism of the people concerned.

5. The question of toys and their types is also out of my field. The WDA point was that they were useful in other breeds - and are used to some degree by greyhound educators - so why not use or adapt them further. It is not possible to asset blandly that toys are of no use at all - who knows what sort of toys might be developed? What materials? What smells? I merely ask the question.

6. In effect, you are claiming that the absence of "good" lures means half of the four senses, including "prey drive", are short changed, thereby seriously affecting FTC problems. You may be right and you may have experienced that but (a) you may have done things the wrong way and (b) you cannot possibly speak for the entire greyhound population.

7. Further to the last point, a substantial proportion of that population never gets past the early education stage for whatever number of reasons, including FTC, irrespective of methodology; an additional proportion don't reach a decent standard because they don't chase well enough for which there may be many reasons, too. Toys v skins might well be part of that process but you cannot know that - you are just voicing an opinion

8. WDA recommended more education and further research into a number of matters. So do I. But it has not happened. That's the important point.

When you get around to preparing submissions to authorities about this you might remember that the vast majority of decision-makers will know a lot less than I do about the business - so they will be keenly interested in solidly based proposals. Opinions will not rate.

Firstly, thank you for making an exception and replying...jolly good...I'm blessed.

Secondly, I do not attack(as you put it)people for no reason.
Quite the contrary.
I always treat people with respect when they show me respect and when they deserve it.
I admit I do enter lively debate, use sarcasm, humour, bent wit, and occasional "verballing" when that recipient is guilty of the same.
There is an old saying..."You reap what you sow."
When you attack participants(which I include myself)with degrading, condescending, and down right rude remarks I find it difficult to return the serve with respect, Bruce.
So I suggest if you don't like the reap, don't sow what you sow.
Up to you.
I'm quite obliging either way although I prefer straight talking non-pompous conversations.

I'm glad we got that out of the way because I really want to get into the "meat" of this, because I think it is important that the record be set straight.

QUOTE -
"1. I wrote almost exclusively on the subject of research or the lack of it. FOL and lures just happened to be one of several examples."

I know you did, Bruce, but it is where you went terribly off track and told untruths.

QUOTE -
"2. You have written almost exclusively on the subject of lures which is fine for you but getting off topic."

No Bruce, it is bang on topic..."Finish on lure in NSW".
I'm talking about the type of lures allowed in NSW which include finish ons...keep focused please.

QUOTE -
"3. Broadly, I don't have many problems with your claims and theories but the detail is lacking. As I have said several times, my view is that the lure bans were a hasty overreach. I also challenged complainants to stop moaning now and start getting together data and other evidence to show the new rule is a bad one. How to do that is beyond my knowledge or experience."

You have previously stated that using animal by-products are a "live-baiting derivative".
You have also stated previously that the lure rules will not change and that participants need to stop whinging and adopt WDA's recommendations...quite contrary to your above statement, Bruce.
The world is full of contradictions sometimes...depending on whether you remembered what you have previously wrote...

QUOTE -
"4. Your claim that GRNSW issued a "directive" to WDA to reach a certain conclusion is preposterous and an insult to the professionalism of the people concerned."

I want you to read the following very carefully, Bruce...it's very important and you need to push aside your bias to WDA for a moment.

The "review" is the commissioned report from WDA.

Quote - "GRNSW wants to support a sustainable and vibrant industry and move away from any reliance or association with animal products on lure. The Review is required to: review and assess current domestic and international methods of the rearing, socialisation education and training of greyhounds in their lifecycle including any significant shift from the use of live animal baits and lures. identify and recommend best practice rearing, socialisation education and training methods that exclusively use artificial and synthetic materials as a bait or lure (ie do not involve the use of live or dead animals or animal products)"

I'll highlight the points of interest so you can't miss them...
"GRNSW wants to support a sustainable and vibrant industry AND MOVE AWAY FROM ANY RELIANCE OR ASSOCIATION WITH ANIMAL PRODUCTS ON LURES.

The review is REQUIRED to review and assess current domestic and international methods of the rearing, socialisation education and training of greyhounds in their lifecycle including any significant shift from the use of live animal baits and lures. identify and recommend best practice rearing, socialisation education AND TRAINING METHODS THAT EXCLUSIVELY USE ARTIFICIAL AND SYNTHETIC MATERIALS AS A BAIT OR LURE(IE DO NOT INVOLVE THE USE OF LIVE OR DEAD ANIMALS OR ANIMAL PRODUCTS.

