The Most Dog Friendly Community Online
Join Dog Forum to Discuss Breeds, Training, Food and More

Join Now for Free
New posts

New Bwra Ruling

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register
I know that feelings are running high at the moment and I really understand why but could I just make an appeal for a bit of patience to allow time for a bit of common sense to apply here.

Not very long ago we had an AGM and we were all happy with keeping our Committee as is, I assume thats because we think on the whole that they are fair.

So can we please give them a bit of time to consider all the implications of two very big and far reaching changes to racing. Like the rest of us they work, they are not all on computer and they need some time to talk to each other. We all know that they will not make any sort of statement on here.Im sure once they've had a chance to do this they will realise that in the best interests of the puppies already born and those that were already concieved before 14/12/08 that they should be given the chance to do what they were bred for. I think the same should apply for both new rules. As people are saying this has all been a bone of contention for many years so I don't see that in the grand scheme of things letting all these pups register makes any difference as the new rules are in place now and will apply to future matings.

I know this is a discussion forum but it hasnt made me feel very comfortable being described as stupid foolish and various other insults over the last couple of days despite assurances that its nothing personal so Im certain that the folks on the BWRA committee must be feeling equally great at what is one of the busiest times while they are trying to sort membership renewals etc. In a computer age we all want instant answers and sometimes that means people give instant ill thought out answers when it might have been better to give everyone a pause to think :)
 
Maybe a simple letter/email to the BWRA asking them to review the start date and to produce a list of present stud dogs (to be updated by the owners) that cannot go to a greyhound ... is the answer , i know Gary did write a letter and the answer was wrong but that has been amended, after all we are only human

Lets face it we are all in the sport together for one thing... i am sure most members who did vote for both proposals to be enforced ... wouldn't insist that the dogs it affected not having a racing career
 
Well put Maire ...i too was typing

I don't think both Gary's meant for you to feel that way ...but both have been trying to make people aware of the situation since the agm ... and as k9 is a very powerful tool i can see why they took the approach to use it , esp after Gary's written reply from the committee
 
marielou said:
I know that feelings are running high at the moment and I really understand why but could I just make an appeal for a bit of patience to allow time for a bit of common sense to apply here.Not very long ago we had an AGM and we were all happy with keeping our Committee as is, I assume thats because we think on the whole that they are fair.

So can we please give them a bit of time to consider all the implications of two very big and far reaching changes to racing. Like the rest of us they work, they are not all on computer and they need some time to talk to each other. We all know that they will not make any sort of statement on here.Im sure once they've had a chance to do this they will realise that in the best interests of the puppies already born and those that were already concieved before 14/12/08 that they should be given the chance to do what they were bred for. I think the same should apply for both new rules. As people are saying this has all been a bone of contention for many years so I don't see that in the grand scheme of things letting all these pups register makes any difference as the new rules are in place now and will apply to future matings.

I know this is a discussion forum but it hasnt made me feel very comfortable being described as stupid foolish and various other insults over the last couple of days despite assurances that its nothing personal so Im certain that the folks on the BWRA committee must be feeling equally great at what is one of the busiest times while they are trying to sort membership renewals etc. In a computer age we all want instant answers and sometimes that means people give instant ill thought out answers when it might have been better to give everyone a pause to think :)
Click to expand...

was just going to post this word for word but you and Karen bet me to it lol :thumbsup:
 
this is how i see it people vote on things for the good of the sport so we can move on with the times but as i read most of the people on here dont even know what they have voted on. all i can see is that the bwra is going to sink as someone on hear has said you only miss about 20 or so races a year. the nwrf is going to thrive from the out come of this. think back to when kick boards were baned most people would not run at bwra events so banning kick boards only lasted a little while. please dont get me wrong i like both bwra events and nwrf events. so i erge please bwra for the good of the sport think about these proposals. and all you members out there is realy wurth all this upset over a few dogs that go over 55lb.
 
DENISE BAILEY said:
Well put Maire ...i too was typingI don't think both Gary's meant for you to feel that way ...but both have been trying to make people aware of the situation since the agm ... and as k9 is a very powerful tool i can see why they took the approach to use it , esp after Gary's written reply from the committee
Click to expand...

