Is this The "Beginning of the End"?

[Cockyaleg]

Hmmm, interesting perspectives.

For what it's worth, this is my take on the current situation.

1. Greyhound racing will not be ending anytime soon. Please stop supporting that notion.
2. Those opposed have no evidence of wrong doing. Their numbers are incorrect. The claims they make are grossly exaggerated. The sponsors they claim have deserted the sport were never sponsors in the first place. The opposition lies and has always done so.
3. Swarbrick's members bill will fail.
4. Greyhound racing has addressed nearly all the criticisms leveled at it by various enquiries. They have actually made great strides since you lot were moaning about the change to artificial training lures, I remember that conversation well.
5. The Wanganui track issues have been addressed. Blame cannot be fully attributed to one person or group. There was collective responsibility which trainers are not exempt from. Take a minute to think about that.

So lets all just breathe......what is it you actually want???? If it is fairness, I fully understand that. Is it greater transparency, that's valid. What do you actually want? Is what you want able to sustain racing at this time?

I would like to see everyday races limited to no more than 4 runners per trainer. I would like to see two wins per grade before promotion. I would like to see the playing field leveled when it comes to stakes ie $1000 available to all maiden winners, not just middle distance. I would like to see the stats on breeding and know why the smaller trainers have reduced the numbers bred. I would like to see nominations standardised and fields completed by the GRNZ. I would like to see the opposers taken to task on the bullying of individuals and private business.There are many items on my wish list. What are yours?

[Yankiwi]

2 hours ago, A Dogs Life said:

Yankiwi were you on the door with a counter?  100 people looks a lot in a place like PNGRC? 

There's still 192 tickets available to be purchased for last Mondays event. That's very indicative of how tight the reigns were on the actual event.

https://pngreyhounds.kiwi/racedays/commentators-day/commentators-day-2021/buy-tickets/

 

 

There are at least 35 people in the camera's eye during this six dog race alone.

 

There are also 10 race callers, two Stewards in the tower (yes 3 listed in the report), a cameraman in the tower, a vet, kennel staff, further security.

Just those alone get it up in the area of 50 people.

People inside selling drinks? food? wagering tellers?
 

[Cockyaleg]

2 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

There's still 192 tickets available to be purchased for last Mondays event. That's very indicative of how tight the reigns were on the actual event.

https://pngreyhounds.kiwi/racedays/commentators-day/commentators-day-2021/buy-tickets/

 

 

There are at least 35 people in the camera's eye during this six dog race alone.

 

There are also 10 race callers, two Stewards in the tower (yes 3 listed in the report), a cameraman in the tower, a vet, kennel staff, further security.

Just those alone get it up in the area of 50 people.

People inside selling drinks? food? wagering tellers?
 

Your interpretation of Covid rules are incorrect. This is a workplace with sanctioned Covid raceday rules. The event was seperated from raceday personal and trainers, it was policed. Trainers and normal raceday staff had no contact with the two seperate parties on track that day, and were not permitted entry to the areas the other two parties were contained in. At no time were the three parties permitted contact. Parking was also seperated for each of the three groups. That information came directly from a trainer.

[Yankiwi]

With all due respect Cockyaleg, if my interpretation of the rule are incorrect, then I'm not the only one. The article on the GRNZ webpage seems to tell the same story I've told.

 

https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/2652/Slashing-Golden-Chase-times-on-Commentators-Day

 

The third annual Commentators Day took place Monday afternoon at Manawatu Raceway under Covid level 2 guidelines. Despite a limit of 100 people able to attend, club president Paul Freeman and his colleagues made the day a great success.....

 

If their intent was to comply with the limit of 100, why are there still 192 tickets remaining for sale a week after the event has already been completed?

[Jacob]

17 hours ago, Cockyaleg said:

Hmmm, interesting perspectives.

For what it's worth, this is my take on the current situation.

