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?

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
46 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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.

cressy
cressy
5 years ago

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,… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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.

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

Oh Hughie,
You’re in fine form today.
Ate you by any chance a vegan anti?

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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.

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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?

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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… Read more »

cressy
cressy
5 years ago

Hugh_ No SAV

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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.

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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… Read more »

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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.

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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… Read more »

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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,… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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… Read more »

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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%20CLOSER%20LOOK%20final.pdf?dl=0
Happy reading…talk soon.

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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… Read more »

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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… Read more »

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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.

cressy
cressy
5 years ago

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,… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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.

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

Oh Hughie,

You’re in fine form today.

Are you by any chance a vegan anti?

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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.

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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?

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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… Read more »

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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… Read more »

cressy
cressy
5 years ago

Hugh_ 

No SAV

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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.

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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… Read more »

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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.

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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… Read more »

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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,… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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… Read more »

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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.

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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… Read more »

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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… Read more »

Hugh_
Hugh_
5 years ago

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… Read more »

No SAV
No SAV
5 years ago

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… Read more »