Keinbah inquiry finds at least 99 greyhound remains on property

AN indépendant report into the Keinbah trial track has found that at least 99 greyhounds had been killed and buried in a mass grave on the property over a four year period.

The deplorable revelations come after a year long investigation into the property, with the report, led by Clive Steirn SC, finding that most were killed by a blow to the head – either by a gunshot or a blunt instrument.

The killings are believed to have occurred between 2009 and 2013, prior to the property being purchased by its current owners Robert and Natina Howard.

Rumours of a mass grave at Keinbah began circulating last year, however a Greyhound Racing NSW (GRNSW) inquiry found that there was no evidence of a mass grave on the property following a two day disciplinary hearing.

A week later bones were discovered when equipment, being used for fencing, sunk into the ground and revealed skeletal remains of a number of greyhounds.

Mr Steirn SC made the recommendation in his report that GRNSW require a number of implicated individuals to ‘show cause’ as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them for breaches of the Greyhound Racing Rules.

GRNSW is currently liaising with law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies to determine whether the report discloses any criminal offences.

The full report into the inquiry is set to be released, however GRNSW is currently withholding it so it does not impact on any potential criminal prosecutions.

The news comes less than two weeks after the Baird government announced plans to close down the greyhound racing industry within NSW following the report from the Special Commission of Inquiry.

The Special Commission was led by Justice Michael McHugh, who claimed in his report that systemic cruelty was present within the industry as well as the widespread practice of live baiting and high numbers of wastage.

Paul Newson, who was appointed as the interim CEO of GRNSW following last February’s live baiting scandal, was replaced by an administrator last week, and said in a statement that the timing of the Keinbah report was unfortunate.

“The report findings have confirmed everyone’s worst fears that mass graves have been a feature of the greyhound racing industry and a number of industry participants were involved in horrific and unconscionable acts of animal cruelty which cannot be, if proven, allowed to go unanswered,” Newson said.

“I recognise the timing of the report is unfortunate, falling immediately after the McHugh inquiry and government decision to close down the sport, however, GRNSW must continue to safeguard animal welfare and integrity and take immediate action where misconduct and serious wrongdoing is revealed.”

The decision to appoint Mr Steirn SC as the head of the independent review came after the NSW RSPCA and NSW Police failed to take further investigative action following GRNSW’s initial inquiry.

The investigation was the first full archaeological excavation and forensic examination of a mass grave and its contents in Australia.

“Given the serious nature of the allegations I referred GRNSW’s earlier investigation findings to the NSW RSPCA and NSW Police to consider whether, notwithstanding the potential difficulties, any further action could be taken to investigate the allegations,” Newson said.

“While GRNSW believed it was not best equipped or the most appropriate organisation to conduct major excavation, exhumation and forensic analysis work, in the circumstances, and following confirmation that other agencies did not intend to conduct further investigation, I was persuaded that the current investigation report prepared by Mr Steirn SC was the correct and only path to investigate this matter.

“Although sadly too late to protect the many greyhounds killed, the report shows GRNSW was committed to overcoming past failures, exposing individuals involved in animal cruelty and ridding the industry of participants unable or unwilling to meets its animal welfare and integrity standards.

“GRNSW’s resolve to see this complex and comprehensive investigation to conclusion demonstrates it’s willingness to address our worst problems in the open and be held to account for industry reform and effective supervision of greyhound racing.”

Details of the report which have so far come to light include findings that 95% of dogs excavated and analysed from three seperate sites on the Hunter Valley property had no evidence of any other injury around the time of death.

“Logically, the only probable motive for culling greyhounds in these circumstances leads to a conclusion the animals were being killed for no other reason than that they were found to be underperforming after being trialed, and therefore of no further use,” Mr Steirn SC said.

Also noted in the report was the burial pattern which indicated that 60% of the dogs were buried in groups of two, three, or four, all of which had sustained skull trauma. This happened on a minimum of 11 occasions at the site.

