RMIS response by the QGBOTA

Screen Shot 2020-06-23 at 3.26.56 pmMembers,
Today (June 23rd 2020) RQ has released details of the upgraded Greyhound injury rebate scheme.
The QGBOTA welcomes any initiative that assists with the welfare and well being of our animals.
The raising of the rebate to $5,500 is to be applauded. The previous rebate did not cover much of the expenses, and as such, the uptake from participants was very low.
There is also a $50 per week rehabilitation allowance, for a maximum of 13 weeks. This will not cover much, but it is appreciated.
It is also stated that QRIC has strengthened its SOP ( Standard Operating Procedure ) regarding euthanasia on track. According to RQ’s media release, these initiatives have been undertaken AFTER extensive industry consultation.
The QGBOTA has over 200 members and is the largest industry participant association in Queensland. The QGBOTA was sent a draft by QRIC in January 2020. This was the first time we had been involved in these discussions, although other panel members may have. At this time, the QGBOTA raised some doubts around legalities of the proposal, and the intrusion on peoples property rights.
The QGBOTA (via the president) was invited to sit in on an industry meeting to discuss this proposal further, which took place late January or early February.
These are the questions I raised then, and they are still valid now. They remain unaddressed to date.
  • The animal is the personal property of the owner. The owner has legal rights to their property under law.
  • The owner may dispose of property as they see fit, and in the case of animals, as long as it is done humanely.
  • RQ and QRIC has no right to dictate what a person does with their property.
  • QRIC SOP’s relate to procedures for QRIC staff.
  • QRIC are there to uphold the rules of greyhound racing as determined by Greyhounds Australasia. These are not GA rules.
 If these “rules” are enforced, I see further issues arising. I personally brought these up with Brenton Scott,  but it appears they are not important enough.
  • What happens when a greyhound is injured and the owner/syndicate has not got the facilities or capabilities to rehabilitate the animal?
  • When the animal is rehabilitated and left with a limp, impairment or disability, will the GAP take it? After all, the medical check can preclude admission to GAP.
  • Does every rehabilitated dog get automatic admission to GAP.
  • If an owner doesn’t have the upfront vet costs, if treatment is too intense, or if they just believe it is in their/and the dogs interest to euthanize, will they be punished?
  • if a trainer has multiple dogs at a meeting and he is directed to remove the injured animal immediately, what happens to his remaining animals engaged at the meeting?

At a previous meeting, another panel member suggested that QRIC, in particular Mr. Ross Barnett be involved in making rules ( or words to that effect ) and to his credit Mr. Barnett declined. Those in charge with enforcing rules should have no involvement in making them. Separation of powers.

The intent of this proposal is honourable and deserves the industry’s full support. Every animal should be given the best opportunities and care, that you the owner can provide.
BUT!!!! It should not come with a big stick, telling YOU what is best for YOU and YOUR animal.
That is YOUR choice. That is your RIGHT.
It should also be noted that shortly after this meeting, the QGBOTA were informed that they would not be involved in future Industry Advisory panel meetings.

One thought on “RMIS response by the QGBOTA

  1. For sake of brevity…perhaps “they” are not addressing genuine concerns, because this announcement has little to do with animal welfare. It has everything to do with QRIC/RQ not being able (for what ever reason) to quell/control/handle/strangle the so called ‘concerned citizens’ out in Whinger World.

Leave a Reply