I understand that Dee :) and I know that they both feel very strongly about this issue, these are far reaching changes after all. I was just trying to put across that if Chris and I felt put out about the comments made when we had put a lot of thought time and effort into making a proposal to put before the membership then I could understand the BWRA committee if they felt that people might think that they were being deliberately unfair.
 
TrevorSmith said:
this is how i see it people vote on things for the good of the sport so we can move on with the times but as i read most of the people on here dont even know what they have voted on. all i can see is that the bwra is going to sink as someone on hear has said you only miss about 20 or so races a year. the nwrf is going to thrive from the out come of this. think back to when kick boards were baned most people would not run at bwra events so banning kick boards only lasted a little while. please dont get me wrong i like both bwra events and nwrf events. so i erge please bwra for the good of the sport think about these proposals. and all you members out there is realy wurth all this upset over a few dogs that go over 55lb.
Click to expand...

I dont think the Kickboard rule was ever enforced -------a egm was convened to overturn it---

steve
 
marielou said:
DENISE BAILEY said:
Well put Maire ...i too was typingI don't think both Gary's meant for you to feel that way ...but both have been trying to make people aware of the situation since the agm ... and as k9 is a very powerful tool i can see why they took the approach to use it , esp after Gary's written reply from the committee
Click to expand...

I understand that Dee :) and I know that they both feel very strongly about this issue, these are far reaching changes after all. I was just trying to put across that if Chris and I felt put out about the comments made when we had put a lot of thought time and effort into making a proposal to put before the membership then I could understand the BWRA committee if they felt that people might think that they were being deliberately unfair.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
kickboards was voted to be banned then there was a petion . but when i was at a nwrf meeting at askern 9 out of 10 people said they would not run there dog at a bwra meeting unless it was chucked out
 
TrevorSmith said:
kickboards was voted to be banned then there was a petion . but when i was at a nwrf meeting at askern 9 out of 10 people said they would not run there dog at a bwra meeting unless it was chucked out
Click to expand...
forgot to say that is why i am saying this we cannot afford to loose any more members. and truthfuly if you dont have a scratch dog why does it matter what size the dogs make
 
TrevorSmith said:
<br />
TrevorSmith said:
kickboards was voted to be banned then there was a petion . but when i was at a nwrf meeting at askern 9 out of 10 people said they would not run there dog at a bwra meeting unless it was chucked out
Click to expand...
<br />forgot to say that is why i am saying this we cannot afford to loose any more members. and truthfuly if you dont have a scratch dog why does it matter what size the dogs make<br />
Click to expand...
<br /><br /><br />
personally i think it matters a lot,for the sake of the yd/lb racing
 
TrevorSmith said:
can you please try to make me understand why this affects ydlb ?
Click to expand...

because in my opinion there is too much greyhound being introduced,you just have to look at the yd/lb racers and see the amount of greyhound in the breeding,it was never like this 20 year ago.

just look how many yd/lb dogs/bitches there are under 20lb today, 16lb dogs/bitches are a collectors item now,.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Proposal

" 2) Breeders to continue to outcross to greyhounds but after an outcross progeny may not be out crossed to another greyhound for two generations. This would be done by not allowing the registration of puppies for racing if they fall within these criteria. As with all things in whippet racing this would be dependent on the integrity of members. "

would read better

2) Breeders to continue to outcross to greyhounds but, after an outcross, progeny may not be out crossed to another greyhound for two generations. This would be done by not allowing the registration of puppies for racing if they fall within these criteria. As with all things in whippet racing this would be dependent on the integrity of members.

This would mean 1/2 whippet 1/2 ghd cannot be crossed with a ghd and

3/4 whippet 1/4 ghd cannot be crossed with a ghd but

7/8 whippet 1/8 ghd can be crossed with a ghd.

lack of punctuation does make interpretation more difficult but it can't mean anything different in any case.

Obviously the proposal only prevents registration of pups bred from a ghd parent and does not prevent pups of whippet/ghd hybrid crosses being registered.