1. Greyhound racing will not be ending anytime soon. Please stop supporting that notion.
2. Those opposed have no evidence of wrong doing. Their numbers are incorrect. The claims they make are grossly exaggerated. The sponsors they claim have deserted the sport were never sponsors in the first place. The opposition lies and has always done so.
3. Swarbrick's members bill will fail.
4. Greyhound racing has addressed nearly all the criticisms leveled at it by various enquiries. They have actually made great strides since you lot were moaning about the change to artificial training lures, I remember that conversation well.
5. The Wanganui track issues have been addressed. Blame cannot be fully attributed to one person or group. There was collective responsibility which trainers are not exempt from. Take a minute to think about that.

So lets all just breathe......what is it you actually want???? If it is fairness, I fully understand that. Is it greater transparency, that's valid. What do you actually want? Is what you want able to sustain racing at this time?

I would like to see everyday races limited to no more than 4 runners per trainer. I would like to see two wins per grade before promotion. I would like to see the playing field leveled when it comes to stakes ie $1000 available to all maiden winners, not just middle distance. I would like to see the stats on breeding and know why the smaller trainers have reduced the numbers bred. I would like to see nominations standardised and fields completed by the GRNZ. I would like to see the opposers taken to task on the bullying of individuals and private business.There are many items on my wish list. What are yours?

I'd argue alot of these problems haven't been solved.  That's just me. I doubt by the time I reach 70 or 80, racing will still be around. 

[Cockyaleg]

2 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

With all due respect Cockyaleg, if my interpretation of the rule are incorrect, then I'm not the only one. The article on the GRNZ webpage seems to tell the same story I've told.

 

https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/2652/Slashing-Golden-Chase-times-on-Commentators-Day

 

The third annual Commentators Day took place Monday afternoon at Manawatu Raceway under Covid level 2 guidelines. Despite a limit of 100 people able to attend, club president Paul Freeman and his colleagues made the day a great success.....

 

If their intent was to comply with the limit of 100, why are there still 192 tickets remaining for sale a week after the event has already been completed?

Lock down change was imposed a day before the event, is that correct? The Auckland contingent including the Auckland commentators were unable to attend due to the Covid travel ban. The advertising was posted before the Level 2 was announced and was not removed after the event took place, just an oversight. Here's an example of what is allowed in Level 2. A church can hold a wedding in the chapel with a limit of 100 attendees. They can also hold a pray meeting in a seperate building on the property for 100 attendees. The two events are seperate. Both parties must abide by social distancing rules. Neither party can come into contact with the other. Seperate entrances and parking must be provided for each group. Both buildings must comply with Covid cleaning practices. Similarly, I can hold an event on my property at the same time my nextdoor neighbour does the same as long as we both adhere to the rules and do not exceed the 100 attendee limit. The two events are seperated by a boundary fence. In the case of a workplace, the 100 persons linit does not apply. Example: A factory or freezing works that employs more than 100 workers is allowed to continue as long as strict social distancing and cleaning rules are adhered to. Making a case in this instance against the club would fail.

[Cockyaleg]

1 hour ago, Jacob said:

I'd argue alot of these problems haven't been solved.  That's just me. I doubt by the time I reach 70 or 80, racing will still be around. 

You are 100% correct Jacob. However, racing will continue for at least the next 3 years. The present movement will not succeed. Labour rules alone and that will not change unless they are voted out at the next election. That is when a possible issue will arise. These forum conversations are not helpful because they offer no solutions. I have listed some of the things that I believe can improve the life of participants and their dogs. That is what I particularly care about. You have raised some valid points, what is more important is the remedy. Everyone here should be discussing possible solutions. What the participants need to do is work with governance to gain ground. What I see is venting, finger pointing, anger, non of which will be heard and will change nothing.

[Cockyaleg]

The key to your confusion lies in the words "any defined space."

Event facilities at Alert Level 2

Event facilities can operate at Alert Level 2.

