Racing integrity commissions based on hope alone
WE may have gone as far as we can in discussing welfare and breeding issues. In any event, I find it annoying to be verballed so regularly, and to note so many extravagant statements made by people who do not state their qualifications. There is also an urge to pick out one bad apple and use it to underpin future policy decisions – hardly productive methodology.
Even so, I am going to make one last comment on one of “Hugh’s” opinions, partly because it is a reasonably fresh subject. He said, “However I do think that an independent regulator is, in principle, a hugely positive step when it comes to safeguarding animal welfare. The temptation to give into profit maximising practices at the expense of animal welfare is too great.”
I bring that up for five reasons. First, how much an integrity commissioner gets involved in welfare is uncertain, particularly if the welfare-veterinary function is still embedded in the other half of the organisation – ie the so-called commercial area.
Second, such claims assume that the new system will be a good one and that it will be staffed with knowledgeable people. There is no guarantee whatever that such an outcome will be achieved. It is more a hope than a thoroughly considered response. Indeed, two states have already appointed Integrity Commissioners, both ex-policemen, with no special competence in welfare or even greyhound racing. These were political moves, no more, no less.
Third, as occurred in all the so-called independent reviews, it does not delve into the reasons for the failure of the original system. Was that system good, bad or indifferent? Were the people competent, lazy or did they have a laissez-faire attitude? What went wrong? It is not sufficient to simply say there were not enough people and they have all been sacked anyway. The absence of historical analysis means any future change will run the risk of repeating the old shortcomings.
Fourth, there are several aspects of greyhound racing that are screaming out for improvement and modernisation, including welfare. But any new welfare initiatives will be expensive, relative to the past, and so funds must be differently allocated in the future. To bring that about, it is important, even essential, that revenue and costs improve substantially over past efforts.
Fifth, a separate integrity group will certainly prove more expensive. That was one of the reasons for disbanding the comparable GHRRA organisation in NSW a few years ago. There was no compensating benefit to match the upfront cost.
I have not a shadow of doubt that a better result is achievable but not by otherwise continuing with the status quo. To simply raise welfare costs while maintaining existing revenue will obviously retard prize money, and in turn disadvantage participants who also are required to improve the integrity of their own operations.
As I instanced the other day, if a maintenance controller allows shoddy cars to go through the production line it means that either the employee or the system is at fault, or both. So find out which it is and change it.
Similarly, it has been well demonstrated that airlines which skimp on maintenance or training are the ones most likely to suffer crashes. Such outcomes invariably are a function of top management decisions and attitudes.
Greyhound bosses have clearly been at fault and the industry has suffered terrible crashes. So where else would you look for solutions?
In short, we need major reform and modern, business-like, accountable managers and management
structures to replace the current outmoded lot.
Incidentally, “Hugh” and others may not be aware that racing authorities are essentially bureaucratic institutions, run on a day to day basis by CEOs who have little or no direct authority or responsibility – formally, that rests with the board alone. CEOs are administrators, not managers. Having said that, it is noteworthy that GRNSW has already established fresh sets of principles and objectives to guide staff in all areas. Of course, a principle is one thing, practice another.
WA greyhound racing – good in parts
I have hesitated to comment on Perth’s new Cannington track – with the exception of a prediction that a bend start for 600m races was a poor choice – pending some practical evidence. However, after a couple of months racing and a couple of feature events the picture is becoming clearer.
The corners seem quite good – but see (2) below.
The track strongly favours railers and good beginners – ie it’s a leader’s track.
The 600m bend start is a dud. It should be in a shute. (Ditto for Murray Bridge in SA).
In time I expect inside boxes to provide more than their share of winners – see (2) above.
Incidentally, the all-powerful Ozchase site never posts Cannington videos and prices until later in the week, which is a pain. However, the GWA website does the job right away but never shows field lists or times and margins. You can’t win, can you?
(Yes, I know Queensland and Tasmania are no better. Tassie also shows its own videos but, like WA, does not list names or box numbers on the same page so you seldom know what you are looking at).
Great minds
On a completely unrelated subject, here is what a newspaper reader said about the way the world works.
“The ABC is a good example of what occurs when market forces do not apply – waste, unwanted products and general inefficiency”.
Racing, of course, has never accommodated market forces in its decision making. A committee of anywhere between three and twelve decides everything – therefore always being forced to use the lowest common denominator principle and seldom innovating anything. Consequently, it has waste, unwanted products and general inefficiency.
Dismal run
Stewards Report, Race 10, Shepparton April 25.
“Zoltina’s Legacy was quick to begin. Nangar Fox and Specify collided soon after the start checking Specify. Dragon Empire checked off Zoltina’s Legacy soon after the start. Kian’s Hybrid checked off Nangar Fox on the first turn checking Zoltina’s Legacy and Specify. Zoltina’s Legacy, Nangar Fox and Specify collided approaching the home turn checking Nangar Fox. Kian’s Hybrid checked off Dragon Empire approaching the winning post. Kian’s Hybrid, Specify and Zoltina’s Legacy collided approaching the winning post.”
First, Zoltina’s Legacy, a $1.70 favourite in box 1, did get out of the box quickly but showed little pace at all after that (very unusual) and soon dropped well back. The above mentions of interference were all fairly modest and greatly exaggerated by the report. The bitch just plodded on, finishing eight lengths away in 3rd place.
Otherwise, stewards made no comment about the run, yet far better performances have been keenly queried. It may have been just a bad hair day – I would subscribe to that, given its excellent history – but punters deserved something better than what was written.
