I don't know why you all, in NSW band together & set a date (make it a week) where every trainer refuses to place a bucket of water in the racing kennel.

The only way they'll listen....is in NUMBERS.

Organize a date. It's time for action.

Steve, the NSW motto is "Divided we stand, United we fall."..

Warning bells ring when a new CEO unfamiliar with an industry makes such a statement after only 6 weeks in the job.

Given GRNSW is a public authority where responsiveness to ministerial direction comes into play, he may well have been told what the issues are from that perspective, and that is what he means.

But that is different to what was said.

Would have thought that an important outcome from a consultative road show is understanding and verifying the issues from a participant perspective.

It would be disappointing if the statement indicated issues were already fixed in his mind, meaning that that there only be token recognition of the participant consultation process.

I feel that I should add after " We have rules about the buckets and travelling including weather conditions, there is no opposition there and there will always be a fair time between car/trailer and kennelling for the dog."
THEN RACING,
these dogs are just not going for a walk, or a play down the park, they are fast and they are fed and watered according to so.
And consideration is also given to the dog after racing, in regards to how much water to intake immediately after racing and of course the timing and food intake after racing, our deep chested canines are always thought about to do the best for them. We make sure they are hydrated at all times, but we do not put them in danger.
If we are not sure about something, we can always ask someone in the know. Is it true that greyhounds are the second fastest animal on earth? Whatever they are fast and they are treated as so.
so if someone wants to bring something new to the table that brings us concern, they should stand up and deliver their facts and passion to make something better or forget it.

It seems just a blind extension of a welfare requirement that dogs always have water available to them.

Even for such an innocuous requirement there are many questions that should have been considered.
What is the evidence or professional opinion that justifies such a rule?
Why NSW and no other State?
What is the effect of water consumption pre-race?
Should the same rule apply for race 1 and race 12 dogs?
What if the presence of water or its container presents behavioural problems?
If water is allowed, why not electrolytes?
Was there consultation before introduction of the rule?
Does the evidence suggest that there should be exceptions?

It seems that there are no answers for these.

It would be preferable if rules could be backed by common sense, research and evidence. Otherwise this would just be a storm in a water container.

Whats your thoughts on below comments

LAST month, the new NSW Greyhound Welfare and Integrity Commission appointed its first CEO, Judith Lind, a former senior executive of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) who boasts over three decades experience in the public sector.

Q: What made you interested in the position?

I looked at the position and went through an analytical process on whether I would bring the right skills to the job. I made the deci-sion that it would be a good fit and I thought about where I want to be for the next FIVE years of my career. I never want to be a person going through the motions I like challenges.

Q: Do you think greyhound racing has a future in NSW?

A: Im here for the LONG haul. Ive heard people saying they are going to be over-regulated to shut the industry down by stealth. But I am here to put together a high integrity, ethical, competent and highly effective commission. My role is also to engage with the industry participants and it has to be a joint effort moving forward. Provided we can make sure people understand what best practice is and show them the way, then hopefully the industry participants can get on board.

I think people are going to find there will be some very small changes which will add up to a huge impact in terms of the overall welfare of their animals and the public confidence in the industry. One example could be socialising the pups early on that can then assist when it comes to re-homing at the end of their racing careers. I am not an expert, but as an animal owner myself that doesnt appear to be a huge task.

1. Is 5 years a long haul ?
2. Does she not think all this costs money? where is it coming from?
3. Small changes will make big impacts for PUBLIC CONFIDENCE !
4. No industry knowledge, but socialising is not a huge task, I bet she thinks it costs nothing also ?

Q. Is there any REAL evidence that socialising makes the easier to re-home ?

1. Long haul is relative. It may be a long haul in terms of the person's previous career terms, or the terms of previous CEOs etc. On the positive side it could be that 5 years is the expected transition time required to assure the future of the industry and the long haul means the full transition term.

2. The track record is that funds taking the industry forward come from the participants (costs of upgrading infrastructure, & compliance with new welfare requirements). And regulators balance between increased review programs (property inspections, drug tests), staffing increases and legal actions. So if not participants, then the public purse.

3. If small changes have big impacts, then NSW is obviously taking a vastly different approach to Victoria. There, the draft new welfare code was so over-prescriptive and out of touch that it was potentially industry destroying, seeking standards way above those for domestic animals.

Would like NSW to provide Victoria with its insight in this area.

4. I think the last sentence is significant "I'm not an expert but ... ". Seen that line a bit too often for my liking.

Socialisation early does help, but addressing problem behaviours at that stage can still be very time consuming, and there is a risk of softening a dog's temperament which can affect its racing suitability, particularly the chase instinct.

And who wears the time and cost of early socialisation - overwhelmingly the grass roots people, not those at the top of the pyramid. (Costs and time are irrelevant to those at the bottom of the pyramid - they obviously have plenty of each).

On the final question, of course socialisation does make greyhounds easier to rehome. This includes exposure to new noises, crowds, shiny floors, stairs etc.

But the key issues are high prey drive dogs (desirable in race dogs) with unsociable attitudes towards small fluffy things, and timid dogs (afraid of people, noise etc). Both are non-candidates for GAP programs, so the GAP approach is to return them, along with many where there is no real problem. If socialisation of those with real issues was such an easy task (take it from me - it isn't), why wouldn't the GAP programs take them on?

There is merit in a requirement that a month's work experience at a trainer's property where there are 10 or more dogs and annual prizemoney less than $25,000 should be mandatory for all new greyhound industry employees, regardless of position.

I would cap this with a socialisation task for a failed GAP dog. The new commissioner should be happy to take this on as it is not a huge task for her. And I have just the dogs for her! (One high prey drive and one timid).

Such initiatives might also help address the widening division between regulators and participants.

To my uneducated mind there is a much more direct way of attacking this and related problems.

We should ask: Why is there racetrack kennelling at all? Have we got a tiger by the tail? Many points and possibilities are involved .....

It follows on from health checks but that can be done at any given time and the name checked off a list.

It stops any interference with the dog yet such interference could have occurred half an hour beforehand.

It takes the dog out of the control of the trainer - for what purpose? That should be clearly explained and justified.

It may provide airconditioned comfort but that need not govern all the other processes.

It puts the dog in the control (to a limited degree) of strangers. Potentially, that could pose legal challenges.

It gives the trainer the opportunity of going off to have a beer and a pie uninterrupted.

It annoys like hell some dogs which do not like being kennelled in a strange place - barking etc arises. At the core, this is anti-welfare.

It disadvantages/advantages certain dogs according to the length of time they are confined.

It may help prevent nobbling but only for a limited period. Does that justify the degree of supervision or infrastructure involved, or their costs, or can the operation be streamlined?

To regulate differently what a trainer does for a couple of hours out of 24 leads to dissention and debate.

All winners and some others are swabbed anyway.

On-track horse stabling is broadly supervised but to nowhere near the same degree (eg no lock and key).

CCTV is readily and relatively cheaply available.

As with many contentious issues (or any issues, for that matter), it may be timely to go back to scratch and then add only those regulations which can sensibly be justified.

KISS please.

When Dayle Brown rejected my exemption request, which was after these tests had been conducted he wrote "The Race Day Hydration Policy is specifically designed to ensure that racing greyhounds are adequately hydrated while they are kennelled. This policy is supported by current and former Chief Veterinary Officers at GRNSW and has been the subject of significant research.
Dehydration can have a serious adverse impact on dogs, causing them to overheat and get cramped muscles and upset their acid / base balance. These are a significant animal welfare issues which also impact on the greyhounds ability to perform."

Guessing they are never going to release the figures because as you said it would make a mockery of the water bucket rule.