Greyhounds Australasia has no substance in over-breeding document

This is a corporate failure of monumental proportions.

Greyhounds Australasia, in circulating to state CEOs a supposedly confidential document about alleged over-breeding, has assumed it is in charge of Australian greyhound racing. It isn’t and never has been. It writes the Rules of Racing but they don’t mean much either. Every state has its own local rules as well, some of them 100 pages long, and they take precedence. GA has never voted itself any power over commercial matters which means it cannot even talk about half the industry’s operations, and therefore is not competent to address corporate planning.

GA is a grouping of the bosses from each state which meets once every quarter. Any decisions it makes are then taken back to the individual states for ratification. If they don’t get that, nothing changes. GA, and its parallel organisations in the other racing codes, are effectively powder puffs, and slow-acting ones at that. Even then, often we do not know what GA discusses because it publishes no agendas, no discussion points and no minutes of meetings. All are secret.

GA is the clearing house for stud book information and the registration of names. It also makes rules for the export of greyhounds but, like many of its activities, it keeps that a secret, too. We don’t know how many dogs leave the country. The information is never published.

In that climate it has produced a “Crisis to Recovery Program” and sent it around to all the state CEOs. This happened back in April but it took a while for that to become known. It is now common knowledge to thousands, including Rushton QC at the Special Commission who has used it to back his call for the cessation of all greyhound racing. (Where he obtained the confidential document is unknown. It is on the internet now but it certainly was not when Rushton prepared his attack).

crownbet_centent_banner2

Essentially, the Crisis document says large numbers of greyhounds meet “unnecessary deaths” and therefore the industry must reduce breeding by 40% by 2018. At the same time it should increase re-homing from 1,000 to 8,000 per year between now and 2020. All that will ensure “renewed stakeholder trust in the industry”. The document fails to state how these numbers were dreamed up.

Unfortunately, GA’s data, methodology and concepts are all flawed. Even GA admits “the industry has done a poor job in understanding the nature and depth of this fundamental problem” – ie of what it sees as excessive breeding. Why, then, did it not first attempt to obtain that knowledge?

Not only are the numbers patchy but every inquiry, including the current Special Commission in NSW, has immediately jumped to the conclusion that there is too much breeding and therefore a cut will reduce or eliminate the problem. Yet neither GA or anyone else has properly studied the subject to establish what the real causes and effects are.

GA’s response that cutting breeding in half will sort things out is no more than a knee-jerk reaction. More importantly, it has failed miserably to assess the likely outcome of such a change. In short, a much more likely event is that it would kill off the industry. GA is promoting suicide.

If you halve the activity of a business, the probable outcome is that the decline will continue. Nothing ever stays still, you either go forwards or backwards. Queensland greyhound racing, for example, has been declining for over a decade because no-one has ever bothered to (a) recognise the facts and (b) do anything about them. That’s a gross management failure which apparently bypassed the recent inquiries. But you could say the same thing about halving the number of Woolworths supermarkets, for example. Economies of scale would be lost, prices would go up, distribution centres would become inefficient, shares would be dumped, customers would start looking for other options, and so on.

Such a massive change to greyhound racing, whatever the detail, would cause numerous kennels, studs, clubs and allied businesses to become unviable. And once the rot sets in, it becomes unstoppable.

So what are the breeding numbers? These are the only ones we know about.

Litters: In 2014, the latest figures show 3,232 whelpings were recorded. (NZ is ignored as its circumstances are quite different). From there, the assumption is around 19,000 pups emerged, using an average of six per litter. More exact figures are not available. From that figure you will need to deduct those subject to early death from natural causes, health problems, snake or spider bites, accidents in the yard or other injuries. Numbers of these are unknown but participants claim they are substantial.

Names: Just under 12,000 dogs are officially recorded each year when owners apply for a name. This leaves about 7,000 to be accounted for. Significant numbers of those end up as household pets (of the owner or others) or suffer misadventures of one sort or another. Further reasons are hard to estimate because deaths must be officially recorded only when the “name” is already in the system. Even then, some owners may not get around to it. Efforts are now under way to ensure accurate “cradle to grave” records but that does not help with historical data. In any event, current data is suspect because of the lack of paperwork.

Mature Dogs: Substantial numbers of male and female dogs are retained for breeding but their numbers are unknown. Currently, data from our own organisation reveals that just over 14,000 dogs are involved in actual racing, a number that has been slightly increasing in recent years. Large numbers of dogs are exported for breeding or racing purposes to New Zealand, America, the UK and Asia. Actual numbers are not published but many of them figure prominently in races (especially in NZ) and in breeding stats.

Additionally, while the GA paper suggests only 1,000 dogs are re-homed annually, there are numerous claims informal re-homing would increase that figure significantly.

The end result is that, while a couple of figures are moderately reliable, others are no more than rough estimates. In particular, “unnecessary deaths” claimed by GA in the 13,000 to 17,000 range are flawed for three main reasons – (1) the tracking system does not cover all dogs (2) many owners fail to complete the necessary paperwork yet retain the dogs and (3) many deaths may not be “unnecessary” at all but just part of a normal life and death cycle.

Whatever those numbers are, it is still clear a substantial number of dogs are euthanised, albeit in somewhat smaller numbers than publicity would have it. Rules are in place to ensure that is done humanely. Essentially these would be either poor race performers or those where the owner found it impossible to locate a suitable new home. In that context, the greyhound breed is little different from many other dog breeds (as shown by RSPCA records) and horses, where large numbers end up in the knackers’ yards.

We then move on to the GA plan to radically reduce breeding numbers, usually by administrative devices (fees, licensing), and thereby also reducing the “unnecessary” deaths.

Were this to succeed, it would do so only because the industry had been chopped in half. Even then the difference would be one of degree. Fewer dogs bred and racing equals fewer to euthanase. The image problem would still be there, even with increased re-homing. Assuming always that the industry still existed in any significant form.

Certainly, a major effort towards re-homing is a good idea. But here GA has got the cart before the horse. To spend big bucks on such a program would be worthwhile only AFTER first mounting a program to better educate the public on the worth of the greyhound – its history, its athleticism, its purity, its friendliness. Going out cold will return 20 cents on the dollar when we need $1.50.

The remaining hassle I have with the GA proposal is that it offers to Animals Australia voting power on how the program is carried out. This is an absolute nonsense. This tiny organisation is devoted to the total elimination of greyhound racing and will do anything to achieve that result (witness its apparently illegal but otherwise useful photography of live baiting). Consultation is fine, by all means, as with RSPCA and others. But only the industry should decide on its operating policies. If it gets those wrong – and it has in the past – then it deserves a nasty fate. Only industry management should be responsible for such decisions.

Finally, the anti-racing groups have done greyhounds a service by identifying and then eliminating the totally unacceptable practice of live baiting. I suggest it is now time for them to start attending to more important matters. For example, getting rid of wild dogs which are now ripping the guts out of defenceless sheep, attacking feral cats which are destroying entire species of birds and other animals, and a campaign to wipe out the world’s population of useless and murderous crocodiles. Those sorts of changes would offer huge welfare and economic benefits to the community.

Yes, the greyhound industry has a few problems. So why not fix them rather than killing it off?

Past Discussion

  1. Bruce,
    Why don’t you shoot off an email to “The Verdict” show as they are apparently after material still.
    What they have atm is anti toilet paper.
    You are right, GA and every other controlling body has failed dismally.
    Being a person in media you might be able to make the producer understand the finer points of our controlling bodies and their previous efforts and their future “wisdom.”
    The public certainly aren’t aware of this.
    Cheers.

  2. Bruce,

    Why don’t you shoot off an email to “The Verdict” show as they are apparently after material still.

    What they have atm is anti toilet paper.

    You are right, GA and every other controlling body has failed dismally.

    Being a person in media you might be able to make the producer understand the finer points of our controlling bodies and their previous efforts and their future “wisdom.”

    The public certainly aren’t aware of this.

    Cheers.

