iteruka

Dead baiting NSW

197 posts in this topic

55 minutes ago, GOM said:

I was never aware of the rule until recently, cannot remember ever seeing any info on it, but what worries me most is that there was no input asked from the members/users beforehand.

     The rule is stupid, it defies logic and  if I had questioned it , my bet going on previous experience would have been that I would not likely have got a reply or acknowledgement. Sue starts this thread quoting the Aussie example. In my opinion the Aussie case as ridiculous, Ok it may not meet the rules but it did not warrant the resulting sentence. What if the trainer had fed the dead carcasses to his dogs. That would have been legal so what's the difference and if it was not legal what about other types of animal carcasses we feed to dogs.

   Where I live a neighbour lets his son in law exercise his dogs, Two large mongrels and two ankle biters on his property and it is not unusual for them to catch a rabbit. I cannot help but wonder at the irony that a fence between us is all that makes it not a national outcry.

  Actually this brings up another point. If you do not agree with the a rule how do you get your views heard?

We used to address this through our clubs who would put forward remits at the AGM. This year the AGM was just a financial statement. What about other business?

    We used to have a LP REP, now that has finished. The new management very quickly changed our letterhead and seem intent on disenfranchising the members as well.

As for you Alltheway saying Shelley is as guilty as the perpetrator's of the current debacle , you are way out of line and display you have an ulterior motive. Firstly there has been no one found guilty of anything yet , although you are wishing and secondly Shelly has only told the truth.

Emotive and others who say it is alright to gather video evidence illegally think back to the Tama Iti case where  the very clear video evidence was thrown out because it was filmed illegally.

 

    Cheers Mike

 

mike ill think you will find that the photos were taken legally as per a previous post  as an aside mike what if the photos show something and are legally thrown out the sports reputation will be tarnished forever and the activists will have a field day  just like in aust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, GOM said:

I was never aware of the rule until recently, cannot remember ever seeing any info on it, but what worries me most is that there was no input asked from the members/users beforehand.

     The rule is stupid, it defies logic and  if I had questioned it , my bet going on previous experience would have been that I would not likely have got a reply or acknowledgement. Sue starts this thread quoting the Aussie example. In my opinion the Aussie case as ridiculous, Ok it may not meet the rules but it did not warrant the resulting sentence. What if the trainer had fed the dead carcasses to his dogs. That would have been legal so what's the difference and if it was not legal what about other types of animal carcasses we feed to dogs.

   Where I live a neighbour lets his son in law exercise his dogs, Two large mongrels and two ankle biters on his property and it is not unusual for them to catch a rabbit. I cannot help but wonder at the irony that a fence between us is all that makes it not a national outcry.

  Actually this brings up another point. If you do not agree with the a rule how do you get your views heard?

We used to address this through our clubs who would put forward remits at the AGM. This year the AGM was just a financial statement. What about other business?

    We used to have a LP REP, now that has finished. The new management very quickly changed our letterhead and seem intent on disenfranchising the members as well.

As for you Alltheway saying Shelley is as guilty as the perpetrator's of the current debacle , you are way out of line and display you have an ulterior motive. Firstly there has been no one found guilty of anything yet , although you are wishing and secondly Shelly has only told the truth.

Emotive and others who say it is alright to gather video evidence illegally think back to the Tama Iti case where  the very clear video evidence was thrown out because it was filmed illegally.

 

    Cheers Mike

 

Thank you for your considered reply, Mike. The rule is a response to rapidly changing public opinion, and the need to work within that public license. History has shown that past accepted practices are not appropriate to the world we live in now. The Australian model fully demonstrates that point. The sport in one state came close to closure, ACT has announced that it will close down the sport in that State. We do not exist in isolation, we are part of Greyhound Australasia and as such precedents have already been set. Do we want to travel the same road as our Australian counterparts, or should we be working smarter? I am in the second camp.

The rule has been called "stupid", I don't agree. If we are serious about longevity then we must stay ahead of the detractors, we must change the model. Now many assume that all within the sport agree that the discussed practice is acceptable, that couldn't be further from the truth. Most trainers understand the ramifications and have employed alternative methods of producing chasers. They are starting that training much earlier, and putting in a greater effort. Our core business also relies on the punter. Many punters were disgusted by what was beamed to their television screens from Australia, and quite rightly so. Baiting in any form is seen by those outside and inside as abhorrent. Myself included.

The rule is four years old, the opportunity to challenge that rule and succeed is long gone. I believe a challenge would have failed. So like it or not we have minimum standards that we ALL must abide by. To ignore the rule and carry on, as usual, is an extremely selfish act given the potential consequences. But to continue is also an affront against every trainer who adheres to the rules. 

