BAU

[bamboozla]

The GRNZ and the Board want to rally the troops around around what is essentially a business as usual approach to defending the sport, wanting to get all particpants behind their startegy. In broad strokes this boils down to challenging the perception of injuries/unsafe tracks and animal welfare, highlighting the economic impact of closing the sport and the cost to the SPCA, tweaking race field composition and drawing some kind of legal sympathy from the government.

I am afraid and all most certain this won't be enough.

My strategy is fairly simple,

-less dogs and less meetings (6 meetings per week initially, 500 dogs bred per year)

-smaller kennels and more owners (max 30 dogs in work)

-slower and safer tracks (one turns and deeper slower surfaces on 2 turn tracks)

As an industry we must be self sustainable in terms of rehoming and welfare. Shipping dogs off to America is not a strategy, having dogs waiting for a gap kennel for 18 months is not a strategy, nor is breeding more dogs than we can rehome domestically on an ongoing basis. With less concentrated ownership from the handful of 'super kennels' and the economic model employed you get a deeper pool of owners and trainers. That larger base of owners can rehome many more dogs internally and having kennels with hundreds of dogs and few owners.  Obviously this would need to happen incrementally but is entirely achievable and would be inline with racing in Australia.

We can debate the 'how did we get here' argument for ever and assign blame but that just wastes precious time. If we want a sport our kids and grandkids can have the feedom to enjoy then we simply must do things differently. If the GRNZ can't back the right approach then it is about time everyone else bands together and fights for the future of the sport. 

Edited Monday at 10:43 PM by bamboozla

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, bamboozla said:

The GRNZ and the Board want to rally the troops around around what is essentially a business as usual approach to defending the sport, wanting to get all particpants behind their startegy. In broad strokes this boils down to challenging the perception of injuries/unsafe tracks and animal welfare, highlighting the economic impact of closing the sport and the cost to the SPCA, tweaking race field composition and drawing some kind of legal sympathy from the government.

I am afraid and all most certain this won't be enough.

My strategy is fairly simple,

-less dogs and less meetings (6 meetings per week initially, 500 dogs bred per year)

-smaller kennels and more owners (max 30 dogs in work)

-slower and safer tracks (one turns and deeper slower surfaces on 2 turn tracks)

As an industry we must be self sustainable in terms of rehoming and welfare. Shipping dogs off to America is not a strategy, having dogs waiting for a gap kennel for 18 months is not a strategy, nor is breeding more dogs than we can rehome domestically on an ongoing basis. With less concentrated ownership from the handful of 'super kennels' and the economic model employed you get a deeper pool of owners and trainers. That larger base of owners can rehome many more dogs internally and having kennels with hundreds of dogs and few owners.  Obviously this would need to happen incrementally but is entirely achievable and would be inline with racing in Australia.

We can debate the 'how did we get here' argument for ever and assign blame but that just wastes precious time. If we want a sport our kids and grandkids can have the feedom to enjoy then we simply must do things differently. If the GRNZ can't back the right approach then it is about time everyone else bands together and fights for the future of the sport. 

So you're not supportive of anyone making a living out of training?

[BitofaLegend]

6 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

So you're not supportive of anyone making a living out of training?

Most trainers could make more then enough of 30 dogs in todays climate.

I know several trainers with less then 30 living of racing dogs.

Anything more has always been pure greed and unsustainable long term. 

As for race numbers. Large majority of races are c1 squib races.

Waste of space anyway and trainers wouldnt be so lazy if they were limited to 30 dogs.

I'd say 85% of sprinters can get middle distance if fit and trained well.

Ive seen the current internal memo to participants and have to agree, there is nothing in it to bode confidence at all that they have any sort of case. ESSENTIALLY says lets just keep the industry going and show them we wont be phased.

Edited Tuesday at 06:58 AM by BitofaLegend

[Special Agent]

"You are the weakest link, goodbye" has been vindicated by your summation of the message from the people in charge.