  3. PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1979 – SECT 4
    Definitions
    4 Definitions
    (1) In this Act, except in so far as the context or subject-matter
    otherwise indicates or requires:
    “animal” means:
    (a) a
    member of a vertebrate species including any:
    (i)
    amphibian, or
    (ii)
    bird, or
    (iii)
    fish, or
    (iv)
    mammal (other than a human being), or
    (v)
    reptile,
    (2) For
    the purposes of this Act, a reference to an act of cruelty committed upon an http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/poctaa1979360/s4.html#animal includes a reference to any act
    or omission as a consequence of which the http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/poctaa1979360/s4.html#animal is unreasonably, unnecessarily
    or unjustifiably:
    (a)
    beaten, kicked, killed, wounded, http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/poctaa1979360/s4.html#pinion, mutilated, maimed, abused,
    tormented, tortured, terrified or infuriated,
    (b)
    over-loaded, over-worked, over-driven, over-ridden or over-used,
    (c)
    exposed to excessive heat or excessive cold, or
    (d)
    inflicted with http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/poctaa1979360/s4.html#pain.
    If AA were serious they would
    ban hook and line fishing and GA could
    point that out
    GA ignores any need for control or guidance for
    the inactions of its members now being revealed as resulting in pillaring
    greyhound racing through the actions of uncontrolled vagrants in the industry.

  4. PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1979 – SECT 4

    Definitions

    4 Definitions

    (1) In this Act, except in so far as the context or subject-matterotherwise indicates or requires:
    “animal” means:

    (a) amember of a vertebrate species including any:

    (i)amphibian, or

    (ii)bird, or

    (iii)fish, or

    (iv)mammal (other than a human being), or

    (v)reptile,

    (2) Forthe purposes of this Act, a reference to an act of cruelty committed upon an animal includes a reference to any actor omission as a consequence of which the animal is unreasonably, unnecessarilyor unjustifiably:

    (a)beaten, kicked, killed, wounded, pinioned, mutilated, maimed, abused,tormented, tortured, terrified or infuriated,

    (b)over-loaded, over-worked, over-driven, over-ridden or over-used,

    (c)exposed to excessive heat or excessive cold, or

    (d)inflicted with pain.

    If AA were serious they wouldban hook and line fishing and GA couldpoint that out

    GA ignores any need for control or guidance forthe inactions of its members now being revealed as resulting in pillaringgreyhound racing through the actions of uncontrolled vagrants in the industry.

  5. In an article where you criticise GA for not knowing actual numbers, which is probably a very valid criticism, you then go on to make a couple of statements that are not supported by any numbers.

    “…early death from natural causes, health problems, snake or spider bites, accidents in the yard or other injuries.  Numbers of these are unknown but participants claim they are substantial.  “Participants claim” is hardly a credible source.  Additionally, why should this numbers be substantial proportionally?  If those causes are responsible for a substantial percentage of deaths then that indicates MASSIVE welfare issues.  Such causes should only account for a very small percentage.

    “Significant numbers of those end up as household pets” What’s your source? How many?

    It would also be nice if you could supply the sources for the numbers you do quote, otherwise it’s difficult to judge who’s numbers are to be believed.

    Conveniently these small lapses in your quest for rigorous numbers support your bias.

    That said, you still make a good point, the numbers need to be determined more accurately.

    You still seem far too at ease with the idea that thousands of dogs are being put down if that’s what it takes to obtain fast dogs.  And again you point your finger at other industries and say “they are just as bad” as if that’s an acceptable defence.  It’s not, and those other industries are controversial also, and also subject to campaigns by animal welfare advocates.

    Giving an animal welfare group a vote (not a final say) on regulations is not a bad idea, clearly the voice of welfare has been sorely lacking within the industry.

    You close with a ridiculous tirade that suggests animal welfare advocates take up your passion to enact genocide on an entire species (crocodiles), and for that, you are an absolute moron.  Clearly, you don’t even understand the motivation behind animal welfare legislation and concerns, you’re just a sociopath lacking empathy that only cares about money.

  6. In an article where you criticise GA for not knowing actual numbers, which is probably a very valid criticism, you then go on to make a couple of statements that are not supported by any numbers.

    “…early death from natural causes, health problems, snake or spider bites, accidents in the yard or other injuries.  Numbers of these are unknown but participants claim they are substantial.  “Participants claim” is hardly a credible source.  Additionally, why should this numbers be substantial proportionally?  If those causes are responsible for a substantial percentage of deaths then that indicates MASSIVE welfare issues.  Such causes should only account for a very small percentage.

    Significant numbers of those end up as household pets” What’s your source? How many?


    It would also be nice if you could supply the sources for the numbers you do quote, otherwise it’s difficult to judge who’s numbers are to be believed.


    Conveniently these small lapses in your quest for rigorous numbers support your bias.


    That said, you still make a good point, the numbers need to be determined more accurately.


    You still seem far too at ease with the idea that thousands of dogs are being put down if that’s what it takes to obtain fast dogs.  And again you point your finger at other industries and say “they are just as bad” as if that’s an acceptable defence.  It’s not, and those other industries are controversial also, and also subject to campaigns by animal welfare advocates.

    Giving an animal welfare group a vote (not a final say) on regulations is not a bad idea, clearly the voice of welfare has been sorely lacking within the industry.

    You close with a ridiculous tirade that suggests animal welfare advocates take up your passion to enact genocide on an entire species (crocodiles), and for that, you are an absolute moron.  Clearly, you don’t even understand the motivation behind animal welfare legislation and concerns, you’re just a sociopath lacking empathy that only cares about money.

  7. Actually, perhaps this is something you need to have explained to you.  You describe crocodiles as “useless”.  Do you realise that animal welfare legislation is not designed to only protect animals that are “useful” to humans?  Do you realise that the reason animal welfare legislation exists is because as a society we have decided that we recognise certain animals as being intelligent, and sentient, and therefore consider that their feelings, health and survival have inherent value?  Perhaps you don’t actually understand this, but that is the purpose behind such legislation, and that is why people care about animal welfare.

  8. Actually, perhaps this is something you need to have explained to you.  You describe crocodiles as “useless”.  Do you realise that animal welfare legislation is not designed to only protect animals that are “useful” to humans?  Do you realise that the reason animal welfare legislation exists is because as a society we have decided that we recognise certain animals as being intelligent, and sentient, and therefore consider that their feelings, health and survival have inherent value?  Perhaps you don’t actually understand this, but that is the purpose behind such legislation, and that is why people care about animal welfare.

  9. No SAV Come on now, you know full well I’m not a vegetarian or a vegan.

    As for being an “Anti”, I guess that depends on what we’re talking about, I’m anti-cruelty.

  10. No SAV Come on now, you know full well I’m not a vegetarian or a vegan.

    As for being an “Anti”, I guess that depends on what we’re talking about, I’m anti-cruelty.

  11. Well, Hugh,
    I must confess my psychic powers are failing me in my older age so no, I didn’t know full well anything…should I have?
    I thought Bruce rather sums it up rather well myself.
    Do you have any math to suggest 17,000 unnecessary deaths is anywhere near the mark?

  12. Well, Hugh,

    I must confess my psychic powers are failing me in my older age so no, I didn’t know full well anything…should I have?

    I think Bruce sums it up rather well myself.

    Do you have any math to suggest 17,000 unnecessary deaths is anywhere near the mark?

  13. No SAV Sorry, I thought this came up previously but it must have been a debate with someone else.

    No, I’m not vegetarian or vegan, I eat a lot of meat (though I am mindful of how it’s farmed and thus there are some things I won’t eat), I’m not a hippy, I don’t believe in the “organic” food movement, I have no problem with genetically modified food.  I think that probably covers the usual things that get assumed about anyone on this side of the debate.

    I care about animal welfare.  I recognise animals as sentient beings, and so any situation in which they are being made to suffer concerns me, and I think that if they must be sacrificed it should not only be done humanely, but it should be for something of sufficient value to warrant the cost of life.