Shelley has continually gone down the trespass argument in defense of alleged incidents. Legally it won't fly, especially if the case proceeds. It didn't fly in Australia because the ruling was that the evidence was in the public interest. But that's just a distraction. I have much respect for you Mike, but I don't agree. I am extremely passionate about the sport and the dogs. Longevity requires public support, it would be very sad to see that longevity in jeopardy because of the attitudes of a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough Em but you are starting to sound like an association apologist.

It beggars belief that you agree that using the pictures as evidence is legal because it was in the publics interest but do not seem to think the Tuhoe case was not.

I agree that an appeal would probably have failed but probably not for the same reasons . The assoc, had to react and they did a good job when Jim first started, this has progressed to stupidity.

I am interested in the alternative methods for training to chase. We are all against anything live but what are the new methods that are being instigated earlier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GOM said:

Fair enough Em but you are starting to sound like an association apologist.

It beggars belief that you agree that using the pictures as evidence is legal because it was in the publics interest but do not seem to think the Tuhoe case was not.

I agree that an appeal would probably have failed but probably not for the same reasons . The assoc, had to react and they did a good job when Jim first started, this has progressed to stupidity.

I am interested in the alternative methods for training to chase. We are all against anything live but what are the new methods that are being instigated earlier?

You miss understood Mike, I'm not agreeing with the gathering of any alleged evidence, I'm saying that a precedent was set.
The methods vary Mike, rather than disclose what others are doing, I will just say that they are looking to technology for assistance, and putting greater emphasis on intensive play from an early age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Emotive said:

Thank you for your considered reply, Mike. The rule is a response to rapidly changing public opinion, and the need to work within that public license. History has shown that past accepted practices are not appropriate to the world we live in now. The Australian model fully demonstrates that point. The sport in one state came close to closure, ACT has announced that it will close down the sport in that State. We do not exist in isolation, we are part of Greyhound Australasia and as such precedents have already been set. Do we want to travel the same road as our Australian counterparts, or should we be working smarter? I am in the second camp.

The rule has been called "stupid", I don't agree. If we are serious about longevity then we must stay ahead of the detractors, we must change the model. Now many assume that all within the sport agree that the discussed practice is acceptable, that couldn't be further from the truth. Most trainers understand the ramifications and have employed alternative methods of producing chasers. They are starting that training much earlier, and putting in a greater effort. Our core business also relies on the punter. Many punters were disgusted by what was beamed to their television screens from Australia, and quite rightly so. Baiting in any form is seen by those outside and inside as abhorrent. Myself included.

The rule is four years old, the opportunity to challenge that rule and succeed is long gone. I believe a challenge would have failed. So like it or not we have minimum standards that we ALL must abide by. To ignore the rule and carry on, as usual, is an extremely selfish act given the potential consequences. But to continue is also an affront against every trainer who adheres to the rules. 

Shelley has continually gone down the trespass argument in defense of alleged incidents. Legally it won't fly, especially if the case proceeds. It didn't fly in Australia because the ruling was that the evidence was in the public interest. But that's just a distraction. I have much respect for you Mike, but I don't agree. I am extremely passionate about the sport and the dogs. Longevity requires public support, it would be very sad to see that longevity in jeopardy because of the attitudes of a few.

This would be the biggest load of bollocks ever. Because of limp wristed attitudes such as the above, Greyhound racing is in full retreat from from its detractors. Instead of standing and fighting, and defending, they choose the easy road of capitulation. Just roll over and say, screw me here. What a weak individual you are, Emotive really describes your weak f#cken attitude. Spare me your rubbish, it may work on gutless apologists like yourself, but for me, I will stick by the facts, and not succumb to emotive arguments like the garbage you peddle. Road kills are perfectly OK. Shot rabbits, possums are ok, and no amount of your PC weak gutted bullshit will change anything other than empowering those that want you shut down. Stick to real factual things such as live kills, and leave the good souls that clean up the roadkills, shoot the rabbits and possums, cleaning up the countryside from out of control pests.

Now i'm finished with you, and this subject. You are a stooge for the useless f#cken NZGRA, producers of fake rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, aquaman said:

This would be the biggest load of bollocks ever. Because of limp wristed attitudes such as the above, Greyhound racing is in full retreat from from its detractors. Instead of standing and fighting, and defending, they choose the easy road of capitulation. Just roll over and say, screw me here. What a weak individual you are, Emotive really describes your weak f#cken attitude. Spare me your rubbish, it may work on gutless apologists like yourself, but for me, I will stick by the facts, and not succumb to emotive arguments like the garbage you peddle. Road kills are perfectly OK. Shot rabbits, possums are ok, and no amount of your PC weak gutted bullshit will change anything other than empowering those that want you shut down. Stick to real factual things such as live kills, and leave the good souls that clean up the roadkills, shoot the rabbits and possums, cleaning up the countryside from out of control pests.