Mr Steirn SC has recommended that the responsible parties be held accountable who allegedly provided false or misleading evidence at prior Stewards’ inquiries.

“It is probable that most of these dogs were killed for reasons other than emergency euthanasia, which was the reason advanced by material witnesses.”

Past Discussion

  1. The similar Queensland case has led to criminal charges for gun law breeches ( criminal charges) against two people. The case is due to be heard during this year. 

  2. Deborah555 DaveSampson75 Yep because as we know, this is the only mass grave ever found (which it isnt) and therefore we know there arent any other mass graves as surely they would all be found (scoff) so therefore this is a one off. Another ‘bad apple’ giving the industry a bad name. Those bad apples are starting to mount up! I do wonder what the trainers in the Hunter Valley thought when they kept noticing that dogs they were racing against the previous week suddenly stopped showing up. Got bored of racing did they so decided to retire to a life on the farm frolicking about … rofl … thats the dream GBOTA and its members sell us right?

  3. As sad as this situation is, it must be remembered that farmers all over Australia destroy their dogs in the same manner.  This was acknowledged in an ABC Landline program in an article about failed working dogs.  The Program host commented that 60,000 failed working dogs were either shot or drowned because the poor old farmer does not need another hungry mouth to feed.  Go figure!  Did the Greenies within the ABC pick up on it and run with the story condemning farmers.  Nooooo!  

    Troy Grant is now dripfeeding the press with cases of animal cruelty.  Cruelty or not, its the way things are done on the land. It’s gruesome but cheap. Let’s not just stigmatise this Industry Mr Grant.

  4. DaveSampson75 Deborah555  No the other contained 13 dogs. The industry has admitted to dogs being put down and so have the horse people. They are disputing the number of 45000 and doing their best to reform the industry. What is it that you actually do for animal welfare Dave other than come on a racing lovers site with your high moral attitude condemning trainers and owners? I don’t think you are motivated by a love of animals I think you just love the sound of your own posts.

  5. A reporter from the Financial Review (whose twitter page has a photo of himself from 15 years ago, I do wonder about anyone who does that)  claims that Baird was gobsmacked that a prestigious law firm was willing to represent, heavens the dog people, after suggesting (without naming the other firms) that other legal firms didn’t want to represent these types of people and then Baird claims this is not class warfare. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it probably is. Another academic ( I use the term loosely) claims it is okay for the horse people to have wastage because it provides more money than the greyhounds and the horse industry is safe.

    This report was released by Paul Newson, who I thought was replaced last week, claiming it was unfortunate timing. If you want the greyhound industry gone like he does it is excellent timing. It will be interesting to see how Baird rewards this lapdog, a new well paid job?

    Unless the law has changed it is not illegal to shoot a dog, so instead they are going to try and charge people with firearms offences or providing false information. If that is not a witch hunt I don’t know what is.

    Wasting the taxpayers money paying more bloody lawyers and forensic scientists to carry out independent studies, digging up dead dogs ( who are these ghouls) – both the horse and dog industry have admitted “wastage” why not spend the money working out how to rehome the thousands on the ground now.

  6. Sort of puts paid to the spin that they all love their greyhounds and their greyhounds are pets and family – who would hit their pet or family member on the head with a blunt instrument or take them to a mass grave and shoot them? Sounds an awful lot like what nazis did. Just saying…

  7. LindaDicmanis  60,000 working dogs get shot Linda have you been on any farming websites lately to condemn them, have you rung up the RSPCA and asked them about the 100,000 cats and dogs they killed last year?  Even better have you rung up and volunteered to help out – no that would require a bit of effort so much easier to get on a website and rave on. What is it with you so called animal lovers that you seem incapable of having a say without using inflammatory and I may add totally irrelevant comparisons like Nazis and not one mention of a welfare issue just using the site to condemn others.  