I’m not really sure why my qualifications are relevant. People around here seem to be obsessed with the source of the argument instead of the argument itself. A good argument stands on it’s own merits regardless of who is making it. But since you feel so “verballed” I am a researcher doing a PhD in animal physiology with a focus on metabolism, nutrition and phenotypic plasticity. Previously I did research that was similar but more focused on evolution. That’s my area, I don’t consider myself an expert on anything, but in some areas I have obviously more knowledge than the average Joe. Importantly when it comes to questions of breeding, I also have a strong foundation in evolution and genetics. Before any of that I worked full time for quite some time in private industry but not really in any capacity that is relevant to any of these issues. I work with animals, and I have to deal with strict guidelines around welfare and ethics. I also know people involved in the drug testing side of animal racing and some other scientific areas that are tangental to the indsutry. Revealing that has zero impact on the soundness of my arguments, but hopefully it satisfies you.
I accept most of what you say, regarding the changes, you know more about these structures. This is why my comments were fairly limited on the topic, and that was to say that independent regulation is a good thing for animal welfare, because it (hopefully) removes the conflict of interest. And that’s why I said “in principle” it’s a good thing. There are literally too many examples to count of welfare falling by the wayside in the pursuit of profit, especially in agriculture (the welfare issues in greyhound racing are a drop in the bucket compared to agriculture). The ag-gag laws being pushed by the coalition government demonstrate the desire to not let welfare interfere with profitability.
“Was that system good, bad or indifferent? Were the people competent, lazy or did they have a laissez-faire attitude? What went wrong? It is not sufficient to simply say there were not enough people and they have all been sacked anyway. The absence of historical analysis means any future change will run the risk of repeating the old shortcomings.”
My understanding of at least one aspect of this, and you can no doubt correct me if I’m wrong, is that regulators had zero power to enter properties and inspect. If when they turned up no one answered the door they were powerless to do anything, and if I recall correctly they had to announce their visit ahead of time. This was cited as one of the reasons why live baiting was difficult to stop. The new legislation grants greater powers of entry and inspection as far as I understand it. Is that correct?
I’m not really sure why my qualifications are relevant. People around here seem to be obsessed with the source of the argument instead of the argument itself. A good argument stands on it’s own merits regardless of who is making it. But since you feel so “verballed” I am a researcher doing a PhD in animal physiology with a focus on metabolism, nutrition and phenotypic plasticity. Previously I did research that was similar but more focused on evolution. That’s my area, I don’t consider myself an expert on anything, but in some areas I have obviously more knowledge than the average Joe. Importantly when it comes to questions of breeding, I also have a strong foundation in evolution and genetics. Before any of that I worked full time for quite some time in private industry but not really in any capacity that is relevant to any of these issues. I work with animals, and I have to deal with strict guidelines around welfare and ethics. I also know people involved in the drug testing side of animal racing and some other scientific areas that are tangental to the indsutry. Revealing that has zero impact on the soundness of my arguments, but hopefully it satisfies you.
I accept most of what you say, regarding the changes, you know more about these structures. This is why my comments were fairly limited on the topic, and that was to say that independent regulation is a good thing for animal welfare, because it (hopefully) removes the conflict of interest. And that’s why I said “in principle” it’s a good thing. There are literally too many examples to count of welfare falling by the wayside in the pursuit of profit, especially in agriculture (the welfare issues in greyhound racing are a drop in the bucket compared to agriculture). The ag-gag laws being pushed by the coalition government demonstrate the desire to not let welfare interfere with profitability.
“Was that system good, bad or indifferent? Were the people competent, lazy or did they have a laissez-faire attitude? What went wrong? It is not sufficient to simply say there were not enough people and they have all been sacked anyway. The absence of historical analysis means any future change will run the risk of repeating the old shortcomings.”
My understanding of at least one aspect of this, and you can no doubt correct me if I’m wrong, is that regulators had zero power to enter properties and inspect. If when they turned up no one answered the door they were powerless to do anything, and if I recall correctly they had to announce their visit ahead of time. This was cited as one of the reasons why live baiting was difficult to stop. The new legislation grants greater powers of entry and inspection as far as I understand it. Is that correct?
Hugh_ hi hugh, would love you to contact us @ Gone are the Dogs on Facebook if you could, look forward to speaking with you :D
Hugh_ hi hugh, would love you to contact us @ Gone are the Dogs on Facebook if you could, look forward to speaking with you :D
Hugh – what is the point to animal physiology, as relating to greyhounds?
Hugh – what is the point to animal physiology, as relating to greyhounds?
GATD! Another great org. NOT! Stay off our pages
GATD! Another great org. NOT! Stay off our pages
Hugh_ Hi Hugh….Just as a matter of interest, how would you like it if someone walked into your home uninvited….doubt you’d enjoy the experience. As the old legal saying goes….’a man’s home is his castle’ and that’s why the Ag Gag Bill.
Hugh_ Hi Hugh….Just as a matter of interest, how would you like it if someone walked into your home uninvited….doubt you’d enjoy the experience. As the old legal saying goes….’a man’s home is his castle’ and that’s why the Ag Gag Bill.
sparklingspear I’m not really sure whether you’re asking more broadly or asking me why I am mentioning that I have this background, I only mention my background because there has been a back and forth between me and Bruce in his last few articles, and this is the second time he has made mention of my unstated qualifications. Personally I didn’t want to bring it up because I think if you’re debating with someone you respond to their arguments, not the qualifications, background or anything else to do with the person making the argument (there are some exceptions, but I don’t think any of them apply to the discussions happening here).