    I don’t have a problem with greyhound racing (or any animal racing) if it can occur in a manner that is humane and that doesn’t require huge wastage, because I just don’t think racing for entertainment is of such a high value to society as to warrant the cost.  If the wastage issue could be solved, I’d have no issue with the industry provided other welfare issues are sufficiently regulated.  Hell, if all those unwanted dogs were killed humanely and their meat was sold at the supermarket, I’d probably consider that an acceptable solution.  I don’t see much difference between a cow and a dog, cow’s are very intelligent, and pigs are more intelligent than either of them.  I guess you could say I’m a “greenie” if you want to put a label on me, though I would say I’m not an extreme one.

    I’m an atheist and I accept evolution as fact, so I don’t subscribe to the view that this planet was created to serve our needs as god’s special species and that we are the only ones with souls or anything ridiculous like that.  All life is related.  We should have more respect for animals, who are not so different from ourselves, depending on the species.  As such I am appalled by Bruce’s comments that crocodiles should be wiped from the face of the planet because they are not “useful” to humans, that’s a disgusting attitude.

    As for the numbers, I have no maths or knowledge to offer regarding the wastage figures, I only have what’s been published in the media to go on.  While I accept that the numbers in the GA memo may be inaccurate, my view is that if they think the numbers are very high, then they are probably very high.  I generally accept Bruce’s comments about the numbers, I think his bias is evident in a few places, he more readily accepts unverified numbers when it suits his agenda, and is dismissive of them when it doesn’t.  But I agree with him when he says a proper effort needs to be made to ascertain what the actual numbers are.  What I strongly object to is his general stance that high wastage numbers are not a problem, and that because it happens in other industries then that makes it ok.

  14. No SAV Sorry, I thought this came up previously but it must have been a debate with someone else.

    No, I’m not vegetarian or vegan, I eat a lot of meat (though I am mindful of how it’s farmed and thus there are some things I won’t eat), I’m not a hippy, I don’t believe in the “organic” food movement, I have no problem with genetically modified food.  I think that probably covers the usual things that get assumed about anyone on this side of the debate.

    I care about animal welfare.  I recognise animals as sentient beings, and so any situation in which they are being made to suffer concerns me, and I think that if they must be sacrificed it should not only be done humanely, but it should be for something of sufficient value to warrant the cost of life.

    I don’t have a problem with greyhound racing (or any animal racing) if it can occur in a manner that is humane and that doesn’t require huge wastage, because I just don’t think racing for entertainment is of such a high value to society as to warrant the cost.  If the wastage issue could be solved, I’d have no issue with the industry provided other welfare issues are sufficiently regulated.  Hell, if all those unwanted dogs were killed humanely and their meat was sold at the supermarket, I’d probably consider that an acceptable solution.  I don’t see much difference between a cow and a dog, cow’s are very intelligent, and pigs are more intelligent than either of them.  I guess you could say I’m a “greenie” if you want to put a label on me, though I would say I’m not an extreme one.

    I’m an atheist and I accept evolution as fact, so I don’t subscribe to the view that this planet was created to serve our needs as god’s special species and that we are the only ones with souls or anything ridiculous like that.  All life is related.  We should have more respect for animals, who are not so different from ourselves, depending on the species.  As such I am appalled by Bruce’s comments that crocodiles should be wiped from the face of the planet because they are not “useful” to humans, that’s a disgusting attitude.

    As for the numbers, I have no maths or knowledge to offer regarding the wastage figures, I only have what’s been published in the media to go on.  While I accept that the numbers in the GA memo may be inaccurate, my view is that if they think the numbers are very high, then they are probably very high.  I generally accept Bruce’s comments about the numbers, I think his bias is evident in a few places, he more readily accepts unverified numbers when it suits his agenda, and is dismissive of them when it doesn’t.  But I agree with him when he says a proper effort needs to be made to ascertain what the actual numbers are.  What I strongly object to is his general stance that high wastage numbers are not a problem, and that because it happens in other industries then that makes it ok.

  15. Bloody hell, Hugh…I didn’t ask for your life story!

    Having said that, I do like the fact that you are/portray open minded to some extent.

    It also doesn’t exclude you from being a hypocrite like everyone else on this debate.

    In some form we all are.

    A high ground can be a shifty one.

    It’s impossible to be completely cruelty free if you are a meat eater, no matter how ‘mindful’ you are. Not in today’s mass production climate.

    The vegan proclaims the ultimate in cruelty free lifestyle but, alas, the mung bean muncher fails to recognize the destruction of sentient animals and life to put that bean on their plate.

    It’s a twisted, hypocritical, distorted, and manipulated little world we live in.

    This debate is senseless.

    It’s senseless in debating figures when there are no factual figures to work on.

    The only ones that come close to being correct are the litter registrations…because they have to be REGISTERED.

    The rest are guesses and fraudulent agendas.

    I will give you a quick example from the SMH…it’s gold.

    Right up there with a “vets” report of a Greyhound bitch that had a exploded uterus from giving birth to over 300 puppies.

    SMH…excerpt.

    “Greyhound racing in Australia is littered with ethical problems. It involves the breeding of more than 17,500 dogs a year, most of which are destined for an early death when their ability to deliver human enjoyment or profit has vanished. For up to 17,000 dogs that’s before the age of three and a half years, when a usual life expectancy would be 10 to 12 years.

    Most greyhounds bred specifically for racing are destroyed as healthy pups. It is legal to kill up to 100 dogs at a time in NSW, providing it is done “humanely”.

    Many of the 4 per cent of race-bred greyhounds who make it to the track are trained with live baiting – again, animal cruelty for the sole purpose of human thrills and greed.”

    There are that many untruths, innuendo, propaganda, and lies in this whole article, the SMH should be sued for fraud.

    The classic for mine is the 4%.

    By Bruce’s figures, 19,000, the 4%, 760 Greyhounds are in the racing pool.

    Considering well over 600 race in Qld every week, I’m converted to anti racing, because 150 odd dogs are asked to race 20 times a day, 7 days a week, to make up the fields in all the other states. And, they ALL continue to be trained with live baits!

    It’s a funny world we live in Hughie.

  16. No SAV It’s true, we’re all guilty of some level of hypocrisy, especially if you live in the luxurious west and buy cheap products made by poor people in the third world.
    That said, when it comes to animals, I can justify large scale animal death for food provided it is humane, I can’t justify large scale animal death so that people can place bets on animals running in circles.  One of these things is much more valuable and than the other, in my opinion.

  17. No SAV It’s true, we’re all guilty of some level of hypocrisy, especially if you live in the luxurious west and buy cheap products made by poor people in the third world.

    That said, when it comes to animals, I can justify large scale animal death for food provided it is humane, I can’t justify large scale animal death so that people can place bets on animals running in circles.  One of these things is much more valuable and than the other, in my opinion.

  18. But that’s the conflict you have with your peers, Hugh.
    You say you don’t have a problem with meat, because you believe its done humanely.
    The AA site says they are NOT…eg: tens of thousands of lambs die in the cold…so YOU can enjoy that yummy crumbed lamb cutlet.
    Young dairy calves ripped from their mothers that are weeks old and sent to slaughter, just so YOU can wash down that cutlet with a cold glass of milk.
    So who is a hypocrite, AA or you?
    Its clear you don’t like animals used for entertainment/gambling.
    Is the overriding evil element in all these opinions/beliefs/standards a BET? Gambling is a form of entertainment. So where do your standards lay with a fish having its guts or an eye ripped out as it gasps with agonizing death?
    Do your standards allow for birds to be caged for life with no freedom at the wimp of a human’s entertainment?
    There are thousands of examples of hypocrisy, so who stands the higher ground?…the answer would be it depends on what opinions are in play.
    Who is right and who is wrong…probably no-one.
    After all, its someone’s opinion.
    Have a nice day.

  19. But that’s the conflict you have with your peers, Hugh.

    You say you don’t have a problem with meat, because you believe its done humanely.

    The AA site says they are NOT…eg: tens of thousands of lambs die in the cold…so YOU can enjoy that yummy crumbed lamb cutlet.