  8. I think the important points that need to be made regardingthe report from this enquiry about activities prior to 2013  are:

    (1) it was instigated after advocacy from greyhound racingparticipants including trainer Bob Whitelaw

    (2) it was commissioned by the sports regulator GRNSW afterthe RSPCA and NSW Police were not prepared to further investigate

    (3) it was undertaken with the cooperation of the currentowners of the Keinbah Trial Track who discovered the mass grave afterpurchasing the property in 2013.

    This is an example of how greyhound racing is prepared toaddress what has happened in the past regardless of the negative consequences

  9. Deborah555 John Tracey Short answer is yes as criminal codes require unnecessary cruelty as a rule and euthanasia of animal needs to be done in a cruel way to qualify. The greyhound control boards have rules requiring euthanasia be carried out when possible by Vets. The breech of the domestic rules would be civil. I am not aware of the specific case totally but I assume that there were allegations of aggravated cruelty but there were legal problems with the execution of the warrant and the matter has been before the bench several times leading to a lesser charge dealing with fire arms possession. One of the ICAC 2000 witnesses was recommended for prosecution and ended up being jailed on a fire arms criminal breech as well.

    Here is the best prompt to the Queensland Acts I will follow up the matter myself later and advise you if I need to change the post.

    https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industry/agriculture/animal-management/land-management-for-livestock-farms/welfare-movement-livestock/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-law

  10. Deborah555 LindaDicmanis We’ve been over this before.  The RSPCA does what it can with limited resources to save and look after animals and puts them down as a last resort when it does not have the resources to feed and house them and has been unsuccessful at trying to adopt animals out to the public.  At that point death is preferable to starvation.  The RSPCA does not create the problem of excess unwanted animals, it is cleaning up the irresponsible actions of others that creates a glut of excess unwanted animals.

    It’s intellectually dishonest to keep comparing the actions of the RSPCA to the actions of industries that create the problem of excess animals in the first place.

    As for working dogs, I’m sure many people would be against 60,000 working dogs being shot every year, but this is not necessarily an issue that is on people’s radar.  People can only react to what they know, and as we’ve discussed previously (but don’t agree on) people are not necessarily aware of all animal welfare issues that they may find objectionable.  Perhaps you think this 60,000 working dogs being killed per year is common knowledge, I don’t believe it is, and I’m not aware of the circumstances under which they are being killed either, which makes it rather hard to make a judgement.  in fact apart from you bringing it up a couple of times on this website, I’ve never heard anything about it.

  11. Hugh_ Deborah555 LindaDicmanis  My criticism was not of the RSPCA nor farmers they both  have to make hard choices. Did it ever occur to you Hugh that is why some people in the racing game also put animals down – they simply cannot afford to feed them any longer.  I was merely questioning Linda’s sincerity or otherwise and suggesting that using a term like Nazis is inflammatory and unnecessary in a debate. I think Linda might be just jumping on the bandwagon and please Hugh can you tell your mates at Animals Australia that we could not possibly be made any more aware of red bulls being hit with sledgehammers how much more do we need to see of this and yesterday’s “news” not just the red bull, sledgehammer, foreign worker ad over and over again. Now we have day old chicks being crushed in rollers. This is just porn for the people on the planet who actually love being cruel to animals. I think you will find that the sickos really appreciate the efforts of the gals at Animals Australia.  None of this stirs compassion it just stirs up anger and hate.

  12. Thousands of unwanted dogs are humanely euthanized by the RSPCA each year and nobody can deny that is a blessing.

    In light of this discussion however I do have a problem with the thousands of stray dogs at the mercy of dog catchers (employed by the shires and councils all across Australia) especially in regional areas that are simply taken out and shot with the full knowledge of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY that is answerable to the STATE GOVERNMENT.

  13. lone widow  Any unwanted animal being put down is sad. The RSPCA once ran programmes where they would desex animals for a very small amount and the programme was well supported. Surely this is a better solution. Whether the needle or gun it is sad but both are almost instantaneous and as sad as it is better than starvation.