As for its general relevance, this back and forth began a few articles ago in the context of greyhound recovery time between races, and in that context it is obviously the only thing that matters. It’s a physiological question. In fact just about all questions relating to animals are questions of physiology when it comes down to it. The way you feel right now about life is a matter of physiology (brain chemistry), your next action will be due to physiological causes. When it comes to any questions about animals the only accurate answers can be had in terms of evolution, genetics and physiology. There’s a lot of people on here making a lot of statements about greyhounds that have no basis in science and are purely emotive. E.g. all this “preservation of the breed is good for the dogs” nonsense, treating greyhounds as if they are a separate species, and ignoring the fact that a greyhound will happily and willfully mate with different dog breeds.
sparklingspear I’m not really sure whether you’re asking more broadly or asking me why I am mentioning that I have this background, I only mention my background because there has been a back and forth between me and Bruce in his last few articles, and this is the second time he has made mention of my unstated qualifications. Personally I didn’t want to bring it up because I think if you’re debating with someone you respond to their arguments, not the qualifications, background or anything else to do with the person making the argument (there are some exceptions, but I don’t think any of them apply to the discussions happening here).
As for its general relevance, this back and forth began a few articles ago in the context of greyhound recovery time between races, and in that context it is obviously the only thing that matters. It’s a physiological question. In fact just about all questions relating to animals are questions of physiology when it comes down to it. The way you feel right now about life is a matter of physiology (brain chemistry), your next action will be due to physiological causes. When it comes to any questions about animals the only accurate answers can be had in terms of evolution, genetics and physiology. There’s a lot of people on here making a lot of statements about greyhounds that have no basis in science and are purely emotive. E.g. all this “preservation of the breed is good for the dogs” nonsense, treating greyhounds as if they are a separate species, and ignoring the fact that a greyhound will happily and willfully mate with different dog breeds.
Hugh_ sparklingspear There are a lot of breeders worldwide preserving specific breeds Hugh!. Greyhounds included!
Hugh_ sparklingspear There are a lot of breeders worldwide preserving specific breeds Hugh!. Greyhounds included!
BJoe Hugh_ I understand that argument, but the difference is that in my home I’m not in charge of vast numbers of animals where I have a conflict of interest between my profits and their welfare. There’s a public interest issue here, when welfare breaches are exposed the public cares, and they are exposed with very high frequency. In general there are serious efforts to shield the public from the knowledge of what happens to animals in agriculture, and this is for fear that if educated the public will demand higher welfare standards which will lead to an economic downturn. Keeping the public ignorant so that they happily and unknowingly contribute to the suffering of animals is morally questionable. Ag-gag laws are designed to prevent exposure of systemic breaches of animal welfare.
Consider this. If you kept your pet dog in the same conditions as the average farmed pig (confined to a small pen, never exposed to natural light, living on a cold concrete flaw, castrated without anaestheisa, teeth ripped out without anaesthesia) how do you think you would be treated if this was exposed? Firstly you would have your pet taken away from you, you would then be charged with animal cruelty, and you would be despised by the public in general. Why are pigs not protected like this? Pigs are more intelligent than dogs by some considerable margin, and they are highly emotional and social creatures. Can you justify this discrepancy? (I won’t hold my breath for a reply, this question is always responded to with deafening silence). The main reason this is allowed to continue is because the public simply aren’t aware (and yes I realise there’s a strong element of willful ignorance at play), and ag-gag laws seek to keep it that way.
Animals are sentient beings, and they shouldn’t be treated as property to the extent that you can have thousands of them hidden behind closed doors and inflict immense amounts of suffering upon them with no oversight. If you are going to take animals into your care, who can’t speak for themselves and defend themselves but nevertheless feel pain and suffering, then you should be prepared to have authorities come along and check you are doing the right thing. That’s my view. If my child was in a childcare centre no one would think it was acceptable if I wasn’t allowed to go in there and check on them. I realise your reaction to the argument might be to think it’s preposterous to compare a child to a farm animal, but it’s not. I value human life more than animal life, but I value animal life as well, and if you don’t think the level of suffering that happens in animal farming is morally reprehensible then I would suggest to you that you either aren’t aware of how bad it is, or lack the education to realise that animals are sentient, intelligent, and have a subjective experience of reality that is very rich, meaning that they suffer, feel pain, get depressed, feel joy and have desires. It’s one thing to kill an animal, it’s another thing to make it suffer.
So would I enjoy the experience of someone walking into my home? The answer is that if I was profiting from animals I would accept that my practices should be scrutinized, that’s the cost I would accept for the betterment of animal welfare in general. Just as we accept that our tax returns might be audited to ensure that people are not going the wrong thing with respect to that.
Also consider that the live baiting scandal was only broken by the very activists that the ag-gag laws seek to stifle. Would you prefer it if the live baiting scandal had never come to light?
BJoe Hugh_ I understand that argument, but the difference is that in my home I’m not in charge of vast numbers of animals where I have a conflict of interest between my profits and their welfare. There’s a public interest issue here, when welfare breaches are exposed the public cares, and they are exposed with very high frequency. In general there are serious efforts to shield the public from the knowledge of what happens to animals in agriculture, and this is for fear that if educated the public will demand higher welfare standards which will lead to an economic downturn. Keeping the public ignorant so that they happily and unknowingly contribute to the suffering of animals is morally questionable. Ag-gag laws are designed to prevent exposure of systemic breaches of animal welfare.
Consider this. If you kept your pet dog in the same conditions as the average farmed pig (confined to a small pen, never exposed to natural light, living on a cold concrete flaw, castrated without anaestheisa, teeth ripped out without anaesthesia) how do you think you would be treated if this was exposed? Firstly you would have your pet taken away from you, you would then be charged with animal cruelty, and you would be despised by the public in general. Why are pigs not protected like this? Pigs are more intelligent than dogs by some considerable margin, and they are highly emotional and social creatures. Can you justify this discrepancy? (I won’t hold my breath for a reply, this question is always responded to with deafening silence). The main reason this is allowed to continue is because the public simply aren’t aware (and yes I realise there’s a strong element of willful ignorance at play), and ag-gag laws seek to keep it that way.