My view is that both the 55lb weight cap and this proposal is unfair if its implemented retrospectively. All dogs already registered should be allowed to run . Futhermore advance notice of the date from which the proposal is to come into effect should have been made part of the proposal so that matings already taken place and pups already born be allowed chance to be registered and run in the same way as those dogs already registered. My view is that pups born after March 1st 2009 come under the new rule and pups born before that date run under the old rules.

Futhermore the proposal above ( ie 2) Breeders to continue to outcross to greyhounds but after an outcross progeny may not be out crossed to another greyhound for two generations. This would be done by not allowing the registration of puppies for racing if they fall within these criteria. As with all things in whippet racing this would be dependent on the integrity of members.) should only apply to dogs running in the No Limit. It doesn't really matter how much ghd is in the breeding if the dog is under 40lb in any case.
 
this is my case that i hope to put to the bwra committee when i get a reply to the letter i have posted today.

I HAVE A PUP THAT I BRED MYSELF D.O.B 20/11/07 MAGICAL DREAMS X KILLEACLE RENI (GREYHOUND) it is my opinion that ANY litter born or bred before the 14/12/08 should be allowed to register with the bwra
 
Tony Taylor said:
Proposal
" 2) Breeders to continue to outcross to greyhounds but after an outcross progeny may not be out crossed to another greyhound for two generations. This would be done by not allowing the registration of puppies for racing if they fall within these criteria. As with all things in whippet racing this would be dependent on the integrity of members. "

would read better

2) Breeders to continue to outcross to greyhounds but, after an outcross, progeny may not be out crossed to another greyhound for two generations. This would be done by not allowing the registration of puppies for racing if they fall within these criteria. As with all things in whippet racing this would be dependent on the integrity of members.

This would mean 1/2 whippet 1/2 ghd cannot be crossed with a ghd and

3/4 whippet 1/4 ghd cannot be crossed with a ghd but

7/8 whippet 1/8 ghd can be crossed with a ghd.

lack of punctuation does make interpretation more difficult but it can't mean anything different in any case.

Obviously the proposal only prevents registration of pups bred from a ghd parent and does not prevent pups of whippet/ghd hybrid crosses being registered.

My view is that both the 55lb weight cap and this proposal is unfair if its implemented retrospectively. All dogs already registered should be allowed to run . Futhermore advance notice of the date from which the proposal is to come into effect should have been made part of the proposal so that matings already taken place and pups already born be allowed chance to be registered and run in the same way as those dogs already registered. My view is that pups born after March 1st 2009 come under the new rule and pups born before that date run under the old rules.

Futhermore the proposal above ( ie 2) Breeders to continue to outcross to greyhounds but after an outcross progeny may not be out crossed to another greyhound for two generations. This would be done by not allowing the registration of puppies for racing if they fall within these criteria. As with all things in whippet racing this would be dependent on the integrity of members.) should only apply to dogs running in the No Limit. It doesn't really matter how much ghd is in the breeding if the dog is under 40lb in any case.
Click to expand...
Thankyou for that clarificationj Tony, you didnt happen to be a english teacher in a former life was you?? :D

Maybe all these thoughts about how our prosposal should have been altered should have been suggested at an early date i.e when it was first put forward as a proposal. Have you Tony, or indeed anyone on K9 have any idea how sh*t it feels for marie and I listening to you all bleating on.

Tony, it's a shame you withdrew your extensive proposal at the reps meeting cos you could now be taking the flak that marie and I are now having to endure. The same applies to anyone else who has thought about attempting to rectify this problem, but didn't write such a proposal.

There were 123 people who voted the proposal in, surely not all those people misunderstood or voted for something they either didnt understand or wanted changing before agreeing to it.

chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to Dog Forum!

Join our vibrant online community dedicated to all things canine. Whether you're a seasoned owner or new to the world of dogs, our forum is your go-to hub for sharing stories, seeking advice, and connecting with fellow dog lovers. From training tips to health concerns, we cover it all. Register now and unleash the full potential of your dog-loving experience!

Login or Register
Back
Top