Event facilities can have up to 100 people within any defined space. They also need to assess how many people can safely be inside the premises and still maintain 1 metre physical distancing. This could mean the facility needs to have fewer than 100 people in a defined space.

If you go to an event facility, you legally must keep 1 metre physical distance from people you do not know, where possible — if you cannot, we encourage wearing a face covering.

Event facilities include:

• cinemas, theatres, stadiums, concert venues
• conference venues
• casinos.

[A Dogs Life]

22 hours ago, Cockyaleg said:

Hmmm, interesting perspectives.

For what it's worth, this is my take on the current situation.

1. Greyhound racing will not be ending anytime soon. Please stop supporting that notion.
2. Those opposed have no evidence of wrong doing. Their numbers are incorrect. The claims they make are grossly exaggerated. The sponsors they claim have deserted the sport were never sponsors in the first place. The opposition lies and has always done so.
3. Swarbrick's members bill will fail.
4. Greyhound racing has addressed nearly all the criticisms leveled at it by various enquiries. They have actually made great strides since you lot were moaning about the change to artificial training lures, I remember that conversation well.
5. The Wanganui track issues have been addressed. Blame cannot be fully attributed to one person or group. There was collective responsibility which trainers are not exempt from. Take a minute to think about that.

So lets all just breathe......what is it you actually want???? If it is fairness, I fully understand that. Is it greater transparency, that's valid. What do you actually want? Is what you want able to sustain racing at this time?

I would like to see everyday races limited to no more than 4 runners per trainer. I would like to see two wins per grade before promotion. I would like to see the playing field leveled when it comes to stakes ie $1000 available to all maiden winners, not just middle distance. I would like to see the stats on breeding and know why the smaller trainers have reduced the numbers bred. I would like to see nominations standardised and fields completed by the GRNZ. I would like to see the opposers taken to task on the bullying of individuals and private business.There are many items on my wish list. What are yours?

Hi Cockyaleg, Yes I totally agree with everything you've said.

1. People do need to get of this stuck track that Greyhound Racing will end soon, They are just feeding the idiots rumor's. Instead support the industry and be proud, things are improving and Great Mates is testimony to this.  

2.Your exactly right, The opposed just spout, Prove is required to make allegations as in over 100 at PNGRC.  If I state something I back it up with facts, otherwise it's hearsay, or just your onion (which everyone is entitled to) But try been positive. 

3. Swarbrick's bill will fail as it's just her and not the Greens pushing it.  It's also not backed up with proven facts, only a few.

4. Agreed GRNZ have addressed criticism's and issues and done it well. Sometimes it's never enough for some people. 

5. Yes the Wanganui Board have taken action, and I feel everyone is happy with the excellent standard the track is presented by Frank, they also have satisfactory addressed the other issues around Mark (personally I don't feel Mark should still be there but time will tell) 

I do disagree with you to a point that one That one man is to blame, How can the trainers or Board be responsible for how Mark presented the track to us?  The trainers that chose to run their dogs perhaps didn't realize how bad the track was in trials, but definitely did on race days as did the stipes. But to the credit of Hatrick the board acted (well done)

6. Hell yes, lets all breath, relax and let things settle down and enjoy the club, socializing and racing . Transparency has been achieved, fairness won't happen with so many Cole dogs in one race.  Overall the pursuit of sustainable racing has to be top of everyone's list.  It's damn hard been a little guy and unfortunately some are throwing the towel in, that's sad but you can't blame them, but lets get behind the clubs, boards and NZGRA and support them, they need us, we need them.

7. I do agree with all you think on races except Ii think it should be capped at 3 dogs per trainer (family) in one race, that would probably increase Tab betting on the races that are dominated by one trainer, it would also make it a more level playing field and also ensure the industry would survive if the dominant trainer tipped over or pulled the pin, we saw the effects on racing when his kennel recently had kennel cough. 

I agree with everything else you propose re races and encourage you to put a motion forward to the clubs and NZGRA seen it's your idea, I feel you would have great support.