Animals are sentient beings, and they shouldn’t be treated as property to the extent that you can have thousands of them hidden behind closed doors and inflict immense amounts of suffering upon them with no oversight. If you are going to take animals into your care, who can’t speak for themselves and defend themselves but nevertheless feel pain and suffering, then you should be prepared to have authorities come along and check you are doing the right thing. That’s my view. If my child was in a childcare centre no one would think it was acceptable if I wasn’t allowed to go in there and check on them. I realise your reaction to the argument might be to think it’s preposterous to compare a child to a farm animal, but it’s not. I value human life more than animal life, but I value animal life as well, and if you don’t think the level of suffering that happens in animal farming is morally reprehensible then I would suggest to you that you either aren’t aware of how bad it is, or lack the education to realise that animals are sentient, intelligent, and have a subjective experience of reality that is very rich, meaning that they suffer, feel pain, get depressed, feel joy and have desires. It’s one thing to kill an animal, it’s another thing to make it suffer.
So would I enjoy the experience of someone walking into my home? The answer is that if I was profiting from animals I would accept that my practices should be scrutinized, that’s the cost I would accept for the betterment of animal welfare in general. Just as we accept that our tax returns might be audited to ensure that people are not going the wrong thing with respect to that.
Also consider that the live baiting scandal was only broken by the very activists that the ag-gag laws seek to stifle. Would you prefer it if the live baiting scandal had never come to light?
BJoe Hugh_ sparklingspear I’m well aware of that. And that’s all well and good, and I have no problem with that in principle, I’m referring to the argument that it’s in the interest of greyhounds that greyhound racing remains a viable industry, and that the welfare cost that comes with it can be justified on that basis. When the truth is, preservation of the greyhound breed matters only to humans, the dogs don’t care. This was discussed in the previous two articles I believe.
BJoe Hugh_ sparklingspear I’m well aware of that. And that’s all well and good, and I have no problem with that in principle, I’m referring to the argument that it’s in the interest of greyhounds that greyhound racing remains a viable industry, and that the welfare cost that comes with it can be justified on that basis. When the truth is, preservation of the greyhound breed matters only to humans, the dogs don’t care. This was discussed in the previous two articles I believe.
Hugh_ BJoe sparklingspear Whether or not you know it Hugh, Greyhounds are generally well looked after and their health and wellbeing is at the forefront of owners and trainers. It doesn’t pay to mistreat them. Sure there is the odd incident popping up from time to time and when that happens, the anti brigade jump on it and flog the ‘cruelty’ angle to death.
Hugh_ BJoe sparklingspear Whether or not you know it Hugh, Greyhounds are generally well looked after and their health and wellbeing is at the forefront of owners and trainers. It doesn’t pay to mistreat them. Sure there is the odd incident popping up from time to time and when that happens, the anti brigade jump on it and flog the ‘cruelty’ angle to death.
Hugh_ Hugh, people will always put profits before welfare. It makes sense. I imagined that you were coming from the pig farming angle when you mentioned the Ag Gag Bill. Irrespective of what you have said, the ability to enter someone’s property without warrant, irrespective of the cause, should never, ever, be allowed. Drug dealers, paedophiles, murderers et al have that protection and that right should never be surrendered. The broader racing industry, including Greyhound Racing, is subject to powers of entry by ‘authorised’ personnel that would never stand a chance in a court of law.
I love my animals and will not subject them to any form of cruelty whilst they’re in my care. However, I don’t go around wringing my hands and fretting about every animal on earth.
As for the broader public interest, I think you overestimate the ‘care of the community’. To the wider community, which is the majority, their meat comes in a sealed polystyrene tray picked up from the freezer section at the local supermarket. In short, they don’t care where their meat comes from. Any revelations splashed on the 7pm News are soon forgotten the following day.
Hugh_ Hugh, people will always put profits before welfare. It makes sense. I imagined that you were coming from the pig farming angle when you mentioned the Ag Gag Bill. Irrespective of what you have said, the ability to enter someone’s property without warrant, irrespective of the cause, should never, ever, be allowed. Drug dealers, paedophiles, murderers et al have that protection and that right should never be surrendered. The broader racing industry, including Greyhound Racing, is subject to powers of entry by ‘authorised’ personnel that would never stand a chance in a court of law.
I love my animals and will not subject them to any form of cruelty whilst they’re in my care. However, I don’t go around wringing my hands and fretting about every animal on earth.
As for the broader public interest, I think you overestimate the ‘care of the community’. To the wider community, which is the majority, their meat comes in a sealed polystyrene tray picked up from the freezer section at the local supermarket. In short, they don’t care where their meat comes from. Any revelations splashed on the 7pm News are soon forgotten the following day.
Hugh_ sparklingspear Just as a matter of interest Hugh, what’s your stance on Thoroughbred and Standardbred racing given that they have similar issues as Greyhound Racing?
Hugh_ sparklingspear Just as a matter of interest Hugh, what’s your stance on Thoroughbred and Standardbred racing given that they have similar issues as Greyhound Racing?
BJoe Hugh_ sparklingspear Similar stance for both codes. I realise lots of owners/trainers treat their dogs like royalty, please don’t interpret me as tarring everyone with a negative brush. That’s not my intention. And I’m fully supportive of a racing industry that has high welfare standards. The disagreement that arises between me and others is how high those standards should be and also what protections are necessary to ensure them. For example, in the eyes of someone like Bruce, the preservation of the greyhound breed is of such inherent importance and value that the disposal of non-performing dogs that are inevitably created in a breeding program is of little consequence. That doesn’t add up for me, when it comes down to it there is no value to dog breeding and racing beyond the value humans place on it as a recreational or economic pursuit. Given that, I feel the welfare cost of dog racing in it’s current form is unjustifiable. Similarly, while live baiting is widely condemned by those in the industry (despite decades of indifference I might add), actions that would actually ensure it doesn’t continue to occur are generally opposed, e.g. the increased powers now in QLD.