    Young dairy calves ripped from their mothers that are weeks old and sent to slaughter, just so YOU can wash down that cutlet with a cold glass of milk.

    So who is a hypocrite, AA or you?

    Its clear you don’t like animals used for entertainment/gambling.

    Is the overriding evil element in all these opinions/beliefs/standards a BET? Gambling is a form of entertainment. So where do your standards lay with a fish having its guts or an eye ripped out as it gasps with agonizing death?

    Do your standards allow for birds to be caged for life with no freedom at the wimp of a human’s entertainment?

    There are thousands of examples of hypocrisy, so who stands the higher ground?…the answer would be it depends on what opinions are in play.

    Who is right and who is wrong…probably no-one.

    After all, its someone’s opinion.

    Have a nice day.

  20. No SAV I have zero problem with gambling, people can do what they want with their money.  As I’ve stated (multiple times at this point), my concern is animal welfare, and the cost vs benefit equation.

    You’re ignoring the fact that not all meat producers are the same, it’s possible to be selective both about the animal and the farming practices if you are willing to pay more money, which I am.

    No I wouldn’t cage a bird.

    There’s a huge difference in intelligence between a mammal and a fish.  I’m bothered by unsustainable fishing practices that destroy ecosystems, but individual fish being caught on a hook, I don’t think I’m overly bothered by it, not if it’s to be eaten, and not if it isn’t an endangered species.

    I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with a lot of your comments, you keep making assumptions about my opinions, you make a lot of “YOU” comments but the things you are saying actually don’t apply to me.

    I accept that morals are subjective, I don’t believe in objective morality.  I also accept we all fail to live up to our own standards in various ways, to varying degrees depending on the person.  But most of the things you mention that you think will expose me as a massive hypocrite are things that I’ve already thought about, and I approach them all in a way that is consistent with my own morality (or try my best to).  You’re free to disagree with my moral standards and argue about them, but stop assuming I’m some simpleton that watched the four corners live baiting documentary and got all outraged and then sat down to a meal of cage eggs and factory farmed pork.

    I don’t know why you are asking if AA are hypocrites, I’m not aware of any hypocrisy on their part with regards to these issues.

    You are correct, it’s all opinion, but that doesn’t mean it’s inconsequential.  The standards of society are set by opinions, some people think it should be ok for them to beat their wife.  Whether or not this is ok or not can ultimately be argued to be a matter of opinion, but we don’t just let people do whatever they want because of that.

  21. No SAV I have zero problem with gambling, people can do what they want with their money.  As I’ve stated (multiple times at this point), my concern is animal welfare, and the cost vs benefit equation.

    You’re ignoring the fact that not all meat producers are the same, it’s possible to be selective both about the animal and the farming practices if you are willing to pay more money, which I am.

    No I wouldn’t cage a bird.

    There’s a huge difference in intelligence between a mammal and a fish.  I’m bothered by unsustainable fishing practices that destroy ecosystems, but individual fish being caught on a hook, I don’t think I’m overly bothered by it, not if it’s to be eaten, and not if it isn’t an endangered species.

    I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with a lot of your comments, you keep making assumptions about my opinions, you make a lot of “YOU” comments but the things you are saying actually don’t apply to me.

    I accept that morals are subjective, I don’t believe in objective morality.  I also accept we all fail to live up to our own standards in various ways, to varying degrees depending on the person.  But most of the things you mention that you think will expose me as a massive hypocrite are things that I’ve already thought about, and I approach them all in a way that is consistent with my own morality (or try my best to).  You’re free to disagree with my moral standards and argue about them, but stop assuming I’m some simpleton that watched the four corners live baiting documentary and got all outraged and then sat down to a meal of cage eggs and factory farmed pork.

    I don’t know why you are asking if AA are hypocrites, I’m not aware of any hypocrisy on their part with regards to these issues.

    You are correct, it’s all opinion, but that doesn’t mean it’s inconsequential.  The standards of society are set by opinions, some people think it should be ok for them to beat their wife.  Whether or not this is ok or not can ultimately be argued to be a matter of opinion, but we don’t just let people do whatever they want because of that.

  22. Its become clear you are living in denial and no amount of debate will change that.
    You can’t see the hypocrisy with the animal activists who shot the footage for 4corners?
    You ARE in denial.
    The thousands of animals they let get ripped apart can’t see it either…they’re dead.
    THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR LETTING 4 MONTHS OF SLAUGHTER HAPPEN…NONE!!!
    Go away and drink and eat your cruelty free dairy food and meat, young Hughie.
    If you decide to become a Buddhist come back and talk with me.
    Btw, I’m sure the mammals are much happier than the fish with you playing God.
    Shame on you, Hughie.

  23. Its become clear you are living in denial and no amount of debate will change that.

    You can’t see the hypocrisy with the animal activists who shot the footage for 4corners?

    You ARE in denial.

    The thousands of animals they let get ripped apart can’t see it either…they’re dead.

    THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR LETTING 4 MONTHS OF SLAUGHTER HAPPEN…NONE!!!

    Go away and drink and eat your cruelty free dairy food and meat, young Hughie.

    If you decide to become a Buddhist come back and talk with me.

    Btw, I’m sure the mammals are much happier than the fish with you playing God.

    Shame on you, Hughie.

  24. No SAV So the police are hypocrites when they carry out undercover investigations and don’t start arresting people as soon as they see crimes committed?  Do you understand why people carry out undercover investigations?  To uncover the extent of a crime.  If you act on the first piece of evidence that demonstrates a crime then everyone is alerted to your investigation and goes to ground.  Do I really need to explain this to you?  Now you’re just being wilfully stupid.

    Get a grip.

    Our determination that mammals are more intelligent than fish is based on science, not my personal whims.

  25. No SAV So the police are hypocrites when they carry out undercover investigations and don’t start arresting people as soon as they see crimes committed?  Do you understand why people carry out undercover investigations?  To uncover the extent of a crime.  If you act on the first piece of evidence that demonstrates a crime then everyone is alerted to your investigation and goes to ground.  Do I really need to explain this to you?  Now you’re just being wilfully stupid.

    Get a grip.

    Our determination that mammals are more intelligent than fish is based on science, not my personal whims.

  26. The cracks really are starting appear with you, Hugh.
    What an utter ridiculous comparison!
    You are not serious? Are you that desperate for justification?
    Really?
    I’ll spell it out for you, so read slowly.
    They denounce cruelty to animals. They seek out perpetrators who act against animal welfare, although they do not actively participate in welfare activities. I believe they should be made to allocate a percentage to welfare organizations, but that’s another story.
    By their very own definition, EVERY ANIMAL DESERVES A CRUELTY FREE LIFE.
    I’ll write that again so it sinks in to your conveniently thick head.
    EVERY ANIMAL DESERVES A CRUELTY FREE LIFE.
    Capish? Do you understand?
    For the records, I don’t disagree with a lot of their work.
    I think they do a lot of good work too.
    Getting back to your ridiculous comparison with the police.
    They are not the police.
    In essence, your immature comparison means ANYONE can witness say the rape and mutilation of a woman by multiple offenders until that witness believes they have accounted for what they believe is enough times or enough numbers of men.
    This really is starting to get an idiotic debate.
    They have NO AUTHORITY in this country…do you understand this? Do you understand that they are NOT ABOVE THE LAW, Hugh?
    They broke the law.
    Not only did they break the law, they broke their own mission statement and everything they champion.
    Total, undeniable, blatant hypocrisy of the HIGHEST order!
    To deny this is making you look rather foolish and transparent in your agenda.
    They let the MURDER of hundreds of animals happen so they could make a case stick?…who is being stupid here?
    For FOUR MONTHS?…why?
    They must have been that traumatized and that distressed, they are surely having ongoing counseling…now you don’t really believe that do you?
    In simple terms, they broke the law and own beliefs by letting helpless animals get ripped apart, to damage an industry that gambles on animals which they despise.
    That’s what happened, Hugh.
    No need to deny or justify…its what happened…they got that desperate, they crossed their own line.
    Btw, the intelligence between mammals and fish was not being disputed…I was enlightening you to the fact that they are both life forms and both have equal rights to life, not because of less intelligence, you determine it has less value.
    Ask your mates, they’ll tell you…;)
    They were out there patting themselves on the back of the slaughter…I honestly think that is disgusting.
    THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR IT.
    They are just as guilty of animal cruelty and they crossed a very taboo line, for way too long.