Re the opposers taken to task, that's a difficult one, but intimidating businesses to pull sponsorship sucks. Bullies, well no one likes a bully, I hope I haven't come across as one with some of my comments as that's  not my intention, I've merely pointed out facts.

Time for everyone to build a bridge and walk over it for the good of the sport and wellbeing of everyone, Be Nice, times are tough and going to get tougher. Most off us have one thing in common, we Love our Greyhounds.

[A Dogs Life]

5 hours ago, Jacob said:

I'd argue alot of these problems haven't been solved.  That's just me. I doubt by the time I reach 70 or 80, racing will still be around. 

Jacob, out of curiosity what problems do you feel haven't been addressed or solved?

[A Dogs Life]

1 hour ago, Cockyaleg said:

The key to your confusion lies in the words "any defined space."

Event facilities at Alert Level 2

Event facilities can operate at Alert Level 2.

Event facilities can have up to 100 people within any defined space. They also need to assess how many people can safely be inside the premises and still maintain 1 metre physical distancing. This could mean the facility needs to have fewer than 100 people in a defined space.

If you go to an event facility, you legally must keep 1 metre physical distance from people you do not know, where possible — if you cannot, we encourage wearing a face covering.

Event facilities include:

• cinemas, theatres, stadiums, concert venues
• conference venues
• casinos.

Well said and your correct,  the one's knocking the event have given no proof of total numbers, I asked them previously where their proof was but it fell on deaf ears.  

Isn't it fantastic to see public coming along, supporting the clubs and enjoying themselves.

Stop the negativity, lets all work together, is that to much to ask?  

[A Dogs Life]

7 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

With all due respect Cockyaleg, if my interpretation of the rule are incorrect, then I'm not the only one. The article on the GRNZ webpage seems to tell the same story I've told.

 

https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/2652/Slashing-Golden-Chase-times-on-Commentators-Day

 

The third annual Commentators Day took place Monday afternoon at Manawatu Raceway under Covid level 2 guidelines. Despite a limit of 100 people able to attend, club president Paul Freeman and his colleagues made the day a great success.....

 

If their intent was to comply with the limit of 100, why are there still 192 tickets remaining for sale a week after the event has already been completed?

I think the likely answer to your question is that numbers weren't capped as listed pre level change and an oversite. they should have taken the sales down, another oversite but that's only my take.

I'm not on a witch hunt and say well done to PNGRC.  the clubs need these event's.

[Jacob]

18 minutes ago, A Dogs Life said:

Jacob, out of curiosity what problems do you feel haven't been addressed or solved?

The biggest issue greyhound racing is facing in New Zealand is that we simply breed to many dogs and the board seems to be contempt with this quantity over quality approach right now.

There are simply not enough people and resources to re-home the amount of dogs we are breeding per year and this number just keeps rising. If this issue is not solved, I doubt racing will last 15-20 years.

They tried to lower numbers by putting a cap on imported dogs but we all know that the imported dogs are not the issue here (regardless of personal feelings on this issue). 

We can lower injuries on the tracks, euthanasia on course etc (which is good obviously) but every dog has to retire. 

I dont have exact numbers but I doubt even 1/3 of dogs are re-homed at present

 

[Jacob]

10 minutes ago, Jacob said:

The biggest issue greyhound racing is facing in New Zealand is that we simply breed to many dogs and the board seems to be contempt with this quantity over quality approach right now.

There are simply not enough people and resources to re-home the amount of dogs we are breeding per year and this number just keeps rising. If this issue is not solved, I doubt racing will last 15-20 years.

They tried to lower numbers by putting a cap on imported dogs but we all know that the imported dogs are not the issue here (regardless of personal feelings on this issue). 

We can lower injuries on the tracks, euthanasia on course etc (which is good obviously) but every dog has to retire. 

I dont have exact numbers but I doubt even 1/3 of dogs are re-homed at present

 

Also should note that from my understanding, the board are to afraid to cap breeding numbers

If we could cap the amount of dogs a breeder can breed per year and the number of dogs a trainer can race per year, this would solve many of the problems listed in this thread.