The value of dog racing is highly subjective, the welfare costs are not. If one of my hobbies came at a large welfare cost, I would be willing to acknowledge that the value I place on that hobby is personal and not inherent.
BJoe Hugh_ sparklingspear Similar stance for both codes. I realise lots of owners/trainers treat their dogs like royalty, please don’t interpret me as tarring everyone with a negative brush. That’s not my intention. And I’m fully supportive of a racing industry that has high welfare standards. The disagreement that arises between me and others is how high those standards should be and also what protections are necessary to ensure them. For example, in the eyes of someone like Bruce, the preservation of the greyhound breed is of such inherent importance and value that the disposal of non-performing dogs that are inevitably created in a breeding program is of little consequence. That doesn’t add up for me, when it comes down to it there is no value to dog breeding and racing beyond the value humans place on it as a recreational or economic pursuit. Given that, I feel the welfare cost of dog racing in it’s current form is unjustifiable. Similarly, while live baiting is widely condemned by those in the industry (despite decades of indifference I might add), actions that would actually ensure it doesn’t continue to occur are generally opposed, e.g. the increased powers now in QLD.
The value of dog racing is highly subjective, the welfare costs are not. If one of my hobbies came at a large welfare cost, I would be willing to acknowledge that the value I place on that hobby is personal and not inherent.
BJoe Hugh_ “people will always put profits before welfare” This is completely dependent on the morality of the individual involved and how willing they are to compromise their own morals. Many people could make greater profit if they were prepared to be more indifferent to welfare costs. So I can’t agree with that statement.
I also disagree that entry without warrant should never be allowed, and it is allowed all the time. Police can enter a property if they have reasonable belief a crime is being carried out or to prevent an imminent crime. And if you jumped your fence to prevent your neighbour beating his wife you would never be prosecuted for that (assuming it was clearly established that’s exactly what you were doing). So again, I don’t agree with that. There are circumstances under which we accept these intrusions. If you’re a hardcore libertarian you may never accept those intrusions, but I don’t take that view, and neither do most people. I’m also not sure if those comments were more directed at the QLD racing integrity changes of ag-gag, but if the latter be aware that ag-gag has little to do with trespassing and everything to do with what is done with footage of a recorded crime.
I’m very happy for you that you don’t wring your hands and fret about every animal on earth, I wouldn’t describe myself quite that way either, but I do want a world where animals are less subject to torture and suffering, and I want that very much. We all vary in our level of indifference to suffering.
I don’t dispute what you say about the wider community, but you also acknowledge that the distance between the wider community and the reality of what they eat is responsible for their lack of concern. There are many ethical issues that the public at large didn’t care much about at one point, but community sentiment changes, and part of that change is education. If someone had to watch footage from one of the pig farms I mention before they chose their packaged bacon from the supermarket shelf, and were told “this is where this cheap bacon comes from, or you can buy this bacon from this farm *cue footage from free range pork farm* do you really think it would make no difference? For some, it would make no difference, some people just don’t care at all about animal welfare, just as for some, black slaves was totally acceptable once upon a time. But for many it would make a big difference. And that’s my issue with ag-gag laws, it seeks to stifle the exposure of how farms actually operate.
And once again I return you to the comparison of the pig’s life and the pet dog’s life. People would not be indifferent to the suffering of one single pet dog that was kept in such a manner by one owner were it to appear on the evening news. So they would definitely not be indifferent to the similar suffering of millions of pigs if they actually understood what was happening on these farms and fully appreciated that pigs are actually more intelligent than dogs. It’s all about education and awareness.
BJoe Hugh_ “people will always put profits before welfare” This is completely dependent on the morality of the individual involved and how willing they are to compromise their own morals. Many people could make greater profit if they were prepared to be more indifferent to welfare costs. So I can’t agree with that statement.
I also disagree that entry without warrant should never be allowed, and it is allowed all the time. Police can enter a property if they have reasonable belief a crime is being carried out or to prevent an imminent crime. And if you jumped your fence to prevent your neighbour beating his wife you would never be prosecuted for that (assuming it was clearly established that’s exactly what you were doing). So again, I don’t agree with that. There are circumstances under which we accept these intrusions. If you’re a hardcore libertarian you may never accept those intrusions, but I don’t take that view, and neither do most people. I’m also not sure if those comments were more directed at the QLD racing integrity changes of ag-gag, but if the latter be aware that ag-gag has little to do with trespassing and everything to do with what is done with footage of a recorded crime.
I’m very happy for you that you don’t wring your hands and fret about every animal on earth, I wouldn’t describe myself quite that way either, but I do want a world where animals are less subject to torture and suffering, and I want that very much. We all vary in our level of indifference to suffering.
I don’t dispute what you say about the wider community, but you also acknowledge that the distance between the wider community and the reality of what they eat is responsible for their lack of concern. There are many ethical issues that the public at large didn’t care much about at one point, but community sentiment changes, and part of that change is education. If someone had to watch footage from one of the pig farms I mention before they chose their packaged bacon from the supermarket shelf, and were told “this is where this cheap bacon comes from, or you can buy this bacon from this farm *cue footage from free range pork farm* do you really think it would make no difference? For some, it would make no difference, some people just don’t care at all about animal welfare, just as for some, black slaves was totally acceptable once upon a time. But for many it would make a big difference. And that’s my issue with ag-gag laws, it seeks to stifle the exposure of how farms actually operate.
And once again I return you to the comparison of the pig’s life and the pet dog’s life. People would not be indifferent to the suffering of one single pet dog that was kept in such a manner by one owner were it to appear on the evening news. So they would definitely not be indifferent to the similar suffering of millions of pigs if they actually understood what was happening on these farms and fully appreciated that pigs are actually more intelligent than dogs. It’s all about education and awareness.
