What the Greyhound racing ban means for NSW cycling

[jules21]

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.

I'll give you that. it probably is hypocritical to eat meat while being outraged at the greyhound industry.

but that's a judgment against humans and their morality. it doesn't speak to the objective wrong in killing greyhounds. the reason for banning greyhound racing is to protect greyhounds from unnecessary harm. whether I or anyone else is a hypocrite doesn't change that. it's about the dogs, not us.

[silentC]

Well I guess they are being killed for economic reasons and so it's no different ethically to killing rabbits and other pests because of the damage they do to agriculture. A dog that cannot race is of no use to a trainer and is a mouth to feed - they are not pets. Culling is a common land management practice. In real terms it means killing a number of animals for no other reason than that they are an economic burden in one way or another.

My feeling on it is that killing of the animals in and of itself is not really the issue. Killing one animal is no different ethically to killing hundreds in my opinion - I'm not comfortable about it but I can't really raise an objection whilst I continue to eat meat, other than perhaps waste. It is the inhumane treatment of the animals and the live baiting practices which needed to be dealt with. Maybe an outright ban is the best way, maybe not.

[jules21]

again, I agree with you to a degree. dogs don't have families, careers or retirement plans. being knocked over the head is relatively painless.

but it's still different to culling pests. farmers didn't breed the pests, they are playing the hand they were dealt. that's not the case with greyhounds.

greyhounds can live a tough life as racers. some trainers insist that they're well looked after, but that doesn't appear to the case always. they are sensitive, intelligent animals and I've seen first hand how they become distressed in remarkably similar ways to humans. they are acutely aware of what's going on around them and form bonds with their owners. they aren't cattle that mostly eat, s_t, repeat.

[silentC]

Culling is not just about pests though. Herds are culled due to age, breeding prognosis, too many of the wrong gender, lack of feed during drought etc. At the end of the day it is an economic practice. I'm certain that's how the proponents view it.

I guess it comes down to what you view as necessary if we want to make ourselves feel better about it. We love our dogs and they are certainly intelligent animals capable of primitive emotions. I have had two of them put down and it was the hardest thing I have ever done. It's not something I could do myself - I abdicated that responsibility to the vet - but then I have also dispatched a number of chickens by hand, so I suppose we all have our level of barbarity!

So not supporting anything that went on, but understanding the economic reasons behind it I guess is my point of view. I suppose that we can survive without greyhound racing, so the culling is not as necessary as some other forms.

[jules21]

I suppose that we can survive without greyhound racing, so the culling is not as necessary as some other forms.

that's the key point for me. some industries - e.g. agriculture - serve a useful purpose in improving the quality of our lives. there are costs to that - i.e. slaughter of cattle, etc.

other industries are more of a zero sum game. real estate land banking is primarily about trying to manouevre yourself into a position where someone pays you more money than you did for land. greyhound racing is in the same category for me. there is some value in the entertainment. that's legit. but it's mostly about trying to get rich by hoping your dog is faster than the others, or your bet on a dog pays off. it's primarily about trying to put other people's money into your pocket. everyone has the same objective and it only works because of human optimism bias, whereby people deny the reality that most likely, they will only break even.

it's on that basis that I believe greyhound racing is less moral than the slaughter of cattle for food.

[silentC]

it's primarily about trying to put other people's money into your pocket

Isn't that the nature of commerce?

[jules21]

the exchange of a product for currency is the nature of commerce. but society benefits when that exchange is fair. a plumber fixing your toilet improves your quality of life, and one day someone will buy your house and use that toilet. selling a beer to someone provides its drinker with enjoyment, which satisfies an objective human need.

greyhound racing arguably does the same - people enjoy going to the dogs. so it's not without merit. but to a significant extent, it's about trying to exchange money without providing a service. that's what gambling is - unless you believe that the activity of gambling is a source of enjoyment/recreation in itself. the evidence tells us that's not really true in many cases - it's a symptom of human behavioural disorder, or addiction. in the minds of gamblers, gambling serves a utilitarian purpose - to outwit other gamblers and take their money. of course, that doesn't and can't work - on average.

not all commerce is of equal value.