I think its unfair personally to cap fields to 3 or 4 dogs per trainer, this would hurt the higher grades and distance racing, but assuring a trainer can only race say 40 dogs a year, a breeder can breed say 30 pups a yr and an owner can own or have a share in say 30 dogs a yr would help level the field 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Jacob

[Cockyaleg]

18 hours ago, A Dogs Life said:

Hi Cockyaleg, Yes I totally agree with everything you've said.

1. People do need to get of this stuck track that Greyhound Racing will end soon, They are just feeding the idiots rumor's. Instead support the industry and be proud, things are improving and Great Mates is testimony to this.  

2.Your exactly right, The opposed just spout, Prove is required to make allegations as in over 100 at PNGRC.  If I state something I back it up with facts, otherwise it's hearsay, or just your onion (which everyone is entitled to) But try been positive. 

3. Swarbrick's bill will fail as it's just her and not the Greens pushing it.  It's also not backed up with proven facts, only a few.

4. Agreed GRNZ have addressed criticism's and issues and done it well. Sometimes it's never enough for some people. 

5. Yes the Wanganui Board have taken action, and I feel everyone is happy with the excellent standard the track is presented by Frank, they also have satisfactory addressed the other issues around Mark (personally I don't feel Mark should still be there but time will tell) 

I do disagree with you to a point that one That one man is to blame, How can the trainers or Board be responsible for how Mark presented the track to us?  The trainers that chose to run their dogs perhaps didn't realize how bad the track was in trials, but definitely did on race days as did the stipes. But to the credit of Hatrick the board acted (well done)

6. Hell yes, lets all breath, relax and let things settle down and enjoy the club, socializing and racing . Transparency has been achieved, fairness won't happen with so many Cole dogs in one race.  Overall the pursuit of sustainable racing has to be top of everyone's list.  It's damn hard been a little guy and unfortunately some are throwing the towel in, that's sad but you can't blame them, but lets get behind the clubs, boards and NZGRA and support them, they need us, we need them.

7. I do agree with all you think on races except Ii think it should be capped at 3 dogs per trainer (family) in one race, that would probably increase Tab betting on the races that are dominated by one trainer, it would also make it a more level playing field and also ensure the industry would survive if the dominant trainer tipped over or pulled the pin, we saw the effects on racing when his kennel recently had kennel cough. 

I agree with everything else you propose re races and encourage you to put a motion forward to the clubs and NZGRA seen it's your idea, I feel you would have great support.

Re the opposers taken to task, that's a difficult one, but intimidating businesses to pull sponsorship sucks. Bullies, well no one likes a bully, I hope I haven't come across as one with some of my comments as that's  not my intention, I've merely pointed out facts.

Time for everyone to build a bridge and walk over it for the good of the sport and wellbeing of everyone, Be Nice, times are tough and going to get tougher. Most off us have one thing in common, we Love our Greyhounds.

That was a refreshing read, thank you. The point of my post was to start a conversation and I am more than open to listening to others thoughts, especially on improving racing for the participants. 

5. Track: Why I believe the problem carries collective responsibility. The issue has been long-standing, successive boards have failed to address and remedy a situation that recently came to a head. I am not privy to those conversations, should that point have been allowed to be reached? In my view, no. Track maintenance and safety falls on the shoulders of the board and how they manage the staff that do the work. That's how I see the role of management. However, it is not track management that has kicked off opposers. It is the dogs lost. I do not place blame on the trainers concerned for the action that leads up to injury. At the end of the day, they alone made the call. That is what is in contention and the reason why opposers are up in the GRNZ's face so to speak.

To the GRNZ's credit, a solution to that specific problem has followed quickly. The package offered is fairly comprehensive and well thought through. My only criticism is that it was not implemented sooner.