Hugh_ sparklingspear Sounds like you’re incorrigible Hughy. Get into the real world. As most farmers say…..’animals only have one bad day in their lives’. I’ll leave it at that.
Hugh_ sparklingspear Sounds like you’re incorrigible Hughy. Get into the real world. As most farmers say…..’animals only have one bad day in their lives’. I’ll leave it at that.
BJoe Hugh_ sparklingspear The complete opposite is true, I’m always open to changing my views if presented with a compelling argument. Unfortunately you haven’t offered one, presumably because you can’t come up with one. Instead you offer meaningless and obviously false statements.
You don’t need to tell me that most farmers are indifferent to animal suffering, I’m very aware of this, and that’s exactly why they would say something like that which is obviously false and based on old fashioned ideas that humans are the one special species placed here by a non-existent god. Congratulations on your choice to be ignorant and lack of empathy. When you decide to be a person that actually bases their opinions on what’s true instead of just what satisfies their emotional needs then you should look into some literature about the cognitive abilities of animals (human or otherwise), and you’ll realise the idea that a farm animal only has one bad day is just a lie that intellectually and morally impaired people tell themselves so they can sleep better at night. Until then keep reveling in the cognitive dissonance that allows you to “love” your own dogs (as long as they run fast enough right?) but not gives two hoots about the suffering of other dogs, or other animals. Out of sight, out of mind yeah? Well at least you can pat yourself and know you’re just like the majority.
We both live in the real world, the difference is I don’t have my head in the sand.
BJoe Hugh_ sparklingspear The complete opposite is true, I’m always open to changing my views if presented with a compelling argument. Unfortunately you haven’t offered one, presumably because you can’t come up with one. Instead you offer meaningless and obviously false statements.
You don’t need to tell me that most farmers are indifferent to animal suffering, I’m very aware of this, and that’s exactly why they would say something like that which is obviously false and based on old fashioned ideas that humans are the one special species placed here by a non-existent god. Congratulations on your choice to be ignorant and lack of empathy. When you decide to be a person that actually bases their opinions on what’s true instead of just what satisfies their emotional needs then you should look into some literature about the cognitive abilities of animals (human or otherwise), and you’ll realise the idea that a farm animal only has one bad day is just a lie that intellectually and morally impaired people tell themselves so they can sleep better at night. Until then keep reveling in the cognitive dissonance that allows you to “love” your own dogs (as long as they run fast enough right?) but not gives two hoots about the suffering of other dogs, or other animals. Out of sight, out of mind yeah? Well at least you can pat yourself and know you’re just like the majority.
We both live in the real world, the difference is I don’t have my head in the sand.
Hugh_ sparklingspear Hugh, I haven’t made any false statements and I certainly don’t mistreat my animals, which are not limited to Greyhounds, be they fast or slow.. I just understand the order of things in this world. Presently, I see a tendency for people to ‘humanise’ their animals, be they dogs, cats, pigs or goats. Most refer to them as their ‘children’, which in itself, is sad as they seem to be lowering themselves to their level rather than making babies of their own to love. Sadder still is that as a result of this ‘misplaced love’, there are individuals who become overnight experts in animal behaviour turning their hand to exploiting the misplaced affection. You get the picture….doggie day care coz Mummy & Daddy work 12 hour days…. Worse still are Organisations such as the RSPCA, who are ‘Certifying’ as approved by them, of packaged chicken being sold at Supermarkets, What does that tell you about that Organisation and then there are the Pet Insurers who use the RSPCA’s name to swindle money from pet owners. Worst of all though, is Animals Australia, who prey on people’s emotions to extract donations yet contribute zilch towards animal welfare itself. Betya Lyn White’s salary gets a hefty increase every twelve months though.
You may also be interested to know that at the time of the release of the live baiting footage, Mosman Shire Council was releasing Calicivirus baits in its shire to ‘eradicate an explosion’ in the wild rabbit population. Apparently, quite a number of its well heeled residents had complained that those pesky rabbits were ruining their gardens. The NSW Government’s own National Parks & Wildlife Service were responsible for the baiting program. When interviewed, its spokesman said ‘that ‘ people have got to remember that these are wild rabbits they’re dealing with.’ and so hundreds or maybe thousands of rabbits were condemned to a slow and horrible death.
Where was Animals Australia’s voice during that event? The RSPCA simply wrote the matter off as a ‘Licensed Cull’ and said that they could not do anything about it.
Hugh, there are other things that should attract your interest in this world…maybe human. Go on, get a girlfriend and cuddle up to her of a night. Beats going to bed with two dogs. Now get off this website.
Hugh_ sparklingspear Hugh, I haven’t made any false statements and I certainly don’t mistreat my animals, which are not limited to Greyhounds, be they fast or slow.. I just understand the order of things in this world. Presently, I see a tendency for people to ‘humanise’ their animals, be they dogs, cats, pigs or goats. Most refer to them as their ‘children’, which in itself, is sad as they seem to be lowering themselves to their level rather than making babies of their own to love. Sadder still is that as a result of this ‘misplaced love’, there are individuals who become overnight experts in animal behaviour turning their hand to exploiting the misplaced affection. You get the picture….doggie day care coz Mummy & Daddy work 12 hour days…. Worse still are Organisations such as the RSPCA, who are ‘Certifying’ as approved by them, of packaged chicken being sold at Supermarkets, What does that tell you about that Organisation and then there are the Pet Insurers who use the RSPCA’s name to swindle money from pet owners. Worst of all though, is Animals Australia, who prey on people’s emotions to extract donations yet contribute zilch towards animal welfare itself. Betya Lyn White’s salary gets a hefty increase every twelve months though.