    I do however see your point about the hypocrisy of the state government and agree with you and so would 6000 brumbies Baird authorised the killing of the appease the environmental lobby and get them on side now that Rev Fred is refusing to support him over his gender bender safe schools programme.

  14. davidf82  I believe the RSPCA and Police refused to act because it is not illegal to shoot a dog in NSW just illegal to do it with an unlicensed gun. This may have changed although given they are alleging the offences are providing false information it would not appear to be the case.  I fail to see what digging up deceased dogs will achieve- the racing codes have admitted wastage and have demonstrated they are willing to do something serious about it. 

  15. lone widow Deborah555  oh absolutely, breeding, how many brothers and sisters in their litter, how many other litters their mum’s had, dam and sire, microchip, registration, treatment records, earbrands- for every single one of them. Yes I have seen that nodding red headed git that runs the show and when he is not trying to put himself up grant and baird’s bottoms I am sure he dedicates himself to keeping records on 100,000 dogs and cats. I have absolute faith in him.

    Lone widow have you seen the latest addition to the crew at Animals Australia – they actually have a man on their tiny administrative staff that cost millions to administer. A former circus performer- a clown. I kid you not. I couldn’t believe. Although he should fit right in. But then if we have a premier who can authorise killing 6000 horses so the greens will go with  him -because Rev Fred has the nerve to suggest that maybe it is not appropriate for teachers to suggest to kids that it is a perfectly normal life style for men to walk around the planet  dressed as really ugly women. Yes so anything is possible.

  16. Deborah555 Hugh_ LindaDicmanis You questioned her sincerity by implying that if she really cares about animal welfare she should also be protesting against the RSPCA.  I’m pointing out why that makes no sense.

    If you’re a breeder, and you breed more animals than you can afford to look after, then you’re creating the problem of unwanted animals.  If you’re the RSPCA, you’re trying trying to fix the problem of unwanted animals.  There’s absolutely no comparison to be had between the two.  One creates a problem, one does everything they can to fix a problem created by others.

    When you breed a litter of pups, whether you get any that will ultimately be profitable racers is somewhat dependant on chance.  if knowing this, you breed dogs, and then end up with more than you can look after because you didn’t get enough good runners from the litters, that’s on you.  You made that choice.  You knew the risks.  You’re responsible for bringing the dogs into the word.  And if your defence is that you were hoping to obtain more profitable runners with less litters, then that’s like saying you were hoping the pokie machine would make you rich before it emptied your bank account.  The responsible thing to do is only put the amount of money into the machine that you can afford to lose.  The responsible thing to do is not breed more animals than you can afford to look after.  But we both know that’s not how breeders operate, which is why there are multiple articles written on this website defending wastage as a perfectly acceptable and necessary part of the industry.

    As for Animals Australia and their media campaigns.  I couldn’t be any more aware of many things that get played over and over again in television ad breaks (well in truth I don’t watch TV, but I used to).  Why do these companies keep playing the same ad again and again?  Two reasons.  1.  Play an ad once, and some people see it.  Play it again and more people see it.  Play it again and again and again and you maximise the number of people that see it.  2. Cement it in people’s mind by showing it to them again and again, don’t let them forget it, make sure they keep thinking about it.

    Anyone who gets angry and feels hateful towards Animals Australia or any similar group for simply showing them the truth, is a fool.  If you’re “distressed” or “offended” by seeing the truth, then I have no sympathy for you, because your level of discomfort is nothing compared to what these animals experience.  And if your reaction to being shown the harsh reality of our failings as a society to protect animals is to become indignant, then you were never going to be of any use to any movement that generates positive social change anyway.  Your not the target audience.  People that want to shut out the unpleasant truths in our society and keep their head in the sand are not the target audience.  The target audience is people who never realised our agriculture industries were so abhorrent.  The target audience is people who will see this, and feel that it’s an injustice, and respond by putting pressure on industries and elected representatives to change their business practices and legislation.