7. I am flexible when it comes to this number. I have been given stats specifically around nominations. These stats pertain only to CD racing. There is a trend. Lower graded dogs are not being promoted up the ranks. Those who do make it through are then up against it due to one trainer's numbers. Unlike other regions, those numbers are constantly being replaced. And those numbers can theoretically be manipulated to prevent other dogs from making a field. It all comes down to points. It's a perception that needs to be addressed.

Because lower graded dogs are not being promoted, inequity has developed. With inequity comes discord and imbalance, driven by reduced earning ability. Some will scream so what! The so what is the reduction in trainer numbers in an area where those numbers are already low. The so what is a reduction in those affected which makes it easier to consider shutting an industry down. The CD, the sport needs to value every single trainer currently training. As previously stated there is an urgent need to address the balance.

Jacob when it comes to breeding how would you go about changing the model? What time frame would you be looking at? And would the new model retain participants and racing? Would you ever consider capping the numbers raced per trainer?

As always, this is my opinion. It may differ from yours and that's OK. Only with discussion do you find remedies.

[aquaman]

The elephant in the room is.        Large kennel breeds 500 dogs a year. GRNZ chips brands all these pups and has perfect records kept for every last one of them. And that folks is where it ends. Cradle to the grave follow up does not happen. No yearly audit, no meaningful checking by the RIU as to a head count and progression by these dogs, and ultimately no real idea where and whats happened to the outcome for the 500 dogs bred by one kennel.

If the NGRA were serious about breeding and killing unwanted surplus slow dogs they would do yearly audits on all dogs bred. They would and should turn up with the records and chip numbers for all dogs on the property with a view as to their whereabouts and welfare. For the dogs that are missing, a Vets certificate should be sighted if put down with a reason on the cert as to why. For those rehomed privately a follow up address is required. If breeders or trainers cannot, or will not provide details then they should be shut down. There needs to be a clearly defined medical reason for slow non chasing perfectly healthy pups to be put down, and for those that abuse this, the book needs to be thrown. But without a regular yearly audit the elephant in the room will take over.

[Cockyaleg]

1 hour ago, aquaman said:

The elephant in the room is.        Large kennel breeds 500 dogs a year. GRNZ chips brands all these pups and has perfect records kept for every last one of them. And that folks is where it ends. Cradle to the grave follow up does not happen. No yearly audit, no meaningful checking by the RIU as to a head count and progression by these dogs, and ultimately no real idea where and whats happened to the outcome for the 500 dogs bred by one kennel.

If the NGRA were serious about breeding and killing unwanted surplus slow dogs they would do yearly audits on all dogs bred. They would and should turn up with the records and chip numbers for all dogs on the property with a view as to their whereabouts and welfare. For the dogs that are missing, a Vets certificate should be sighted if put down with a reason on the cert as to why. For those rehomed privately a follow up address is required. If breeders or trainers cannot, or will not provide details then they should be shut down. There needs to be a clearly defined medical reason for slow non chasing perfectly healthy pups to be put down, and for those that abuse this, the book needs to be thrown. But without a regular yearly audit the elephant in the room will take over.

Totally agree that culling is not acceptable, ever. I agree that euthanasia should only ever be performed on certified medical grounds (with one exception), but I don't believe your elephant currently exists. After the last enquiry the government of the day read the riot act. Reporting and monitoring was an issue. The numbers you speak of must now be made available to government annually as part of GRNZ's obligations. There is no stipulation that they must be made available to anyone else. When countering the oppositions arguments the statistics you speak of will form a large part of the GRNZ's case. It is unthinkable to believe that the GRNZ has not fully addressed this complaint. It is actually suicidal to ignore the past. They may be many things but stupid isn't one of them.

I do agree with you on penalties for anyone who deliberately flouts the rules.

[Jacob]

8 hours ago, Cockyaleg said:

That was a refreshing read, thank you. The point of my post was to start a conversation and I am more than open to listening to others thoughts, especially on improving racing for the participants. 