You may also be interested to know that at the time of the release of the live baiting footage, Mosman Shire Council was releasing Calicivirus baits in its shire to ‘eradicate an explosion’ in the wild rabbit population. Apparently, quite a number of its well heeled residents had complained that those pesky rabbits were ruining their gardens. The NSW Government’s own National Parks & Wildlife Service were responsible for the baiting program. When interviewed, its spokesman said ‘that ‘ people have got to remember that these are wild rabbits they’re dealing with.’ and so hundreds or maybe thousands of rabbits were condemned to a slow and horrible death.
Where was Animals Australia’s voice during that event? The RSPCA simply wrote the matter off as a ‘Licensed Cull’ and said that they could not do anything about it.
Hugh, there are other things that should attract your interest in this world…maybe human. Go on, get a girlfriend and cuddle up to her of a night. Beats going to bed with two dogs. Now get off this website.
BJoe Hugh_ sparklingspear The false statement you made is that animals only have one bad day in their life. That’s obviously false in the context you used it (farm animals), the aforementioned pigs from high intensity farms being the obvious example. And the false statements just keep coming.
Recognising that animals are sentient and intelligent is not “humanising”. That’s pure hard science. It’s our commonality of biology that tells us animals experience suffering. Our understanding of evolution and brain anatomy and function is what allows us to determine that animals have significant cognitive abilities and also experience much of the same emotions we do in response to similar stimuli. Go educate yourself. Seriously, everything you say demonstrates ignorance. Next you’ll be denying evolution and telling me that humans have souls.
You think it’s exploitation to suggest a dog is unhappy if it’s left alone for 12 hours with no company? Wow, amazing. If you only had one beloved dog, you’d leave it in solitude for 12 hours a day? Your empathy knows no bounds.
How is pet insurance swindling? It’s the same as any other kind of insurance. You don’t think vet bills can be very expensive? There’s no medicare for pets. What are you objecting to there? You don’t like the advertising? Welcome to capitalism. Car insurance, house insurance, phone insurance, are these all exploitation? Is advertising a packet of chips exploitation? Incredible.
Here’s another false statement “Animals Australia, who prey on people’s emotions to extract donations yet contribute zilch towards animal welfare itself”. Where do you think the money for the investigations (e.g. live baiting) with the equipment costs, transport costs (they work internationally to), living costs for investigators comes from? Do you think all those Billboards and bus and cab advertising is free? Do you think the TV commercial they produced that when shown to McDonald’s prompted them to announce a move away from cage eggs the day before it was due to air cost nothing? This is where the donations go. Apparently you think they can do everything they do without any need for money. Actually a doubt you think that, more likely you just pedal false statements because it suits your agenda. Is that the only tool you have to try and defend your position? Lies?
As for the rabbit cull, yes I am aware of that. So your criticism of Animals Australia is that they can’t be active on every single welfare issue? How would that even be possible? You don’t think there are numerous issues they want to campaign for but don’t have the resources to? They have to make decisions about where to direct their time and money. Additionally culling of invasive species is a tricky issue, depending on the particular species in question its presence in an environment is already having a negative welfare impact on native species, so it’s really a choice of which one do you want to suffer given that removing one without any suffering might not be possible. And you compare this to live baiting where not only were rabbits and pigs being ripped apart by dogs, but also native possums? For no necessary purpose whatsoever? Wow, it’s amazing that you can view that as a valid comparison.
Oh look, you made another false statement, This time with respect to who I go to bed with at night. What a surprise. I have that side of my life covered thanks and no I don’t have any pets and have no interest in pet ownership unless it’s for the purposes of providing a better life for an animal that would otherwise suffer (but presently I live in an apartment). In fact I don’t even overly like dogs, they are smelly, not overly clean and annoying, but they are sentient and intelligent so I support them being free from pain an suffering to the greatest extent possible (it’s called empathy).
I understand the order of things in the world too, clearly much better than you who appears to have very little education in science. And one of the unfortunate aspects to the order is that humans inflict a huge amount of suffering on animals unnecessarily (and that includes other humans). And for that reason I’m very thankful we have the RSPCA, who apparently you think we’d be better off without.
Keep spreading those false statements mate. I wonder if your lies are designed to convince others or just yourself.
BJoe Hugh_ sparklingspear The false statement you made is that animals only have one bad day in their life. That’s obviously false in the context you used it (farm animals), the aforementioned pigs from high intensity farms being the obvious example. And the false statements just keep coming.
Recognising that animals are sentient and intelligent is not “humanising”. That’s pure hard science. It’s our commonality of biology that tells us animals experience suffering. Our understanding of evolution and brain anatomy and function is what allows us to determine that animals have significant cognitive abilities and also experience much of the same emotions we do in response to similar stimuli. Go educate yourself. Seriously, everything you say demonstrates ignorance. Next you’ll be denying evolution and telling me that humans have souls.
You think it’s exploitation to suggest a dog is unhappy if it’s left alone for 12 hours with no company? Wow, amazing. If you only had one beloved dog, you’d leave it in solitude for 12 hours a day? Your empathy knows no bounds.
How is pet insurance swindling? It’s the same as any other kind of insurance. You don’t think vet bills can be very expensive? There’s no medicare for pets. What are you objecting to there? You don’t like the advertising? Welcome to capitalism. Car insurance, house insurance, phone insurance, are these all exploitation? Is advertising a packet of chips exploitation? Incredible.
Here’s another false statement “Animals Australia, who prey on people’s emotions to extract donations yet contribute zilch towards animal welfare itself”. Where do you think the money for the investigations (e.g. live baiting) with the equipment costs, transport costs (they work internationally to) and living costs for investigators comes from? Do you think all those billboards and bus and cab advertising against live export is free? Do you think the TV commercial they produced that when shown to McDonald’s prompted them to announce a move away from cage eggs the day before it was due to air cost nothing? This is where the donations go. Apparently you think they can do everything they do without any need for money. Actually I doubt you think that, more likely you just pedal false statements because it suits your agenda. Is that the only tool you have to try and defend your position? Lies?