  27. The cracks really are starting appear with you, Hugh.

    What an utter ridiculous comparison!

    You are not serious? Are you that desperate for justification?

    Really?

    I’ll spell it out for you, so read slowly.

    They denounce cruelty to animals. They seek out perpetrators who act against animal welfare, although they do not actively participate in welfare activities. I believe they should be made to allocate a percentage to welfare organizations, but that’s another story.

    By their very own definition, EVERY ANIMAL DESERVES A CRUELTY FREE LIFE.

    I’ll write that again so it sinks in to your conveniently thick head.

    EVERY ANIMAL DESERVES A CRUELTY FREE LIFE.

    Capish? Do you understand?

    For the records, I don’t disagree with a lot of their work.

    I think they do a lot of good work too.

    Getting back to your ridiculous comparison with the police.

    They are not the police.

    In essence, your immature comparison means ANYONE can witness say the rape and mutilation of a woman by multiple offenders until that witness believes they have accounted for what they believe is enough times or enough numbers of men.

    This really is starting to get an idiotic debate.

    They have NO AUTHORITY in this country…do you understand this? Do you understand that they are NOT ABOVE THE LAW, Hugh?

    They broke the law.

    Not only did they break the law, they broke their own mission statement and everything they champion.

    Total, undeniable, blatant hypocrisy of the HIGHEST order!

    To deny this is making you look rather foolish and transparent in your agenda.

    They let the MURDER of hundreds of animals happen so they could make a case stick?…who is being stupid here?

    For FOUR MONTHS?…why?

    They must have been that traumatized and that distressed, they are surely having ongoing counseling…now you don’t really believe that do you?

    In simple terms, they broke the law and own beliefs by letting helpless animals get ripped apart, to damage an industry that gambles on animals which they despise.

    That’s what happened, Hugh.

    No need to deny or justify…its what happened…they got that desperate, they crossed their own line.

    Btw, the intelligence between mammals and fish was not being disputed…I was enlightening you to the fact that they are both life forms and both have equal rights to life, not because of less intelligence, you determine it has less value.

    Ask your mates, they’ll tell you…;)

    They were out there patting themselves on the back of the slaughter…I honestly think that is disgusting.

    THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR IT.

    They are just as guilty of animal cruelty and they crossed a very taboo line, for way too long.

  28. No SAV  Calm down, your argument is all over the place.

    Whether or not they or anyone else has the authority of the law doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not their actions are inconsistent with ideology, i.e. whether or not they are hypocrites.  Whether or not you think it’s a problem that they committed a crime to obtain the video footage is a separate debate.  Personally I’m fine with someone committing a crime to prevent a more serious crime being committed (depending on the circumstances), and so is society in general, hence there have been no charges laid against Animals Australia.

    Don’t you think it’s a little ironic to that the greyhound industry was completely ineffectual at dealing with this issue, despite it being quite a well known practice, and yet you are levelling criticism at the only organisation that’s actually gotten anyone to take an action to address this issue?  They did what they thought was necessary to prevent the greatest amount of suffering.  You can disagree with their approach, but I don’t think it makes them hypocrites, for the following reasons:

    It was their belief that if they turned over footage of the first piece of cruelty they found, that it would be dismissed as “one bad egg” and swept under the carpet.  Why did they think this?  Because this is not the first time that live baiting has been brought to the attention of regulators, but previously it has led to no action to stamp it out.  How do you convince an apathetic regulatory body that this is a serious, widespread problem and force them to address it?  One approach is to collect footage and you give it to four corners, and you make sure you have enough that the “one bad egg” argument can’t be used to sweep the issue under the carpet.  You create enough public outrage that the industry is forced to respond to public pressure.  You can’t do that with just one video.

    You’re not a hypocrite if you are against animal cruelty and you choose to take the action that you believe will lead to the least animal suffering while acknowledging that you don’t have the power to prevent all animal suffering.  That’s perfectly consistent with their stated ideology.

    To label them as hypocrites for this ignores the realities of the situation.  The only way you could really make that argument is if you believed that had they turned over the first piece of footage they’d found that it actually would have led to the same response by the regulators, and if you believe that they also believed that.  Do you really believe that?  If you do, then fine, make that argument.  If you don’t believe that (and quite frankly I think you’d have to be naive to), then you’d have to acknowledge that by holding onto footage they prevented a greater amount of future suffering, and that’s consistent with their ideology.

  29. No SAV  Calm down, your argument is all over the place.

    Whether or not they or anyone else has the authority of the law doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not their actions are inconsistent with ideology, i.e. whether or not they are hypocrites.  Whether or not you think it’s a problem that they committed a crime to obtain the video footage is a separate debate.  Personally I’m fine with someone committing a crime to prevent a more serious crime being committed (depending on the circumstances), and so is society in general, hence there have been no charges laid against Animals Australia.

    Don’t you think it’s a little ironic that the greyhound industry was completely ineffectual at dealing with this issue, despite it being quite a well known practice, and yet you are levelling criticism at the only organisation that’s actually gotten anyone to take an action to address this issue?  They did what they thought was necessary to prevent the greatest amount of suffering.  You can disagree with their approach, but I don’t think it makes them hypocrites, for the following reasons:

    It was their belief that if they turned over footage of the first piece of cruelty they found, that it would be dismissed as “one bad egg” and swept under the carpet.  Why did they think this?  Because this is not the first time that live baiting has been brought to the attention of regulators, but previously it has led to no action to stamp it out.  How do you convince an apathetic regulatory body that this is a serious, widespread problem and force them to address it?  One approach is to collect footage and you give it to four corners, and you make sure you have enough that the “one bad egg” argument can’t be used to sweep the issue under the carpet.  You create enough public outrage that the industry is forced to respond to public pressure.  You can’t do that with just one video.

    You’re not a hypocrite if you are against animal cruelty and you choose to take the action that you believe will lead to the least animal suffering while acknowledging that you don’t have the power to prevent all animal suffering.  That’s perfectly consistent with their stated ideology.

    To label them as hypocrites for this ignores the realities of the situation.  The only way you could really make that argument is if you believed that had they turned over the first piece of footage they’d found that it actually would have led to the same response by the regulators, and if you believe that they also believed that.  Do you really believe that?  If you do, then fine, make that argument.  If you don’t believe that (and quite frankly I think you’d have to be naive to), then you’d have to acknowledge that by holding onto footage they prevented a greater amount of future suffering, and that’s consistent with their ideology.

    On your other point, we frequently assign a value to a given life form based on intelligence, this is why we value human life above other animal life, and why we value (for example) the life of a dog above the life of an ant.  So thanks for “enlightening” me to the fact that fish and mammals are both life forms, that’s very informative, but it doesn’t have any bearing on my opinion.