5. Track: Why I believe the problem carries collective responsibility. The issue has been long-standing, successive boards have failed to address and remedy a situation that recently came to a head. I am not privy to those conversations, should that point have been allowed to be reached? In my view, no. Track maintenance and safety falls on the shoulders of the board and how they manage the staff that do the work. That's how I see the role of management. However, it is not track management that has kicked off opposers. It is the dogs lost. I do not place blame on the trainers concerned for the action that leads up to injury. At the end of the day, they alone made the call. That is what is in contention and the reason why opposers are up in the GRNZ's face so to speak.

To the GRNZ's credit, a solution to that specific problem has followed quickly. The package offered is fairly comprehensive and well thought through. My only criticism is that it was not implemented sooner.

7. I am flexible when it comes to this number. I have been given stats specifically around nominations. These stats pertain only to CD racing. There is a trend. Lower graded dogs are not being promoted up the ranks. Those who do make it through are then up against it due to one trainer's numbers. Unlike other regions, those numbers are constantly being replaced. And those numbers can theoretically be manipulated to prevent other dogs from making a field. It all comes down to points. It's a perception that needs to be addressed.

Because lower graded dogs are not being promoted, inequity has developed. With inequity comes discord and imbalance, driven by reduced earning ability. Some will scream so what! The so what is the reduction in trainer numbers in an area where those numbers are already low. The so what is a reduction in those affected which makes it easier to consider shutting an industry down. The CD, the sport needs to value every single trainer currently training. As previously stated there is an urgent need to address the balance.

Jacob when it comes to breeding how would you go about changing the model? What time frame would you be looking at? And would the new model retain participants and racing? Would you ever consider capping the numbers raced per trainer?

As always, this is my opinion. It may differ from yours and that's OK. Only with discussion do you find remedies.

The current model is obviously not keeping participants in the game.

> Many of the people in the CD have left or are planning on leaving in the near future

> Northern racing is already on the thin side

> I'll admit Southern racing is going strong but even they have their issues down there around numbers of dogs

I'd give trainers 3 years to cut numbers down, seems pretty reasonable to me and cut breeding right away to lower numbers

The biggest issue with the current breeding situation is there are roughly 900 dogs being rehomed a year. We have 2 trainers that breed roughly 700 a year and both trainers have next to no dogs go through gap

 

[Chief Stipe]

10 hours ago, aquaman said:

Cradle to the grave follow up does not happen.

That is the issue full stop.  The "cradle to the grave" policy is not sustainable no matter which way you cut it.

The conundrum is to have a sustainable racing industry you need to breed more dogs than can be rehomed.

[aquaman]

14 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

That is the issue full stop.  The "cradle to the grave" policy is not sustainable no matter which way you cut it.

The conundrum is to have a sustainable racing industry you need to breed more dogs than can be rehomed.

 

14 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

That is the issue full stop.  The "cradle to the grave" policy is not sustainable no matter which way you cut it.

The conundrum is to have a sustainable racing industry you need to breed more dogs than can be rehomed.

 

23 hours ago, Cockyaleg said:

Totally agree that culling is not acceptable, ever. I agree that euthanasia should only ever be performed on certified medical grounds (with one exception), but I don't believe your elephant currently exists. After the last enquiry the government of the day read the riot act. Reporting and monitoring was an issue. The numbers you speak of must now be made available to government annually as part of GRNZ's obligations. There is no stipulation that they must be made available to anyone else. When countering the oppositions arguments the statistics you speak of will form a large part of the GRNZ's case. It is unthinkable to believe that the GRNZ has not fully addressed this complaint. It is actually suicidal to ignore the past. They may be many things but stupid isn't one of them.

I do agree with you on penalties for anyone who deliberately flouts the rules.

Just come out of the closet you mole, your an employee of the NGRA. Thats ok, just come clean. You can still have imput, and one does not need to know your name, but to make out you are just an interested party is an insult to the intelligence. 