    “We could not possibly be made any more aware” that the industry is upset about being shut down in NSW.  But I have a feeling that people will keep writing articles making the same arguments against the decision again and again.  That’s what happens when people feel strongly about a social injustice, they keep making noise in the hope that they can persuade people to their point of view.

  17. Hugh_ Deborah555 LindaDicmanis  Hugh if your job is to oversee killing 100,000 dogs and cats regardless of whose fault it is – you have shown that you are prepared to take a salary a big salary with super- based on killing animals and if you were really so upset about killing animals you would not be in this position. Would you take up that job Hugh? I don’t condemn him based on what he does just that he is hypocritical about anyone else who kills animals. He doesn’t care about greyhounds he is just toadying to boy baird.

    Watching a boring add about life insurance Hugh is not the same as watching animal cruelty. These people use it as a method not because repetition is effective they do it to whip up anger and hate. They do not love animals they want power, admiration they are as sincere as the lung cancer warning on a packet of cigarettes. . They want and believe they have the right to tell others how to live their lives based on what Hugh a degree in behavioural science, 20 years in the Police force, and previous experience in a circus and this gives you a mandate to believe you can ban agriculture, racing, pets and guide dogs. Hugh if you went to a therapist and said that they would probably diagnose you with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  

  18. Deborah555 Hugh_ LindaDicmanis It’s not hypocritical.  I’ve explained why it’s not hypocritical ad nauseam.  If you can’t see the difference between doing everything possible to save animals that other people have abandoned, and only putting them down as a last resort, versus intentionally breeding surplus animals that you know will then need to be put down, then I’m at a loss.  There’s no other way I can explain it to you or make it clearer.  You just don’t want to accept it, and when you suggest that the work the RSPCA does is “based on killing animals” you demonstrate that you are not being rational or reasonable.  It’s an inappropriate comparison, what you’re labelling as hypocrisy is in fact not hypocrisy.  You’re wrong and you just can’t admit it.

    As for your assessment of AA, you make a lot of assertions about the internal motivations of the people in the organisation but it’s just your opinion, and it’s based on a purely external subjective assessment.  I may as well say that you’re true motivation is to kill as many greyhounds as possible, because I have an equal amount of evidence for this claim.

    Let’s break down the last few sentences of ridiculousness you’ve put forward:

    They want and believe they have the right to tell others how to live their lives”  Everyone has the right to tell others how to live, that’s called free speech.  Are you supporting censorship of ideas?  If you don’t agree with their message you are free to disagree, and that’s exactly what you’re doing.  What you’re really saying here is you don’t like people voicing ideas you disagree with.  Get used to it.

    based on what Hugh a degree in behavioural science, 20 years in the Police force, and previous experience in a circus” This is a dishonest argumentative tactic.  It’s called the ad hominem fallacy (look it up).  You focus on the people not the argument.  It doesn’t matter if it’s a homeless street person or a nobel prize winner, what they have to say on any given topic should be judged on it’s own merits.  Trying to discredit someone based on their background instead of addressing their arguments is a cheap tactic people use when they don’t have a valid rebuttal.  You do this constantly.  In all these arguments we’ve had you have an unhealthy obsession with attacking the source of an argument instead of the argument itself.  Grow up, and learn to engage in the realm of ideas and public debate like an adult instead of a child.

    and this gives you a mandate to believe you can ban agriculture, racing, pets and guide dogs”  What the hell are you talking about?  Are we still talking about AA?  They have no mandate or power to ban anything.  They can’t change legislation, enforce laws or anything of the sort.  They are in the business of information, ideas and arguments.  If they can’t persuade people that they are on the right side of the debate, then people will not adopt their views.  They are free to make their moral arguments, just as you and other organisations are free to make your moral counter arguments.  That’s free speech, that’s democracy.  If you don’t like it, move to North Korea.


    Hugh if you went to a therapist and said that they would probably diagnose you with Narcissistic Personality Disorder” No need to address this because it’s the conclusion to a bunch of invalid arguments and inaccurate statements.