  30. Thanks for your concern but its ok, I’m actually very calm sitting here sipping some fine brandy.
    And no, Hugh, I’m quite happy with my focus, which is hypocrisy.
    Let me firstly say this, you have no argument from me on the incompetence of the regulators of the Greyhound industry.
    I think that has become partly clear of late.
    The full extent of their incompetence hopefully will come to light in the near future.
    What will probably never come to light is the core problem of mismanagement within the racing industry as a whole which has led to, in part, the somewhat anarchy that the industry was allowed to cultivate.
    Back to hypocrisy…
    To quote you – “You’re not a hypocrite if you are against animal cruelty and you choose to take the action that you believe will lead to the least animal suffering while acknowledging that you don’t have the power to prevent all animal suffering. That’s perfectly consistent with their stated ideology.”
    You are a hypocrite if you are against animal cruelty and you choose to take action by exposing excessive numbers of animals to cruelty to damage an industry that you despise rather than address and try to stop the cruelty with minimal collateral damage eg: animals.
    That’s perfectly inconsistent with their stated ideology.
    There was never any hard evidence presented by activists to substantiate their claims.
    They took the bull by the horns, broke the law, and filmed not only examples of live baiting, but excessive murder of animals who should have been spared but for the agenda of closing the industry rather than addressing the immediate problem of cruelty.
    The ” one bad egg” argument is futile.
    It doesn’t take 4 months of slaughter to confirm the cruelty, Hughie.
    You can argue with me till the cows come home, but hard video evidence of that kind of cruelty with say 1 pig, 1 possum, 1 rabbit, being torn apart would have exposed the damage quite effectively, I would imagine.
    Again, there is NO EXCUSE FOR 4 MONTHS OF CARNAGE.
    Whichever way you would like to spin it, it’s HYPOCRISY!
    And a very nasty one at that.
    Your serve, but you will never convince me otherwise.
    Btw, your comment about why AA haven’t been charged is another ridiculous flawed statement.
    You, or society, “being fine” with someone breaking the law doesn’t nullify the law.
    I have it on good authority some of the activists are going to charged.
    You’re a crazy guy, Hugh. YOU are fine with it…lol.

  31. Thanks for your concern but its ok, I’m actually very calm sitting here sipping some fine brandy.

    And no, Hugh, I’m quite happy with my focus, which is hypocrisy.

    Let me firstly say this, you have no argument from me on the incompetence of the regulators of the Greyhound industry.

    I think that has become partly clear of late.

    The full extent of their incompetence hopefully will come to light in the near future.

    What will probably never come to light is the core problem of mismanagement within the racing industry as a whole which has led to, in part, the somewhat anarchy that the industry was allowed to cultivate.

    Back to hypocrisy…

    To quote you – “You’re not a hypocrite if you are against animal cruelty and you choose to take the action that you believe will lead to the least animal suffering while acknowledging that you don’t have the power to prevent all animal suffering. That’s perfectly consistent with their stated ideology.”

    You are a hypocrite if you are against animal cruelty and you choose to take action by exposing excessive numbers of animals to cruelty to damage an industry that you despise rather than address and try to stop the cruelty with minimal collateral damage eg: animals.

    That’s perfectly inconsistent with their stated ideology.

    There was never any hard evidence presented by activists to substantiate their claims.

    They took the bull by the horns, broke the law, and filmed not only examples of live baiting, but excessive murder of animals who should have been spared but for the agenda of closing the industry rather than addressing the immediate problem of cruelty.

    The ” one bad egg” argument is futile.

    It doesn’t take 4 months of slaughter to confirm the cruelty, Hughie.

    You can argue with me till the cows come home, but hard video evidence of that kind of cruelty with say 1 pig, 1 possum, 1 rabbit, being torn apart would have exposed the damage quite effectively, I would imagine.

    Again, there is NO EXCUSE FOR 4 MONTHS OF CARNAGE.

    Whichever way you would like to spin it, it’s HYPOCRISY!

    And a very nasty one at that.

    Your serve, but you will never convince me otherwise.

    Btw, your comment about why AA haven’t been charged is another ridiculous flawed statement.

    You, or society, “being fine” with someone breaking the law doesn’t nullify the law.

    I have it on good authority some of the activists are going to charged.

    You’re a crazy guy, Hugh. YOU are fine with it…lol.

  32. No SAV I’m sceptical that the amount of filming you “would imagine” would be sufficient (“1 pig, 1 possum, 1 rabbit”) would have actually been sufficient to achieve the same level of action that has been achieved.  We can argue about that, but since we can’t repeat the experiment with different variables we will never know, so that’s probably not an overly productive argument.

    This isn’t AA’s first rodeo when it comes to trying to engender change, so I’m inclined to defer to their experience when it comes to judging what level video footage is required to budge people.  The idea that they would have amassed a greater body of evidence than necessary in the hope that it would lead to a shutting down of the industry is not an entirely ridiculous idea.  It’s possible I suppose.  I guess the extent to which the “few bag eggs” argument was brought out initially quite frequently after the 4 corners expose aired (look back through article son this very website) and only began to receed as the number of people charged started to become very high, is one factor that convinces me that a lot of footage was needed.  Other factors are similar investigations by animal welfare groups that have resulted in prosecutions for individuals but no change to regulations – there are many examples in the agriculture industry that fit this description.

    As you say quite correctly say: “it doesn’t take 4 months of slaughter to confirm the cruelty”, I completely agree, but I would argue that it does take “4 months of slaughter” to demonstrate the extent of the problem, and I think you underestimate how important that is.  But I won’t keep trying to convince you, we can agree to disagree on that point.  But I will say that if AA genuinely believed that level of footage is what it would take to enact change, then it’s not hypocrisy, if you’re assumption is correct (and it is an assumption) then perhaps you could say it’s hypocrisy.  That really comes down to their state of mind, I think you should at least acknowledge that you can’t know their state of mind on that, and make your claims of hypocrisy with a little less certainty (I won’t hold my breath given your clear emotional attachment to typing the word hypocrisy in capital letters).

    I think you’re really misrepresenting the situation when you say that AA “exposed” animals to cruelty, that implies that they were the ones creating the circumstances that allowed cruelty to occur.  That’s simply untrue.  I don’t think I need to elaborate on that point.

    I also think you should consider the nature in which this sort of footage is obtained.  Small hidden cameras usually store footage on board.  I think it’s unlikely that they installed cameras, outdoors, which broadcast a signal, as that would have required a much larger and conspicuous device due to the need for a much larger battery and a transmitting device.  It’s much more likely that devices were planted at various locations and then collected after a few months and thus very unlikely that they were recovered at regular short term intervals.  I can’t prove that but I’m a bit of an electronics tinkerer so I have some idea of what it takes to rig up these things.

    I have no problem standing by my statement that I’m fine (under certain circumstances) with laws being broken for the prevention of more serious crimes, or promote social progress.  This whole scandal is a good example of why it’s sometimes justifiable.  If those activists hadn’t been prepared to break the law, there would be no efforts being made to stamp out the cruelty – that’s a pretty important point.  Remember that live baiting had been reported previously on multiple occasions.  I really don’t consider “trespass” to be such a heinous crime that I’m at all bothered by their actions.  And even if they are charged, these people are clearly prepared to risk being prosecuted to do something they believe in, so who cares, they can take their punishment, if it ever comes.  If they punched a child in the fact to obtain the footage, then you might have some moral high ground to stand on.

    I can easily come up with other scenarios under which I’d be fine with that same equation.  E.G. (and sticking with the trespass law), I have no problem with someone breaking into their neighbours house to intervene when they are bashing their wife.  Along different but related lines, I have no problem with Rosa Parks ignoring race segregation laws and sitting in the “white” section of a bus in order to progress racial equality.  I could go on, but I don’t think it’s necessary.  If that makes me crazy, so be it, but I doubt many would take that view <– but I guess a crazy person would say that.

  33. No SAV I’m sceptical that the amount of filming you “would imagine” would be sufficient (“1 pig, 1 possum, 1 rabbit”) would have actually been sufficient to achieve the same level of action that has been achieved.  We can argue about that, but since we can’t repeat the experiment with different variables we will never know, so that’s probably not an overly productive argument.

    This isn’t AA’s first rodeo when it comes to trying to engender change, so I’m inclined to defer to their experience when it comes to judging what level video footage is required to budge people.  The idea that they would have amassed a greater body of evidence than necessary in the hope that it would lead to a shutting down of the industry is not an entirely ridiculous idea.  It’s possible I suppose.  I guess the extent to which the “few bag eggs” argument was brought out initially quite frequently after the 4 corners expose aired (look back through articles on this very website) and only began to receed as the number of people charged started to become very high, is one factor that convinces me that a lot of footage was needed.  Other factors are similar investigations by animal welfare groups that have resulted in prosecutions for individuals but no change to regulations – there are many examples in the agriculture industry that fit this description.

