What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling

[Thoglette]

Undoubtedly some of those rejoicing in the fate of the greyhound industry would describe this as systematic abuse and would jump for joy if that could be ended too. But I suspect that's an extreme fringe position (e.g. the Animal Justice Party got barely 1% of the senate vote nationally). So the livestock slaughter aka systematic abuse will continue and not be banned by the NSW government.

One can draw a difference around the word "humane". Hence the knee-jerk ban on live exports to Indonesia a few years back. There is an ongoing battle around the treatment of pigs and chickens (the patently absurd definition of "free range" being the latest shot).

Throw gambling into the pot with cruelty and you've got a "some must do something" situation. Like !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! fighting or dog fighting.

What you describe as systematic abuse is not a distinctive point that makes the governments behavior have any less meaning or no meaning for the cycling world. It's a straw man fallacy you've built.

You'd do better in this line of argument by refering to Jane Elliot's Blue Eye/Brown Eye Experiment in group think.

Despite polling less than 1% both the cycling and AJP reflect memes that are, if marginal, in the battle. For which we are seeing backlashes from opposing memes - e.g. the trucking industry. (I'd be interested to see how the "smokers" or "asbestos industry" parties might poll)

On a lighter note, I think the ban provides a great opportunity for Keirin in NSW.

(disclosure: I'm happy with my position in the food chain & largely anti gambling)

[fat and old]

So what do you call the quarterly slaughter of 2 million perfectly healthy cattle, 129,000 perfectly healthy calves, 2 million sheep, 5.9 million lambs, 1.2 million pigs, and 155 million chickens ... all perfectly healthy ?

Wow...that must be great racing. Where can I place a bet?



Come on, it had to be said.

Here: Cattle futures market

Touche

[wombatK]

As for the straw man, if you'd bother to read any of the report that the NSW Govt commissioned into the greyhound industry you'd know and understand the the systematic abuse was one of the key reasons for the ban - but sure, it's not a distinctive point at all.

I also didn't mention the "cycling world" so I am at a loss to understand your point there, all I've done is respond to a single post in this thread to highlight the comparison between killing 58,000 animals to "breaking significant traffic laws" as ridiculous. When people start profiting off "breaking significant traffic laws" maybe we can come back and compare the two?

Yours was the first post to mention the killing of 58,000 animals (over 10 years) and seek to compare it to traffic law breaches. Nobody else equated them. That's the first straw man you have built.

You claim that "systematic abuse" was one of the "key reasons". A search of the Volume 1 of the report (including the recommendations) shows that term does not occur even once. Nor in the other two volumes. If you look close enough at paragraph 14.99 of volume 2, the Commission agrees with the WDA report that found the industry has no systematic approach to training. So not only was there no "systematic abuse", there is nothing systematic about the industry at all - go search for the word systematic on its own if you don't believe me. It's another straw man you have built.

[DG1984]

As for the straw man, if you'd bother to read any of the report that the NSW Govt commissioned into the greyhound industry you'd know and understand the the systematic abuse was one of the key reasons for the ban - but sure, it's not a distinctive point at all.

I also didn't mention the "cycling world" so I am at a loss to understand your point there, all I've done is respond to a single post in this thread to highlight the comparison between killing 58,000 animals to "breaking significant traffic laws" as ridiculous. When people start profiting off "breaking significant traffic laws" maybe we can come back and compare the two?

Yours was the first post to mention the killing of 58,000 animals (over 10 years) and seek to compare it to traffic law breaches. Nobody else equated them. That's the first straw man you have built.

You claim that "systematic abuse" was one of the "key reasons". A search of the Volume 1 of the report (including the recommendations) shows that term does not occur even once. Nor in the other two volumes. If you look close enough at paragraph 14.99 of volume 2, the Commission agrees with the WDA report that found the industry has no systematic approach to training. So not only was there no "systematic abuse", there is nothing systematic about the industry at all - go search for the word systematic on its own if you don't believe me. It's another straw man you have built.

The report did however state the governing body was aware of the living baiting and killings, tried to hide injuries sustained by the dogs and when presented with evidence of live baiting they didn't investigate it.

My apologies, my interpretation of the fact sheet lead me to describe it as systematic due to the governing body being aware/involved. I will refrain using words not contained in the report just to avoid a discussion in semantics so we can discuss the actual issue.

You should go back and read the original quote I had an issue with - which mentioned the banning motorists who break laws. Are you somehow trying to say that the remark about banning motorists was not related to the ban imposed on greyhound racing - which came about due to 58,000 deaths of perfectly healthy greyhounds, which is being discussed in this very thread? Not sure how you'd argue the two aren't related, but whatever - you can continue to argue it with yourself and your wonderful men of straw.