Now i'm finished with you, and this subject. You are a stooge for the useless f#cken NZGRA, producers of fake rules.

Stand up for your principals, gather your animals, and do it, call in the media and show them what you believe. Put your money on your keyboard. Tie optional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really enjoying this threads, posts, especially over the weekend,  when usually of a weekend,  things remain dormant. Some very good points have been raised. The “Code Of Welfare” I believe became N.Z.Law in 2013.  The NZGRA did send out notification by email and hard copy and the R.I.U. took it on board by visiting several trainers at the time making them very aware of the consequences if this Code was broken.   A Point, I would like clarified is   Did the CEO of the NZGRA make this rule change available to the Chairman of the Board at the time for confirmation?  If So, Who was the Chairman of the Board at the time?
 
Recently this notice was circulated?
 
Rule for consideration at GRNZ Board meeting on October 13, 2017         ( Note the date please)  and it would be appreciated if the office bearer responsible could post the  results of the minutes of this meeting... Mr Holden or in his absence Mr. Kerr ?
 

Offences relating to luring and baiting

1.       Only artificial materials are permitted for use as a lure or any other training device for the purposes of training a Greyhound or otherwise being used in connection with Greyhound Racing.  Artificial material includes the use of tanned skin products.

2.       No person may:

                                  i.           use or allow to be used in connection with Greyhound Racing or training for Greyhound Racing a bird or animal whether dead or alive, and whether as a lure or to excite a Greyhound or otherwise; or

                                ii.           bring or allow to be brought on to grounds where a Greyhound is situated, a bird or animal whether dead or alive which might reasonably be capable of being used as a lure or to excite a Greyhound or otherwise; or

                               iii.           allow a Greyhound, for the purpose of training a Greyhound, to pursue or attack a bird or animal, whether dead or alive.

3.       Any person who has knowledge of, or suspects, an offence has occurred, is occurring, or is reasonably likely to occur contrary shall report the matter to the Association immediately

 

 

 

Penalties relating to luring and baiting

 

Any Person found guilty of an Offence under this Rule shall be liable to:

 

(a) a fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one (1) Offence; and/or

(b) Suspension; and/or

(c) Disqualification; and/or

(d) Warning Off.

 

Any Club found guilty of an Offence under this Rule shall be liable to, in the sole and absolute discretion of the Board or the Stewards:

 

(a) a fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one (1) offence; and/or

(b) Suspension of its affiliation to the Association; and/or

(c) cancellation of its affiliation to the Association

 
Now ....    The  White Poodle,  does not agree with the  Dead  bait part of this offence. It is overkill in this opinion !!   How ever,  the rule is Law and the NZGRA  attempted along with the R.I.U.  to abide.. Can  anyone fill in the gaps of what actually is going on ?, 
 I received notification of the Code  and  was made  aware and after all that has gone down recently  in Australian racing nearly being bought to its knees when the photo’s surfaced I could not believe that someone amongst us could  possibly even think  of abusing  the future of the the sport and  the Noble breed of dogs we choose to associated with...    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The White Poodle said:
Really enjoying this threads, posts, especially over the weekend,  when usually of a weekend,  things remain dormant. Some very good points have been raised. The “Code Of Welfare” I believe became N.Z.Law in 2013.  The NZGRA did send out notification by email and hard copy and the R.I.U. took it on board by visiting several trainers at the time making them very aware of the consequences if this Code was broken.   A Point, I would like clarified is   Did the CEO of the NZGRA make this rule change available to the Chairman of the Board at the time for confirmation?  If So, Who was the Chairman of the Board at the time?
 
Recently this notice was circulated?
 
Rule for consideration at GRNZ Board meeting on October 13, 2017         ( Note the date please)  and it would be appreciated if the office bearer responsible could post the  results of the minutes of this meeting... Mr Holden or in his absence Mr. Kerr ?
 

Offences relating to luring and baiting

1.       Only artificial materials are permitted for use as a lure or any other training device for the purposes of training a Greyhound or otherwise being used in connection with Greyhound Racing.  Artificial material includes the use of tanned skin products.