  19. Hugh_ Deborah555 LindaDicmanis  No Hugh they do not have the right to tell others how to live their lives and that in essence is the main objection I have about certain animal activists. Free speech is a very, very different matter.

    To change how people live you need a mandate, in a free country anyway.

    When I first read your posts I estimated your age as in your twenties- ( I now think you are a fair bit older than that) your idealism, belief that you can make the world a better place and you just cannot understand why it has not been done already by the millions who have already existed many with finer minds than you Hugh. Most people are idealistic in their twenties (  maybe, not so much if they have had hard lives)  I had the same arrogance and beliefs myself then Hugh. I was surprised to discover as I got older how little I actually really did know.

    I have since learnt, that not everyone has had the spoilt, pampered and good life I have had  ( not because I have done anything to deserve it I just got lucky)  People I once judged harshly are actually more concerned about survival and have not been given the choices or gifts I have.

    I have every right to my opinion on some-one and I am willing to admit that my views are opinions, when they are opinions, rather than facts.

    I simply believe that some, not all Hugh, of the animal activists have baser motives than animal welfare.

  20. Hugh_ Deborah555 LindaDicmanis  What’s with this constant defence of Linda Hugh it cannot be for the qualitiy of her arguments- is it just the lovely face. I have never heard you this defensive of a fellow poster.

  21. Hugh_ Deborah555 LindaDicmanis I have been in charge of Government rehab units and have benefited from therapist advice which was mandatory condition of employment. Productive people often have fragile personalities and people in our unit were made up of people who struggled through, true professionals who never got off the rails and people who had to leave the unit as they could not hack the horrors. One of my favourite social workers resigned and got accepted for NiDA. An orderly sold his house and put all his assets in cash and handed them out to handicapped people. Other staff preached on the streets etc. I regard myself as a person with a fragile personality who struggled through and on reflection I think I would have been much the same but more comfortable and effective if I had got more advice earlier. I   benefited greatly from advice later on. Some welfare rescue people giving evidence to the enquiries need medical help in my opinion they are victims of an unregulated industry and it is human cruelty in my estimation to use them up rather than help them. 

    Hi Linda,

    Notice this is your first post. Pre World War Germany Government were pre occupied with Animal (non human) welfare. What was said at the time by visionaries was that a country goes legal before it becomes fascist.

  22. Deborah555 Hugh_ LindaDicmanis Yes, they do have the right to tell others.  That’s all their doing, “telling”, using words.  They aren’t forcing anyone, they’re saying “we don’t think you should do this because it’s wrong” and you are free to ignore them, disagree with them, respond to them however you choose.  That’s free speech.  It’s no different to a libertarian saying there should be lower taxes, a marriage equality advocate saying we should legalise gay marriage, or the christian lobby saying we shouldn’t legalise gay marriage.  These are all examples of people arguing for what they believe is right, and that is what a group like AA does.  They have the right to do that, it is free speech.  I have the right to tell you how to live your life, you have the right to ignore me, that’s free speech.  It’s not a difficult concept to understand.

    Yes, to change how people live you need a mandate, from voters.  People elect political parties so that that their members can make decisions on their behalf.  That has nothing to do with AA, they are not a political party.  And if they were, and they got elected, then they would have a mandate from those who voted for them.  But they are not.  They are just a group making an argument, and they have the right to do that.

    you just cannot understand why it has not been done already by the millions who have already existed many with finer minds than you Hugh”

    Where did you get this from?  What have I said that indicates I am perplexed by human behaviour?  When have I indicated that I am confused by the fact that people don’t share my views?  I’m not.  I won’t pretend to understand every nuance of human behaviour, no one does.  But I understand well many of the reasons why the world is the way it is, it’s not a mystery to me.  Particularly when it comes to the way animals are treated.  I didn’t always think this way, as I’ve stated previously, as recently as a year ago I used to eat any meat, milk and eggs I could, with only small considerations of the ethics, by buying free range eggs.  I’ve changed my way of living because others opened my eyes to the way agriculture operates, made arguments to me about why animals should be treated better in society, and I listened to these arguments, considered them at length and I decided I agreed with what they were saying.  And it wasn’t instant either, it took a long time for me to come round.  So I perfectly understand people not sharing my views, I only have to wind the clock back on my own life to find someone that didn’t share my views.