[RonK]

Could it be that you just aren't prepared to look hard enough ?

The greyhound industry is an "out-group" - it's not the sport of kings, but rather much more one of working class people and hobby trainers. They are the "vulnerable road users" of the animal training world. 80% of them are being punished for the behavior of 20% of them.

Of course, it couldn't ever happen to cyclists could it ? We'd never all be punished with ridiculously increased fines on account of a small percentage of cyclists who might break red-light running, helmet laws or other road rules.

That couldn't have been the same government prepared to attack the greyhound industry, could it have been ?

If the so called trainers are the vulnerable road users what are the dogs?

No offence, but what a ridiculous analogy. Sometimes the victim mentality goes to far.

Yes - some are prepared to dig very deep to confirm their biases.

[jules21]

Yours was the first post to mention the killing of 58,000 animals (over 10 years) and seek to compare it to traffic law breaches. Nobody else equated them. That's the first straw man you have built.

You claim that "systematic abuse" was one of the "key reasons". A search of the Volume 1 of the report (including the recommendations) shows that term does not occur even once.

but how else do you describe the killing of 58,000 greyhounds? the fact that the report authors didn't use the term 'systematic' doesn't mean it wasn't systematic. you might label someone a terrorist instead of a murderer. that's not a good argument that they are not also a murderer.

[silentC]

The so-called 80% of good people were prepared to turn a blind eye to cruelty in their industry (live baiting), and to kill more than half the dogs they bred.

You are aware that there are industries which kill 100% of the animals they breed?

Putting aside the cruelty etc, the whole reason the commission was set up in the first place was a lobby group - animal rights - put forward enough evidence that something was not right. The NSW government did not just decide one day to 'have a look'. You had a small group of people who did not like something that someone else was doing and managed to convince the government that something needed to be done. No doubt now that they have been successful (although it remains to be seen if the announced ban actually occurs, the fight is not over yet) they will be setting their sights on bigger things, like horse racing, which is also an industry that sees a lot of it's produce become dog meat, perhaps ironically. Dogs have to eat something I guess...

Meanwhile, they have demonstrated that if you can show evidence of a problem and paint a picture of wrongdoing or activities that are not in the public's interest, you can get your concerns acted upon. I think we have already seen that in the increased fines for cyclists and complete lack of attention to the passing laws. Don't kid yourself that this was anything other than an anti-cycling lobby getting it's way. Their end goal will be to get cyclists off the road.

[gorilla monsoon]

And you can't see how, done properly, a pro-cycling lobby could achieve positive results for the riding fraternity?

BTW, the next animal victimisation industry that should be hunted down is rodeo.

[silentC]

Sure, they just need to create the impression that cyclists are being victimised and tormented in cruel and unusual ways. At the moment, we are lower down the sympathy tree than greyhounds...

[mikesbytes]

Sure, they just need to create the impression that cyclists are being victimised and tormented in cruel and unusual ways. At the moment, we are lower down the sympathy tree than greyhounds...

But the perception is that we are only one step behind an international terrorist organization

[silentC]

Yes I think the problem is that we are viewed by many, if not most, as a nuisance, not as something that needs to be saved or protected If we all developed fur coats and big, dreamy eyes we would be a shoo-in. Much too hard and shiny most of us.

[jules21]

I don't think it's as bad for cyclists as we may be tempted to believe. in my view, there are 2 categories of belief that centre on cyclists being pariahs of the road:
1. the knuckle-heads who really do believe we are terrorists of the road who should be banned. my observation is that they are a (dangerous) minority of drivers who probably struggle to co-exist with society in a range of other ways other than homicidal driving and intolerance towards cyclists.
2. the larger number of people who label cyclists as menaces, but do so to push an agenda against cyclists, rather than reflecting their true beliefs. it's like whingeing about taxis - almost everyone has a horror story about a taxi ride and how bad they are. yet most taxi rides are uneventful. it's unfair labeling taxi drivers as being that bad, but hey, we aren't taxi drivers and it feels good to stick it up them for that time I got ripped off, etc. my point being - don't take these opinions (about cyclists) too seriously.

[silentC]

Trouble is some of those people in group 2 are the reason we now have the ID requirement and increased fines in NSW. It is the ones who can make a reasonable-sounding argument to a receptive government that are going to do the damage. The nut bags in group 1 are too small in number and too disorganised to do anything much.