    As you say quite correctly say: “it doesn’t take 4 months of slaughter to confirm the cruelty”, I completely agree, but I would argue that it does take “4 months of slaughter” to demonstrate the extent of the problem, and I think you underestimate how important that is.  But I won’t keep trying to convince you, we can agree to disagree on that point.  But I will say that if AA genuinely believed that level of footage is what it would take to enact change, then it’s not hypocrisy, if you’re assumption is correct (and it is an assumption) then perhaps you could say it’s hypocrisy.  That really comes down to their state of mind, I think you should at least acknowledge that you can’t know their state of mind on that, and make your claims of hypocrisy with a little less certainty (I won’t hold my breath given your clear emotional attachment to typing the word hypocrisy in capital letters).

    I think you’re really misrepresenting the situation when you say that AA “exposed” animals to cruelty, that implies that they were the ones creating the circumstances that allowed cruelty to occur.  That’s simply untrue.  I don’t think I need to elaborate on that point.

    I also think you should consider the nature in which this sort of footage is obtained.  Small hidden cameras usually store footage on board.  I think it’s unlikely that they installed cameras, outdoors, which broadcast a signal, as that would have required a much larger and conspicuous device due to the need for a much larger battery and a transmitting device.  It’s much more likely that devices were planted at various locations and then collected after a few months and thus very unlikely that they were recovered at regular short term intervals to frequently review the footage as it was collected.  I can’t prove that but I’m a bit of an electronics tinkerer so I have some idea of what it takes to rig up these things.

    I have no problem standing by my statement that I’m fine (under certain circumstances) with laws being broken for the prevention of more serious crimes, or promote social progress.  This whole scandal is a good example of why it’s sometimes justifiable.  If those activists hadn’t been prepared to break the law, there would be no efforts being made to stamp out the cruelty – that’s a pretty important point.  Remember that live baiting had been reported previously on multiple occasions.  I really don’t consider “trespass” to be such a heinous crime that I’m at all bothered by their actions.  And even if they are charged, these people are clearly prepared to risk being prosecuted to do something they believe in, so who cares, they can take their punishment, if it ever comes.  If they punched a child in the face to obtain the footage, then you might have some moral high ground to stand on.

    I can easily come up with other scenarios under which I’d be fine with that same equation.  E.G. (and sticking with the trespass law), I have no problem with someone breaking into their neighbours house to intervene when they are bashing their wife.  Along different but related lines, I have no problem with Rosa Parks ignoring race segregation laws and sitting in the “white” section of a bus in order to progress racial equality.  I could go on, but I don’t think it’s necessary.  If that makes me crazy, so be it, but I doubt many would take that view <– but I guess a crazy person would say that.

    I’m glad to hear you’re calm, I hope the whisky is good, I suppose copious capital letters and exclamation points always gives me the impression of someone angrily shouting.  I’ll adjust my perceptions accordingly.

  34. Hughie, no time to play atm, but I read this a little while ago and thought you might find it interesting to get inside the heads of some animal activist militants.

    It might give you more appreciation of the games at play…then again, you might already know…?

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/u54jnq94vgqm8dh/A CLOSER LOOK final.pdf?dl=0

    Happy reading…talk soon.

  35. No SAV I’ll take a look.  Though I do think it’s important to judge each organisation on their own merits and I’m more more interested in the particular investigation we’ve been discussing. And as a side note:  I’ve never suggested that activist organisations are beyond criticism – I don’t think anyone is beyond criticism, which is why I’m not overly interested in defenses that seek to discredit one’s accuser (argumentum ad hominem) instead of defending the actual accusations (especially when they are accompanied by evidence).

    I’m not really sure what this vilification of AA is designed to achieve, or indicates about your views.  Is it really your opinion that we’d be better off if they hadn’t done what they did?

  36. No SAV I’ll take a look.  Though I do think it’s important to judge each organisation on their own merits and I’m more more interested in the particular investigation we’ve been discussing. And as a side note:  I’ve never suggested that activist organisations are beyond criticism – I don’t think anyone is beyond criticism, which is why I’m not overly interested in defenses that seek to discredit one’s accuser (argumentum ad hominem) instead of defending the actual accusations (especially when they are accompanied by evidence).

    I’m not really sure what this vilification of AA is designed to achieve, or indicates about your views.  Is it really your opinion that we’d be better off if they hadn’t done what they did?

  37. Oh Hughie,
    So much to catch up on.
    Apologies for my absence, so busy, so little time.
    Well, my little anti friend, so much has happened in the last few days with the rise and rise of Haley Nylon and co.
    National heroes in the making and I see their website now has a touch of polish about it – that money must be rolling in.
    Those billboards aren’t cheap either, I bet.
    Please visit their website and read about the bobby calves.
    Btw, do you also drink milk or eat dairy products, Hugh?
    Yes, it looks like you were right in one respect, the footage WAS(no shouting) on board.
    It looks like your excuse of them only retrieving footage every couple of months, therefore not knowing the extent or numbers killed was wrong.
    They went back multiple multiple times – the two of them on a so called DATE(no shouting), how romantic.
    Riveting reading.
    The more I read some of your responses, Hughie, the more I realize you suffer from tunnel vision, may I suggest an optometrist?
    Eg:
    “The idea that they would have amassed a greater body of evidence than necessary in the hope that it would lead to a shutting down of the industry is not an entirely ridiculous idea. It’s possible I suppose. I guess the extent to which the “few bag eggs” argument was brought out initially quite frequently after the 4 corners expose aired (look back through articles on this very website) and only began to receed as the number of people charged started to become very high, is one factor that convinces me that a lot of footage was needed.”
    “not an entirely ridiculous idea”…”it’s possible I suppose.”
    Hughie, I get it, you are really a RACEHORSE!(shouting) and I was mistaken, not tunnel vision, you wear BLINKERS!(shouting) AND(not shouting but elongated) your jockey has the reins VERY(elongated) tight.
    And the prize winner is – “is on factor that convinces me that a lot of footage was needed.”
    Well, Hughie, what can I say to that?
    Although I am sure you will try and dance(more like stagger) around it, it pains me to say I’m disappointed in you.
    Here I was thinking I had met a debating internet friend who was impartial and open to REALITY.( more like a deflated moan)
    Answer to your question –
    Yes, its my opinion that we (as an industry, and the animals they sacrificed) would be better off if they didn’t do what they did.(to the extent they did)
    I am involved in the industry on many levels, Hughie, I am also a lover of animals, especially the Greyhound. I love the industry but I don’t love everyone in it.
    It’s my opinion that the same level of industry response could have been achieved by far less bloodshed.
    The public would have become aware of what happened and would have reacted with the same disdain.
    The bloodshed was literally an over kill.
    What WOULDN’T(emphasized) have happened was the conviction of however many trainers, and in that alone is one of the main reasons why they are hypocrites and why they are also guilty of animal cruelty to achieve their agenda. And let me clarify that – I don’t condone live baiting period. Do I believe the trainers should be punished? – yes, but not life.
    It seems the antis will fail in their bid to close the industry.
    They have succeeded in their quest to stop live baiting.
    They could have achieved this same result by having their video proof presented far earlier and saved hundred and hundreds of lives.
    They are guilty of animal cruelty which goes against their very own ETHOS!(shouting-as loud as I can.)
    Do you enjoy dairy products, Hugh?

  38. Oh Hughie,

    So much to catch up on.

    Apologies for my absence, so busy, so little time.

    Well, my little anti friend, so much has happened in the last few days with the rise and rise of Haley Nylon and co.

    National heroes in the making and I see their website now has a touch of polish about it – that money must be rolling in.

    Those billboards aren’t cheap either, I bet.

    Please visit their website and read about the bobby calves.

    Btw, do you also drink milk or eat dairy products, Hugh?

    Yes, it looks like you were right in one respect, the footage WAS(no shouting) on board.