2.       No person may:

                                  i.           use or allow to be used in connection with Greyhound Racing or training for Greyhound Racing a bird or animal whether dead or alive, and whether as a lure or to excite a Greyhound or otherwise; or

                                ii.           bring or allow to be brought on to grounds where a Greyhound is situated, a bird or animal whether dead or alive which might reasonably be capable of being used as a lure or to excite a Greyhound or otherwise; or

                               iii.           allow a Greyhound, for the purpose of training a Greyhound, to pursue or attack a bird or animal, whether dead or alive.

3.       Any person who has knowledge of, or suspects, an offence has occurred, is occurring, or is reasonably likely to occur contrary shall report the matter to the Association immediately

 

 

 

Penalties relating to luring and baiting

 

Any Person found guilty of an Offence under this Rule shall be liable to:

 

(a) a fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one (1) Offence; and/or

(b) Suspension; and/or

(c) Disqualification; and/or

(d) Warning Off.

 

Any Club found guilty of an Offence under this Rule shall be liable to, in the sole and absolute discretion of the Board or the Stewards:

 

(a) a fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one (1) offence; and/or

(b) Suspension of its affiliation to the Association; and/or

(c) cancellation of its affiliation to the Association

 
Now ....    The  White Poodle,  does not agree with the  Dead  bait part of this offence. It is overkill in this opinion !!   How ever,  the rule is Law and the NZGRA  attempted along with the R.I.U.  to abide.. Can  anyone fill in the gaps of what actually is going on ?, 
 I received notification of the Code  and  was made  aware and after all that has gone down recently  in Australian racing nearly being bought to its knees when the photo’s surfaced I could not believe that someone amongst us could  possibly even think  of abusing  the future of the the sport and  the Noble breed of dogs we choose to associated with...    

I don't know for sure if this is correct, but the second part of the penalties which refers to "Clubs" seems to be absent from the original "Code of Welfare." Could it be that the rule was revisited to include "Club Penalties"? Some great questions there White Poodle. To my knowledge, all rules, amendments, and retractions must be ratified by the GRNZ Board before coming into effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Emotive said:

You miss understood Mike, I'm not agreeing with the gathering of any alleged evidence, I'm saying that a precedent was set.
The methods vary Mike, rather than disclose what others are doing, I will just say that they are looking to technology for assistance, and putting greater emphasis on intensive play from an early age.

Hmmmm, new technology and secret. For the last 30 or 40 years I have started ours education shortly after their eyes open so don't know if I could start any earlier. I will be interested to hear how it works, is there anyone out there that  can help?

The comment about precedent could also apply to the Tama Iti case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, GOM said:

Hmmmm, new technology and secret. For the last 30 or 40 years I have started ours education shortly after their eyes open so don't know if I could start any earlier. I will be interested to hear how it works, is there anyone out there that  can help?

The comment about precedent could also apply to the Tama Iti case.

 

That's awesome Mike, but not everyone works to your standards. Those who do very little for the first 12 months and expect their dogs to be all things often look for quick fixes.  It's not my place to pass on that info. If people wish to discuss their ideas and innovations, then that is up to them. But technology and scientific data will influence training in the future. Using RHR to monitor recovery and fitness, monitoring respiration and CO2 output, all useful training tools. Finding a legal edge in a very competitive climate, that's the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GOM said:

 

The comment about precedent could also apply to the Tama Iti case.

 

1

In regard to precedents, the precedents used to challenge evidence or support a defense must be related to the case at hand. For instance, if undercover footage was used to successfully prosecute an offender in an animal welfare case, that would have a direct bearing on a similar case. So any court would look to the rulings from previous successful SPCA prosecutions and also the rulings made across the ditch in regard to baiting because they are the most relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Emotive said:

In regard to precedents, the precedents used to challenge evidence or support a defense must be related to the case at hand. For instance, if undercover footage was used to successfully prosecute an offender in an animal welfare case, that would have a direct bearing on a similar case. So any court would look to the rulings from previous successful SPCA prosecutions and also the rulings made across the ditch in regard to baiting because they are the most relevant.

Thanks for that, as they say the law is an ass, I realise now who you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Emotive said:

That's awesome Mike, but not everyone works to your standards. Those who do very little for the first 12 months and expect their dogs to be all things often look for quick fixes.  It's not my place to pass on that info. If people wish to discuss their ideas and innovations, then that is up to them. But technology and scientific data will influence training in the future. Using RHR to monitor recovery and fitness, monitoring respiration and CO2 output, all useful training tools. Finding a legal edge in a very competitive climate, that's the future.

Technology is useful to find out where you are in training but will never beat common sense and experience or replace the inborn intuition that comes naturally to the likes of Ray Addcock  and others.

The technology you describe is to do with fitness of the animal but as you are aware that is only a small part of "training" plus I cannot see how starting that in the young is likely to help.