[jules21]

silentC, I believe the NSW crackdown on cyclists is - politically speaking - a mistake. cyclists are seen as a weak minority, but in politics, it's not the size of the voter group that counts as much as how motivated they are. I doubt the NSW govt will gain a lot of votes from people for cracking down on cyclists. sure, a lot of people will smile about it and agree with the crackdown. but at the end of the day, a fleeting sense of schadenfreude won't sway their vote. however, for cyclists who are being belted with draconian fines and who are made to feel like criminals every time they take to the road - they are more likely to change their vote. but - the govt has likely worked out that cyclists weren't generally their biggest supporters in the first place. in that way, it's similar as for the greyhound ban.

[silentC]

I don't know if this one is all about votes. I think it is political but I think it is more about deal-making than votes. We are just lucky that they didn't get the rego and licensing up. It may still happen yet...

[jules21]

there will be no rego and licensing for cyclists. that would cost a lot of money to implement. trust me, they're allergic to that.

[hunch]

On a lighter note, I think the ban provides a great opportunity for Keirin in NSW.

...or they could reinstate speedway activities as a nice FU gesture!

I'd dare say this is another, look over there, distraction from the government. There's been previous activity to get them out, can't recall if it was the old COS or Labor....Sator had involvement though.....a 99 year lease and unwillingness to vacate scuppered that.

[mikesbytes]

I don't know if this one is all about votes. I think it is political but I think it is more about deal-making than votes. We are just lucky that they didn't get the rego and licensing up. It may still happen yet...

I see that it is about votes, they can take any decision they want against the greyhound racing industry as they don't have to be concerned about a voter backlash. They can't ban smoking as 20% of the voting population is impacted, even though a ban would save society something like $20B a year above the current tax. The can do whatever they want to cyclists as our voting power is no better than those in greyhound racing

[silentC]

I was talking more about the increased cycling fines etc than the greyhounds... I think a lot of the anti-cycling sentiment is actually anti-CloverMoore/bike lane. Nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors but you have to think there was some deal-making going on. Maybe the whole thing has been carefully orchestrated to create widespread anti-cycling sentiment so that the bikes lanes can be closed and cyclists driven off the roads altogether. I suppose there could be votes in that if enough non-cycling voters get the pips about it.

Cracking down on cyclists is not going to affect their vote certainly (may even help it a bit) but you have to ask why crack down on them at all? There is a good reason to stop smoking, so I can see the pros and cons being weighed up: cost to the health system versus lost revenue and voter backlash. But what is the gain they're after by cracking down on cyclists not wearing helmets?

[Mulger bill]

But what is the gain they're after by cracking down on cyclists not wearing helmets?

LCD media whoring. Gains for Gub in positive meeja feedback for taking action agin those krimnels and free clicks for the meeja reporting Gub action agin those krimnels

[mikesbytes]

But what is the gain they're after by cracking down on cyclists not wearing helmets?

Making a statement about something small act's as a distraction in the media. Perhaps that's the driver???

[jules21]

Making a statement about something small act's as a distraction in the media. Perhaps that's the driver???

a thought: there is a lot of votes in law-and-order. cracking down on disorder, even if it doesn't really have much material impact on underlying goals like road safety, is often popular. particularly when it's someone else who's bearing the brunt.

[jules21]

At least 99 'underperforming' greyhoundskilled, buried in mass grave, reportfinds

Investigators have found it is probable that at least 99 greyhounds were brutally killed at a Hunter Valley property and buried in a mass grave over a four-year period because they were "underperforming" and "therefore of no further use".

nice. last night I spent $1300 at the vet having a possible skin cancer cut out of my underperforming greyhound Tilda's belly and having her teeth cleaned.

I didn't think to just hit her over the head with a hammer. I've never been good with money, when I think about it. also, I'm not a heartless scumbag (ok, this is subjective).

the major victims here are not the 'honest' trainers.

[silentC]

For me, the irony of all this is that people get upset at the fact of dogs being put down by an industry that has no use for them, yet we quite happily sit by and watch thousands of cows, sheep, chickens and pigs be slaughtered every day so that we can eat them.

The inhumane methods used by some are of course abhorrent, but dead is dead and it is all for our convenience one way or another.

I personally am quite fond of dogs and I have two here which I think we saved from an awful, and probably short, life. The whole business of eating dogs and what they do to them during that festival in China is revolting to me.

I'm just saying that there is a little bit of emotion involved in all of this - people are not just upset that some of the dogs have been killed brutally, it's the fact they are killed at all. But they don't seem to mind that other industries kill EVERY animal they breed and people line up in the supermarket to buy the remains.

That just seems inconsistent and sightly hypocritical to me.

[johnfordau]

So when is fishing going to be banned.