[silentC]

I think your beer example also applies to gambling, which for many is simply a form of entertainment but sadly for a large number it is an illness. Gambling has an associated utility and that is what people are paying for. I think in the case of gambling, people become addicted to the thrill of participation, not so much the winning or losing.

In any case, what we are saying here is that a certain industry has less entitlement because you and I might perceive it to be of lesser value, but there is quite obviously a large demand for it and so in a free economy, as long as it's not breaking any rules, it has every right to exist.

[jules21]

a few points:
1. beer isn't freely available. the harm associated with its consumption in certain circumstances (by children, alcoholics, binge drinking) is acknowledged and regulated. greyhound racing is also regulated, but as it turns out, very poorly.
2. addiction isn't the 'thrill of participation'. that may be how people are induced to an addicted state, but it ceases to be a thrill once someone is addicted. it's a dependency after that point.
3. totally agree on free economy and not breaking rules, but we're discussing what the rules should be. almost any activity has some degree of harm associated with it. you can't ban everything. but there are varying degrees of merit and harm to each activity or form of commerce. in practice, those must be weighed up in determining the rules. the judgment against greyhound racing was based on pretty limited merit and lots of harm. but another factor in the notion of free will to participate in harmful activities is who is being harmed. there are a range of activities that are legal and harmful - which recognise that individuals have the right to harm themselves (within reason). but conventionally, we are less tolerant of harmful activities when one person's choice harms another person, or animal. that's because the notion of self-regulation - people will tend to avoid harming themselves - doesn't apply. in that case, there is a stronger case for external regulation.

[silentC]

There is definitely a high associated with risk-taking behaviour brought about by the production of dopamine. It is the reason that people jump off cliffs or out of aeroplanes and some people become addicted to it. It is present in gamblers, you can google 'almost winning' for more if you like.

But anyway, greyhound racing has been banned because of the inquiry which found there were undesirable practices taking place and no apparent likelihood of improvement from within. No doubt the economic impacts of the decision were also assessed but it's only conjecture as to whether the perceived merit of the industry played any part in it.

[bychosis]

One thing I think will be a problem for cyclists with the ban is more really fast dogs to chase us down the street when they get out.

[jules21]

No doubt the economic impacts of the decision were also assessed but it's only conjecture as to whether the perceived merit of the industry played any part in it.

you made the valid point that we tolerate killing animals for human consumption. I think the reason greyhound racing was banned was that there's a sense we need to draw a line on animal cruelty/slaughter somewhere and the more marginal benefit of providing a platform for gambling, which is generally on the nose with society anyway, was assessed as being on the wrong side of that line.

One thing I think will be a problem for cyclists with the ban is more really fast dogs to chase us down the street when they get out.

as the owner of 2 greys:
1. you try real hard to stop them escaping, as it's hard to catch them and they are highly likely to injure themselves.
2. don't bother trying to get away

[silentC]

I think the reason greyhound racing was banned was that there's a sense we need to draw a line on animal cruelty/slaughter somewhere and the more marginal benefit of providing a platform for gambling, which is generally on the nose with society anyway, was assessed as being on the wrong side of that line.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that then, because I'm fairly certain it was that the cruelty of live baiting and inhumane disposal of unwanted animals should not be tolerated at all, regardless of the relative aroma of the industry! But then I haven't read the report so I could be completely wrong about that I suppose.

[mikesbytes]

So when is fishing going to be banned.

What % of the population fish?

[jules21]

I haven't read the full report, mostly the media coverage of it. From what I read though the report author concluded the industry was beyond help. It was Mike Baird who made the call to ban it.

[fat and old]

So when is fishing going to be banned.

What % of the population fish?

Angling IS banned, in many areas, at various times. Anglers have been battling this for years, and have been trying to put a humane/responsible face on their sport for a long time. In many cases, with the advent of social media, it's been self regulating. In fact, thinking about it, the differences between anglers and cyclists when approaching this are quite stark. Something I'd not thought about before.

The fact remains however that no matter how Catch and Release is presented, the angler is in reality dragging a fish towards him/herself using a hook in it's mouth, sometimes for hours, in order to take a piccie and let it go.

[mikesbytes]

So when is fishing going to be banned.

What % of the population fish?