As for the rabbit cull, yes I am aware of that. So your criticism of Animals Australia is that they can’t be active on every single welfare issue? How would that even be possible? You don’t think there are numerous issues they want to campaign for but don’t have the resources to? They have to make decisions about where to direct their time and money. Additionally culling of invasive species is a tricky issue, depending on the particular species in question its presence in an environment is already having a negative welfare impact on native species, so it’s really a choice of which one do you want to suffer given that removing one without any suffering might not be possible. And you compare this to live baiting where not only were rabbits and pigs being ripped apart by dogs, but also native possums? For no necessary purpose whatsoever? Wow, it’s amazing that you can view that as a valid comparison.
Oh look, you made another false statement, This time with respect to who I go to bed with at night. What a surprise. I have that side of my life covered thanks and no I don’t have any pets and have no interest in pet ownership unless it’s for the purposes of providing a better life for an animal that would otherwise suffer (but presently I live in an apartment). In fact I don’t even overly like dogs, they are smelly, not overly clean and annoying, but they are sentient and intelligent so I support them being free from pain an suffering to the greatest extent possible (it’s called empathy).
I understand the order of things in the world too, clearly much better than you who appears to have very little education in science. And one of the unfortunate aspects to the order is that humans inflict a huge amount of suffering on animals unnecessarily (and that includes other humans). And for that reason I’m very thankful we have the RSPCA, who apparently you think we’d be better off without.
Keep spreading those false statements mate. I wonder if your lies are designed to convince others or just yourself.
Hugh_ sparklingspear Hugh, you are one sick puppy. Now get off this site.
Hugh_ sparklingspear Hugh, you are one sick puppy. Now get off this site.
BJoe Hugh_ sparklingspear You asked, so I answered. You don’t like my answers? Too bad. I’m a sick puppy because I care about welfare? You’re against animal welfare? Wow.
BJoe Hugh_ sparklingspear You asked, so I answered. You don’t like my answers? Too bad. I’m a sick puppy because I care about welfare? You’re against animal welfare? Wow.
Hugh_ sparklingspear What’s his name Hugh!
Hugh_ BJoe sparklingspear Go on Hugh, tell us his name.
Hugh_ BJoe sparklingspear Go on Hugh, tell us his name.
Hugh, my ? was , what do you hope to find,achieve, that relates to greyhounds, or even any canine?
It does appear tho, that you’ve had a long long exposure to Uni speak (lol)
Hugh, my ? was , what do you hope to find,achieve, that relates to greyhounds, or even any canine?
It does appear tho, that you’ve had a long long exposure to Uni speak (lol)
Reinforcing your position with comments by a compliance professional.
As a general observation, the greyhound regulatory approach to compliance since the ‘live baiting’ publicity is that compliance just involves enforcement with a big stick to all participants. This is reflected by a recruitment focus on enforcement backgrounds rather than professional compliance backgrounds at both Board and management levels.
This focus is at odds with modern compliance management and international best practice principles for compliance. Compliance ‘tools’ such as education, support, communication, and culture change that are necessary for the future of greyhound racing are at best neglected, if not forgotten.
And culture change has to bridge both the regulator and participants.
Compliance management remains primitive, there are just different dinosaurs.
Reinforcing your position with comments by a compliance professional.
As a general observation, the greyhound regulatory approach to compliance since the ‘live baiting’ publicity is that compliance just involves enforcement with a big stick to all participants. This is reflected by a recruitment focus on enforcement backgrounds rather than professional compliance backgrounds at both Board and management levels.
This focus is at odds with modern compliance management and international best practice principles for compliance. Compliance ‘tools’ such as education, support, communication, and culture change that are necessary for the future of greyhound racing are at best neglected, if not forgotten.
And culture change has to bridge both the regulator and participants.
Compliance management remains primitive, there are just different dinosaurs.
Hugh_ There were, and continue to be, powers to enter and inspect, particularly at registered training properties which is where the live baiting offences occurred. There was no requirement or practice for visits to be announced ahead of time. In that respect, the new legislation in Victoria really just gives similar powers to welfare inspectors as for RSPCA inspectors.
There are human rights implications for entry onto private properties (as opposed to registered training properties), in that arbitrary entry where there is no reasonable suspicion can represent a breach of the Charter of Human Rights & Responsibilities Act, and is in excess of powers of police.
From my observation, greyhound trainers have regimented schedules for feeding, exercise etc, over which variables such as training facility access, racing schedules, vet visits are overlayed. This leads to a disjointed lifestyle, where private time is just residual time.
And entry without the property owner in attendance, which has been happening, is prima facie unacceptable.
There is a need for balance, where routine inspections can be scheduled, and where valid investigations can occur. Operational responses to the revisions have yet to be communicated.
Hugh_ There were, and continue to be, powers to enter and inspect, particularly at registered training properties which is where the live baiting offences occurred. There was no requirement or practice for visits to be announced ahead of time. In that respect, the new legislation in Victoria really just gives similar powers to welfare inspectors as for RSPCA inspectors.
There are human rights implications for entry onto private properties (as opposed to registered training properties), in that arbitrary entry where there is no reasonable suspicion can represent a breach of the Charter of Human Rights & Responsibilities Act, and is in excess of powers of police.
From my observation, greyhound trainers have regimented schedules for feeding, exercise etc, over which variables such as training facility access, racing schedules, vet visits are overlayed. This leads to a disjointed lifestyle, where private time is just residual time.
And entry without the property owner in attendance, which has been happening, is prima facie unacceptable.
There is a need for balance, where routine inspections can be scheduled, and where valid investigations can occur. Operational responses to the revisions have yet to be communicated.
Bruce its hard to not agree with you, as for the antis, is it not true they are only a little insect that only stings for a short while before it goes away ?