Now the facts are, dog farmers cull there unwanted slow, non chasing greyhounds on a grand scale. You and your employers protect the farmers because they are intimidated by them and the power they hold over the industry, ie, numbers to support race programs. You piss on my leg, and your employers know the exact number bred, but have no real understanding after that as they do not follow up with a real audit or head count. Now I understand that not all dogs are re homeable because of factors like behavioral or mental problems, and some dogs need to be put down, but the vast majority are ok for a new life as pets, but when it comes to the farmers, they get a pass. No yearly head count, no follow up on missing dogs, no prosecutions under your rules for ridding the industry of healthy young surplus greyhounds by the dog farmers. They are a protected species.

[Cockyaleg]

1 hour ago, aquaman said:

 

 

Just come out of the closet you mole, your an employee of the NGRA. Thats ok, just come clean. You can still have imput, and one does not need to know your name, but to make out you are just an interested party is an insult to the intelligence. 

Now the facts are, dog farmers cull there unwanted slow, non chasing greyhounds on a grand scale. You and your employers protect the farmers because they are intimidated by them and the power they hold over the industry, ie, numbers to support race programs. You piss on my leg, and your employers know the exact number bred, but have no real understanding after that as they do not follow up with a real audit or head count. Now I understand that not all dogs are re homeable because of factors like behavioral or mental problems, and some dogs need to be put down, but the vast majority are ok for a new life as pets, but when it comes to the farmers, they get a pass. No yearly head count, no follow up on missing dogs, no prosecutions under your rules for ridding the industry of healthy young surplus greyhounds by the dog farmers. They are a protected species.

What a fabulous post. So, because I don't agree with your anecdotal assessment I must be working for the firm? I agree with you that there is definitely a perception, but do you have the proof to back up your beliefs? If you bothered to read my posts, you would have deduced that I am not in favour of the the status quo. That puts me at odds with the firm. I am assuming you have left the industry, and your departure was not amicable. Your intelligence is questionable. It appears you would rather cast aspersions than offer solutions. Your animosity has been noted.

[aquaman]

18 hours ago, Cockyaleg said:

What a fabulous post. So, because I don't agree with your anecdotal assessment I must be working for the firm? I agree with you that there is definitely a perception, but do you have the proof to back up your beliefs? If you bothered to read my posts, you would have deduced that I am not in favour of the the status quo. That puts me at odds with the firm. I am assuming you have left the industry, and your departure was not amicable. Your intelligence is questionable. It appears you would rather cast aspersions than offer solutions. Your animosity has been noted.

And i think you operate under another alias on the rubbish site RC. Different name, same modus operandi. Flowery words and full of shyte.

[Chief Stipe]

As you all know I'm not really a Greyhound follower.  But a serious question in keeping with this Topic.

What is the number of Greyhounds required to keep Greyhound racing sustainable?  By sustainable I mean enable both amateur and professional Trainers to pay their way.  Maybe even allow some to make a profit.

[Jacob]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

As you all know I'm not really a Greyhound follower.  But a serious question in keeping with this Topic.

What is the number of Greyhounds required to keep Greyhound racing sustainable?  By sustainable I mean enable both amateur and professional Trainers to pay their way.  Maybe even allow some to make a profit.

I dont think there is a sustainable number under the current model racing operates under in NZ.

> We do need to lower the dog numbers 

> We need to allow a more even distribution of dogs breed

> We also need to raise how many dogs can be re-homed 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Jacob

[Chief Stipe]

6 minutes ago, Jacob said:

I dont think there is a sustainable number under the current model racing operates under in NZ.

> We do need to lower the dog numbers 

> We need to allow a more even distribution of dogs breed

> We also need to raise how many dogs can be re-homed 

But what is the number?  If you are going to "live within your means" does that mean Hughes will be paid appropriately less?  If the key metric is to only race those that can be rehomed what is that number?  Are you willing to accept that number?

BTW you still eat meat and drink milk but no one "retires" a dairy cow!