    It looks like your excuse of them only retrieving footage every couple of months, therefore not knowing the extent or numbers killed was wrong.

    They went back multiple multiple times – the two of them on a so called DATE(no shouting), how romantic.

    Riveting reading.

    The more I read some of your responses, Hughie, the more I realize you suffer from tunnel vision, may I suggest an optometrist?

    Eg:

    “The idea that they would have amassed a greater body of evidence than necessary in the hope that it would lead to a shutting down of the industry is not an entirely ridiculous idea. It’s possible I suppose. I guess the extent to which the “few bag eggs” argument was brought out initially quite frequently after the 4 corners expose aired (look back through articles on this very website) and only began to receed as the number of people charged started to become very high, is one factor that convinces me that a lot of footage was needed.”

    “not an entirely ridiculous idea”…”it’s possible I suppose.”

    Hughie, I get it, you are really a RACEHORSE!(shouting) and I was mistaken, not tunnel vision, you wear BLINKERS!(shouting) AND(not shouting but elongated) your jockey has the reins VERY(elongated) tight.

    And the prize winner is – “is on factor that convinces me that a lot of footage was needed.”

    Well, Hughie, what can I say to that?

    Although I am sure you will try and dance(more like stagger) around it, it pains me to say I’m disappointed in you.

    Here I was thinking I had met a debating internet friend who was impartial and open to REALITY.( more like a deflated moan)

    Answer to your question –

    Yes, its my opinion that we (as an industry, and the animals they sacrificed) would be better off if they didn’t do what they did.(to the extent they did)

    I am involved in the industry on many levels, Hughie, I am also a lover of animals, especially the Greyhound. I love the industry but I don’t love everyone in it.

    It’s my opinion that the same level of industry response could have been achieved by far less bloodshed.

    The public would have become aware of what happened and would have reacted with the same disdain.

    The bloodshed was literally an over kill.

    What WOULDN’T(emphasized) have happened was the conviction of however many trainers, and in that alone is one of the main reasons why they are hypocrites and why they are also guilty of animal cruelty to achieve their agenda. And let me clarify that – I don’t condone live baiting period. Do I believe the trainers should be punished? – yes, but not life.

    It seems the antis will fail in their bid to close the industry.

    They have succeeded in their quest to stop live baiting.

    They could have achieved this same result by having their video proof presented far earlier and saved hundred and hundreds of lives.

    They are guilty of animal cruelty which goes against their very own ETHOS!(shouting-as loud as I can.)

    Do you enjoy dairy products, Hugh?

  39. No SAV So what you’re advocating for is that they still did what they did, but just handed over a lesser amount of footage to four corners sooner?  How does that match with you previously decrying their law breaking?  Sounds like you are also ok with the law being broken to prevent a greater crime, the very thing you have attacked me for.  You should try and figure out what you’re true position is and stop contradicting yourself.

    Like you said, it’s your opinion that it could have been done with less bloodshed.  You are making an assertion that a lesser amount of footage would have had the same effect (in terms of industry regulation).  That’s an assertion that can’t be verified, just as AAs assertion that the amount of footage they collected was required to achieve that action cannot be verified.

    Given how hard it is to get change in the area of animal welfare, I generally think it takes quite a lot to move public sentiment to the point that it will make a difference.  I’m more inclined to put my faith in AAs judgement on that than yours as a person who apparently was either ignorant or indifferent to a common practice within your own industry – you lack credibility in a big way.  You can say that I’m blinkered because of that, but you’re own blinkers are very much on display here too, we all have our own bias.

    I don’t know what you’re referring to with regards to Haley Nylon etc.  But I suspect you are criticising an advocacy group for using money to promote their cause, if that’s the case all I would have to say is the very reason people give money to advocacy groups is so that it can be used in the promotion of their cause.  You need money to get things done, and criticising that is ridiculous.  If you’re referring to something of a different flavor then you can clarify if you wish.

    I enjoy dairy products but I have had to change my habits because I’m concerned about the bobby calf issue.  You just keep going with the ad hominem attacks, give it up already.

    We disagree.  Seems like there’s not much more to be said.

  40. No SAV So what you’re advocating for is that they still did what they did, but just handed over a lesser amount of footage to four corners sooner?  How does that match with you previously decrying their law breaking?  Sounds like you are also ok with the law being broken to prevent a greater crime, the very thing you have attacked me for.  You should try and figure out what you’re true position is and stop contradicting yourself.

    Like you said, it’s your opinion that it could have been done with less bloodshed.  You are making an assertion that a lesser amount of footage would have had the same effect (in terms of industry regulation).  That’s an assertion that can’t be verified, just as AAs assertion that the amount of footage they collected was required to achieve that action cannot be verified.

    Given how hard it is to get change in the area of animal welfare, I generally think it takes quite a lot to move public sentiment to the point that it will make a difference.  I’m more inclined to put my faith in AAs judgement on that than yours as a person who apparently was either ignorant or indifferent to a common practice within your own industry – you lack credibility in a big way.  You can say that I’m blinkered because of that, but you’re own blinkers are very much on display here too, we all have our own bias.

    I don’t know what you’re referring to with regards to Haley Nylon etc.  But I suspect you are criticising an advocacy group for using money to promote their cause, if that’s the case all I would have to say is the very reason people give money to advocacy groups is so that it can be used in the promotion of their cause.  You need money to get things done, and criticising that is ridiculous.  If you’re referring to something of a different flavor then you can clarify if you wish.

    I enjoy dairy products but I have had to change my habits because I’m concerned about the bobby calf issue.  You just keep going with the ad hominem attacks, give it up already.

    We disagree.  Seems like there’s not much more to be said.

  41. Gee wiz, Hughie, you are hard work sometimes.

    The breaking of the law is really inconsequential to their hypocrisy or our debate, Hughie..

    I really couldn’t give a damn about the law breaking,(obviously neither do they) as a by product of their actions, Yes, they broke the law and they should be punished, and they will.

    Stop being pedantic and focus on the real issue.

    The real issue is their blatant HYPOCRISY.(shouting)

    They intended to break the law to justify an agenda.

    I don’t condone breaking of the law with a premeditated act of witnessing the brutal destruction of countless lives over a 4 month period, to justify trying to shut down the industry(the greater crime) because it goes against their opinions and beliefs.

    So, the whole epicenter of my beef(pun) with the militants is they are more than willing advertise belief that every animal deserves a happy, loving life – but not when it comes to something that crosses their opinion, especially when it involves animals and the evil of gambling….well, in that case, stuff the animals! Let them get torn apart!

    A very successful campaign that brought in a swag of donations to help fill healthy pay packets and help finance the next agenda.

    You are right, this game of chess is at a stalemate.

    Your agenda is clear with your clouded hypocritical view points and thinly veiled justifications.

    Oh Hughie, I must be honest and tell you I’m a little worried for you.

    If you are truly a non-vegan, and you are not a member of a minority extremist mung bean munchers society, you are in for a rough time if you keep swallowing the garbage.

    To quote you – “I enjoy(not enjoyED) dairy products but I have had to change my habits because I’m concerned about the bobby calf issue.” You are not too thorough, Hugh. It’s been going on for a hundred years! Because you were too lazy to do a bit of study, you are probably responsible for at least a couple a year, out of the 800,000.(I’m sure that figure is accurate – they don’t exaggerate.)

    So does this mean instead of say having a full bar of chocolate while watching Big Bang Theory you now only consume half?

    I hope that’s not right Hughie and you went the whole hog with only buying carob chocs.

    You strike me as someone who enjoys their food…, maybe big changes for you.

    I’m sure no animal industry is taboo for them to expose wastage ….after all, it all comes down to COST/BENEFIT.

    Obviously by your own admission, the bobby calf cost is not worth the yummy chocolate.

    When they expose the wastage in the meat, fisheries, game, and poultry industries there will be major lifestyle changes for you. I’m sure you will comply and conform, because at the end of the day, you don’t want to be called a HYPOCRITE.

    Mungbean Hughie – I like it. Has a nice ring to it.