    There’s nothing arrogant about being an idealist.  There’s nothing wrong with being an idealist.  There’s something wrong with being naive, because if you’re naive then you approach things with unrealistic expectations, or you approach things poorly, and then you are disappointed when you don’t get the result you hoped for.  I understand that many people will not be persuaded by the things I say, that’s fine, but some will.  And some already have been.  I don’t expect things to change any time soon, I don’t even expect them to change in my lifetime.  But I prefer to be part of the solution than the problem.  It’s a long battle, just like all human rights victories were long battles, just like all positive animal welfare reforms we’ve had so far have been long battles.  I understand that, and I understand that I will continually be disappointed by the lack of change.  But I divorce myself from that, I have decided what I believe, and I argue for that whenever the opportunity arises, and then I get on with my own life.

    And you need to stop assuming that just because someone is arguing for better animal welfare that means we think everyone that treats animals poorly (by our standards) is a bad person.  No one is saying that.  You think I don’t understand why some person in china skins dogs alive because it’s the only way he can make money to feed his family?  You think I don’t understand that some people are born into farming, don’t know anything else in life, and so do what they’ve always been taught to do it the way they’ve been taught to do it because they are just trying to survive and make it through life?  You think I don’t understand that some people simply don’t agree with me that animals are sentient?  I understand all of this, and many other reasons people don’t share my views, and it doesn’t mean that these are bad people.  But it doesn’t make it right either, and it doesn’t mean that myself and others shouldn’t make the arguments for why animals should be treated better.  It’s not arrogant to stand up for animals.  It’s not naive to try and make the world a better place.  And if all your doing is making the argument, if you’re not using force on people, then all you’re doing is exercising free speech.

    Lastly, yes you have every right to your opinions and beliefs about what motivates someone.  But when you hold beliefs, and hold them strongly, based on no evidence, well there’s a word for that.  You say you grew up and realised how much you don’t know, but you still seem to think you know things that you can’t possibly know.  And the main point I was making is that it’s irrelevant anyway.  You can’t know if someone’s motivations are pure or impure, so it’s stupid to remain fixated on this.  Instead judge them on their actions.  Criticism of Animals Australia’s message, their ideas, their arguments, and their methods for conveying them, those are things worth debating.  Constantly attacking the people themselves about things you can’t possible know or prove, well that’s the actions of a fool.

  23. Deborah555 Hugh_ LindaDicmanis I have no idea who Linda is and I’m not trying to defend anyone.  I read the article, I looked at the comments, and I saw someone making flawed, illogical arguments that I didn’t agree with, so I decided to respond.  Again you focus on the person instead of the argument.  Have you looked up the ad hominem fallacy yet?  You’re the master of it.  If one can call constantly using a logical fallacy mastery…

  24. John Tracey Hugh_ Deborah555 LindaDicmanis John if you’re trying to suggest that protecting animal welfare through the legal system is fascist, then that’s ridiculous.  It’s no different to protecting human welfare through the legal system.  But honestly I mostly find it hard to understand what your point is in many of your posts.

  25. Hugh_ John Tracey Deborah555 LindaDicmanis  Hugh lighten up. I too found John’s posts a bit hard at first because I realised he was obviously clever with a wealth of experience somewhere so I did a bit of research, well a lot really, and found someone with remarkable experience and because I was a teacher it suddenly dawned on me what it was that John had and now I understand all that he posts. I am not going to embarrass John by saying what it is and if you are as clever as you think you should be able to figure it out as well and then his posts will make perfect sense.