Preposterous and an insult, is it?

QUOTE -
"5. The question of toys and their types is also out of my field. The WDA point was that they were useful in other breeds - and are used to some degree by greyhound educators - so why not use or adapt them further. It is not possible to asset blandly that toys are of no use at all - who knows what sort of toys might be developed? What materials? What smells? I merely ask the question."

What other breed of dog is asked to race against 7 others, at approx 70klms an hour around a tight circuit, where they are subjected to bumps, knocks, collisions, and so forth and under extreme pressure, Bruce?
What other breed of dog succeeds under this pressure and circumstances using toys to achieve the ultimate result?
What other breed of dog has its 4 chasing senses enriched enough by using synthetic toys?
Apply normal common sense to answer the above.

Maybe they might invent a toy that can heighten the sight, sound, smell, and taste of a Greyhound in the future, Bruce.
What a glorious invention of an imagination you have!
We have the problem NOW, Bruce, and the integrity and whole infrastructure of the industry is collapsing NOW!!!
"Don't worry folks, sometime in the near, or far future we might have a solution...maybe" says Bruce.
We're in safe hands with you, cobber.

QUOTE -

"6. In effect, you are claiming that the absence of "good" lures means half of the four senses, including "prey drive", are short changed, thereby seriously affecting FTC problems. You may be right and you may have experienced that but (a) you may have done things the wrong way and (b) you cannot possibly speak for the entire greyhound population."

In effect, what I am saying is that taking away a universally accepted practice of rewarding animals with specific food rewards greatly diminishes the result of teaching that animal to complete a task efficiently, especially under pressure.
Yes, I can speak for the entire Greyhound population on this subject, Bruce, because the entire industry works with the same animal - a canine, a carnivore, a hunter, who relies on its senses to focus on its task...take any of those senses away and you compromise that animal's focus.

QUOTE -

"7. Further to the last point, a substantial proportion of that population never gets past the early education stage for whatever number of reasons, including FTC, irrespective of methodology; an additional proportion don't reach a decent standard because they don't chase well enough for which there may be many reasons, too. Toys v skins might well be part of that process but you cannot know that - you are just voicing an opinion."

" irrespective of methodology" You are guessing, and wrongly, based on no practical experience at all. That doesn't cut it, Bruce.

Do yourself a favour and go and visit a few breaking in establishments, something WDA should have done to achieve an unbiased view of synthetics versus sheep skins and carcasses used in yesteryear.
Ask them for their honest OPINION based on actually working with the dogs what effect the introduction of synthetics has made on their success rate.
Let me know your findings...I know.
Of course I'm voicing an opinion!...based on factual practical experience.
And you?

QUOTE -
"8. WDA recommended more education and further research into a number of matters. So do I. But it has not happened. That's the important point.
When you get around to preparing submissions to authorities about this you might remember that the vast majority of decision-makers will know a lot less than I do about the business - so they will be keenly interested in solidly based proposals. Opinions will not rate."

Yes, WDA recommended further research, so why didn't that stop them from declaring - " ALL lures to be synthetic, of non-related animal material and not resembling an animal shape."
To me, THAT'S THE IMPORTANT POINT.

Bruce, only recently have I submitted suggestions to the PTB in regards to rewards and lures.
I have based them on personal and industry experience.
You are confusing the knowledge you have about certain matters in the industry with you lack of knowledge about the animal.
If the Greyhound's ability to chase continues to be compromised, there will be no Greyhound Business.

Get off your lazy bum, train a Grey and learn about it.
Only then will you truly understand the industry.

We all know what the basic issues are so there is no need to slant stuff to suit your own views. Anyway, my fearless prediction is that your submission will go into the file titled Moans and Groans - not because of its worth but because it comes from an individual and not from a substantive body.

Like some of your extended family in the 1916 Rebellion (two that I know of) it will get shot down pretty smartly.

Meantime, here's a good research project. Take the entire greyhound population and track them through the first couple of years of life to establish exactly what proportions bomb out and why. Those falling under the FTC heading would be subject to more detailed checks.

And I have not the slightest urge to train a dog. Were I to do that I would not have the time to gain knowledge about other aspects of the greyhound industry. It takes all kinds mate.

Let me have a look at the replay of The Writer v The Trainer

I was exhausted just reading it, but enjoyed every single minute of it.

Ray I do recall someone in WA getting around 18 months for chicken frames!