Angling IS banned, in many areas, at various times. Anglers have been battling this for years, and have been trying to put a humane/responsible face on their sport for a long time. In many cases, with the advent of social media, it's been self regulating. In fact, thinking about it, the differences between anglers and cyclists when approaching this are quite stark. Something I'd not thought about before.

The fact remains however that no matter how Catch and Release is presented, the angler is in reality dragging a fish towards him/herself using a hook in it's mouth, sometimes for hours, in order to take a piccie and let it go.

So insufficient voting power to control their destiny?

[Mulger bill]

So insufficient voting power to control their destiny?

That, and the ever wavering public opinion of Letters to the Editor writers...

[mikesbytes]

The gun lobby managed to acquire a sufficiently large political voice to get the ban on silencers reversed. The argument was safety but the bottom line was that the govt needed their vote in the upper house

[TrikeTragic]

Cheers

Alan

[fat and old]

What % of the population fish?

Angling IS banned, in many areas, at various times. Anglers have been battling this for years, and have been trying to put a humane/responsible face on their sport for a long time. In many cases, with the advent of social media, it's been self regulating. In fact, thinking about it, the differences between anglers and cyclists when approaching this are quite stark. Something I'd not thought about before.

The fact remains however that no matter how Catch and Release is presented, the angler is in reality dragging a fish towards him/herself using a hook in it's mouth, sometimes for hours, in order to take a piccie and let it go.

So insufficient voting power to control their destiny?

I don't think any one political Party can take on environmentalists; who can present solid evidence, the moral high ground and emotional rhetoric to support their cause; and win. The fact that so many clubs, "peak bodies", associations and celebrities
got on board with the self regulation....although often at the expense of other groups within the angling community (see the wars between pro-native and pro-trout anglers for attention and Government funding).....speaks volumes. There are strong correlations with the cycling community here, and lessons to be learned.

As for any voting power anglers had/have, iirc they got together with the shooters originally in NSW? and gained limited representation. As has been seen in NSW, if you have even one seat when it matters, you can turn that limited representation into power to influence way beyond what is "fair" (depending on your outlook on "democracy" of course).

The 4wd community in NSW also had limited representation in Government, 1 seat in the upper house iirc? That was a good example of what can happen when a "niche" community gains "power" and what not to do. Again, strong correlations with the cycling community and lessons to be learned.

It has to be remembered that while lessons can be learned from these groups, their place in society is in no way looked at in a similar way to cycling. As is the case with dog racing. That's why I can't see cycling having anything to fear from Government in a similar way that those groups do.

My opinion only.

[mikesbytes]

I'm not expecting the govt to do anything drastic like ban cyclists from major roads but I have seen how cyclists are bullied by a govt that doesn't favour us and see the way the govt reacts has a big leaning depending on the voting power of the community in question

[mikesbytes]

Cheers

Alan

That's pretty much bang on

[silentC]

Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you

But seriously, I don't think there's anything theoretical about it. It's very common for the government, be it State or Federal, to allow some bit of legislation through in order to get support from a minor party. It happens often in NSW. The most recent one I can think of was Barry O'Farrell allowing hunting in National Parks, despite overwhelming opposition, to get the support of the shooters & fishers for his electricity privatisation bill, but I am sure there are more recent examples.

This is why I say there is more to it than just votes. Deals are done to get legislation through and the legislation is often unpopular with voters. We have a poor memory when it comes to the ballot box though.

[fat and old]

I'm not expecting the govt to do anything drastic like ban cyclists from major roads but I have seen how cyclists are bullied by a govt that doesn't favour us and see the way the govt reacts has a big leaning depending on the voting power of the community in question

Actually, that wouldn't surprise me at all. In Victoria, there's already precedent with the Freeway/Tollroad bans, and MCC's mayor was calling for a look at banning cycling on certain CBD roads. Southbank often gets exposure along the lines of cycle/ped interactions.

It's those proposals that would benefit (imo) from an approach such as that from the anglers.......self regulation. Unfortunately, as soon as anything remotely like that gets put forward it's howled down by the vocal minority. Which is sorta strange, because when asked they'll invariably gravitate towards just that. Just so long as you don't articulate it.