   I agree with you on the 12 month thing though I do know of several trainers (successful trainers) that believe the education should not start until then as the dog is likely to develop phobias if frightened at a young age. My thoughts have always been that greyhounds have a natural instinct to chase moving things that is why are called sighthounds. They also have been bred to chase an artificial lure for many generations so it imperative to trigger that instinct at the earliest possible stage. I reckon this alone is one of the biggest ' secrets' to rearing and training. I don't know how technology is going to help put chase into dogs.

   Hold on I just had a thought you may be right. What say someone could develop a virtual rabbit with one of those visor things you wear. The dog could wear it whenever you saw fit and develop the will to chase. But nah the Isis faction of the animal rights would deem it disgraceful and cruel.

We need an entrepreneur to develop this idea. Where is that fella who got racecam for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, GOM said:

Technology is useful to find out where you are in training but will never beat common sense and experience or replace the inborn intuition that comes naturally to the likes of Ray Addcock  and others.

The technology you describe is to do with fitness of the animal but as you are aware that is only a small part of "training" plus I cannot see how starting that in the young is likely to help.

   I agree with you on the 12 month thing though I do know of several trainers (successful trainers) that believe the education should not start until then as the dog is likely to develop phobias if frightened at a young age. My thoughts have always been that greyhounds have a natural instinct to chase moving things that is why are called sighthounds. They also have been bred to chase an artificial lure for many generations so it imperative to trigger that instinct at the earliest possible stage. I reckon this alone is one of the biggest ' secrets' to rearing and training. I don't know how technology is going to help put chase into dogs.

   Hold on I just had a thought you may be right. What say someone could develop a virtual rabbit with one of those visor things you wear. The dog could wear it whenever you saw fit and develop the will to chase. But nah the Isis faction of the animal rights would deem it disgraceful and cruel.

We need an entrepreneur to develop this idea. Where is that fella who got racecam for us?

Everyone has a different opinion, that's not a bad thing. I was just giving a couple of scientific examples that can aid training. There is a wealth of information out there, ie blood ph, etc, and the technology available to non-clinicians for use in training. How do you simulate a functional track lure at home? How can you take that replication and transfer it to a non-competitive play situation with very young dogs? Can you limit or avoid possible anxiety during that play? Love the virtual rabbit idea, that made me smile. Maybe, that idea could be developed to prevent track collisions in actual races? When the rules changed, instead of throwing their hands in the air, some actually sat down and researched possible alternatives and ways to reduce the inevitable percentage of non-chasers. They have trialed and modified prototypes and come up with a workable solution which involves sight, sound, and eventually speed. And good on them. Technology can be a wonderful thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Subject off animal welfare ,,if i may put forward <<Pig Hunting a great KIWI man past time,dogs chasing pig.grabbing ripping into pig .until the hunter,s turn up to cut throat.and we all remember the TV Series on it  so no input from the SPCA there ?.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes what will it do to the industry the Greens are going to apply more pressure to ban the sport here  as well also belive this story has already broken in Aussie on National TV 

Bloody Greed going to stuff it up for the rest of people in the industry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 5 minutes of prime time news.   So the long time rumours appear to be true.    Always amazing how such things go on under the noses of participants and officialdom . Boy don't they look stupid.   Also amazing how some employees continue to lie,no doubt to protect their own skin,while others tell the truth..    You would  think that many within the industry had  heard of this,but it takes a special investigation from an outside entity to bring it to light.   What does that say about the greyhound industry.  All three codes have their dishonest participants,do whatever it takes to win.      This story,like it or not, reflects on everyone within the greyhound industry.

you read negative comments from participants on this forum about a fella cross trying to shut down the industry, when in reality the  enemy of your industry comes from within. I wonder whether those who criticize mr cross will be as vocal when it comes to mr cole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, what a post said:

Over 5 minutes of prime time news.   So the long time rumours appear to be true.    Always amazing how such things go on under the noses of participants and officialdom . Boy don't they look stupid.   Also amazing how some employees continue to lie,no doubt to protect their own skin,while others tell the truth..    You would  think that many within the industry had  heard of this,but it takes a special investigation from an outside entity to bring it to light.   What does that say about the greyhound industry.  All three codes have their dishonest participants,do whatever it takes to win.      This story,like it or not, reflects on everyone within the greyhound industry.

you read negative comments from participants on this forum about a fella cross trying to shut down the industry, when in reality the  enemy of your industry comes from within. I wonder whether those who criticize mr cross will be as vocal when it comes to mr cole.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/12/top-greyhound-trainer-being-investigated-over-live-baiting-allegations.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.