  26. Deborah555 Hugh_ John Tracey LindaDicmanis I never said I was clever.  I also wasn’t having a go at him.  It’s obvious that John is a smart guy with a lot of relevant experience who posts insightful stuff, but I am often left unsure if I am interpreting his meaning correctly.  It’s not an insult, just a statement of fact, a caveat I felt the need to make because I was unsure if I was interpreting him accurately.  Perhaps my wording was overly blunt.

    I do think it’s ridiculous to imply that protecting animals under law is fascist if that is in fact what he was implying.

  27. Hugh_ John Tracey Deborah555 LindaDicmanis  PS John  I hope I have not gone to far here and if I have I apologise in advance. but I was very curious about you and wanted to understand what you were saying because it was obvious that you had a wealth of experience.

  28. Hugh_ Deborah555 John Tracey LindaDicmanis  I know you were not insulting him. He is not saying what you think. Here is a clue Hugh reverse, reverse, reverse.

  29. Deborah555 Hugh_ John Tracey LindaDicmanis No problems , Deborah you obviously understand dyslexia patterns. I meant the opposite to what is being interpreted what I meant was that fascism is not an issue either way. In retrospect I should not have included the legal/fascist quote.

    This quote was in response to the war graves and the graphical description of writings in World War two presented on Foxtel repeating Dr Brendon Nelson’s readings from historians on the front line in both world wars. The imagery created by Dr Nelson were as confronting and probably more confronting than the ABC images on the greyhound graves.

    Like you say Hugh the cruelty to animal welfare acts in the English speaking countries and others follow the freedom acts for humans.

    In my lifetime and till fairly recently it was government policy not to bring the bodies of Australian soldiers home  or to disturb the mass graves overseas. I found the grave yards and the efforts to honour our dead in battle very cathartic. We had a tennis team in the early 1950’s and I was one of five members out of 24 who had a full set of parents. Two members of the group had fathers that were missing in action in ww2 and it wrecked their lives to a degree. One of these people has did but other one would be pleased that the human welfare aspects of the recovery of the soldiers and in any case the honouring of the soldiers.

    The showing of the details of the mass grave of greyhounds on the ABC on top of the mass graves mentioned in the 100 year war at the same time really had a bad confronting effect on me for the following reasons.

    When I first went into greyhounds pre decimal I had my own acreage on the outskirts of Sydney and I was able to rear in conjunction with extended family greyhounds on the property and when the retired greyhounds passed away buried on the property with burial rights. Like a lot of people I got caught up in the interest explosion and had to sell property. This left me with greyhounds in the metropolitan area and when the time came for the dogs to pass on I took them to the vet who either euthanised the dogs or took control of the body if the dogs died without needing to be put out of their suffering. I never asked where the dogs were to be buried or disposed of but I assume now that the dogs would have been disposed in some mass grave. In more recent times mass cremations of companion animals has become available and people can get a share of the ashes for keeping, also there has been a development in single cremations and funeral services with the top service costing about K.

    I took up having my dogs bred in the country and I was able to have my last dog retiring to the farm he was born on, compete yearly in six years of age greyhound races and live to sixteen.

    I bought acreage again in the south with the idea of keeping horses and dogs but age caught up with me. I involved myself in the Gunnedah project when the GBOTA bought the attached property to the track to extend the hallowed ground with the monument and burial place of Chief Havoc the Phar Lap of the greyhounds. I must say that the lack of interest in funding bodies for the Gunnedah project was luke warm even though it ticked all the boxes in animal welfare.

  30. John Tracey Deborah555 Hugh_ LindaDicmanis  Yes I was intrigued and if I had still been teaching I would have picked the pattern straight away but I have been retired for a while now. I was reading something else you wrote and I suddenly had a memory of two students very, very clever students who had similar writing patterns as you and then it twigged.

    I really enjoyed this article, it is interesting that when you write from your heart you express yourself perfectly.

    After I had posted the comment I was worried that I may have been too personal.

    Thank you for being so gracious about my comment. The first greyhound I ever met was a Chief Havoc pup and I hold him entirely responsible for my lifetime addiction to his kind.