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

NICE POST TONY BUT LIKE THIS PROPOSAL IT IS UNWORKABLE

BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL NOW START LIEING ABOUT THE BREEDING OF THERE DOGS

SO THAT THEY CAN OUTBREED THERE OFF SPRING TO WHAT THEY LIKE

SO WHAT DO YOU DNA THEN. DOG . BITCH PUPS GRANDMOTHER AND GRANDFATHER JUST TO PROVE HOW ITS BRED

AND IF THE BWRA GET IT WRONG WHO WILL PAY FOR THAT

GARY
 
i think this propasal went threw too,,,quick

i think the b.w.r.a should,nt have put it threw ,,,i.e voted again on

and it should be a regional against regional vote ,,,i.e instead of numbers against numbers

iam no expert when it comes to politic,s when it comes to these thing,s,,,,,but i seem to pick up on b.w.r.a site ,,,is that it seems to be number of votes against number,,,,,i thought it should be fairer regional aginst regional----if this is the case i opolagise,,,and ill wind my neck in
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fleesh said:
DENISE BAILEY said:
If thats the case then after a quick look at 2008 litters breed i can see 4 litters that will not be able to register

SUGAR DADDY x MISS TORI

STORM WARRIOR X MANDYS DREAM

TYEBOUND X SUGAR SWEET

MAGICAL DREAMS X GHD
Click to expand...
I cannot see these litters not being able to be registered Dee, even in our own legal system, unless stated otherwise an Act cannot be applied retrospectively (i.e refusal to register cannot be applied to matings which took place before the provision was put into place). It goes against the constitutional doctrine of the rule of law. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
:sweating: Thank god for that Fleesh, for a minute i thought I'd put all my hard work in for nothing, :( Di
 
Was I the only one on here who attended the AGM?As I remember it and as Alison has recorded it in the Whippet News,the only proposal that was discussed at length was the Capping proposal,because I queried it.I thought your's was a suggestion at the reps meeting Tony and not a proposal?Either way the breeding proposal that Marie put forward and we as members voted on, is self explanatory.No mention of the breeding of w/g to w/g
 
whippeteerThe1st said:
i think this propasal went threw too,,,quick
i think the b.w.r.a should,nt have put it threw ,,,i.e voted again on

and it should be a regional against regional vote ,,,i.e instead of numbers against numbers

iam no expert when it comes to politic,s when it comes to these thing,s,,,,,but i seem to pick up on b.w.r.a site ,,,is that it seems to be number of votes against number,,,,,i thought it should be fairer regional aginst regional----if this is the case i opolagise,,,and ill wind my neck in
Click to expand...

if there is to be another vote ,it must only involve the people that voted on it in the first place.

i think that you should be able to breed from 2 i.e. whippet /greyhound, but having said that there will still be certain people lying about the way they have bred. but like i said in a previous post,everybody were warned 5/6 year ago to control the way they were breeding,i.e. whippet/greyhound x to full greyhound,in my opinion this is not acceptable in whippet racing.
 
rodders said:
Was I the only one on here who attended the AGM?As I remember it and as Alison has recorded it in the Whippet News,the only proposal that was discussed at length was the Capping proposal,because I queried it.I thought your's was a suggestion at the reps meeting Tony and not a proposal?Either way the breeding proposal that Marie put forward and we as members voted on, is self explanatory.No mention of the breeding of w/g to w/g
Click to expand...
I was at the AGM Karen and you are spot on in what you are saying. I was also at the reps meeting where proposals were voted on to go forward for the ballot and on this subjesct Tony Taylors wasn't accepted for discussion to go on the ballot paper as he did NOT put it forward as a proposal but merely as a suggestion. Maries was the one that was passed just as she has stated it

NOWHERE IN THAT PROPOSAL OR ON THE BALLOT FORM DID IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT PUTTING WHIPPET X G/H TO WHIPPET X G/H

The vote went in favour of the offspring from whippet x g/h not being put back to greyhound for 2 generations
 
OK SO WE CANT PUT A WHIPET X GREYHOUND TO A WHIPPET X GREYHOUND COS THAT WOULD BE SEEN TO BE BREEDING LARGER

RIGHT SO I CANT PUT TUCKER MY 29LB WHIPPET GREYHOUND TO MAZIEMU 26LB WHIPPET GREYHOUND

BUT WE CAN STILL PUT A SRATCH DOG 40LB PLUS TO A GREYHOUND COS OF ITS BREEDING ISNT A HALF CROSS

CAN YOU HONESTLY TELL ME THE BREEDER IS NOT BREEDING TO GET A SCRATCH DOG AND IS JUST AFTER GETTING A YARD PER POUNDER

THIS IS A PERSONAL DIG AT ME TO MUCK UP MY BREEDING PROGRAME . AND DONT TELL ME I ONLY BREED SRATCH DOGS COS IVE BRED MORE YARD PER POUNDERS THAN MOST PEOPLE ON HERE

AND SOMETIMES I FANCY BREEDING TO COMPEAT WITH THE BIG ONES AND SORRY TO SAY BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT DONT LIKE GETTING BEAT AND WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO MAKE SURE THEY DONT

GARY
 
Personally i think the 55lb capping was enough to scare some breeders about the size there off spring would turn out :( ...i still stand by what i said that to preserve the none ped whippet, certain people needed to be controlled in there breeding programs , and although the % proposal looked very good on paper , in practice it would not work esp the way it has been brought into play immediately ...as some people have dogs breed that out of the program that are well under the 55lb limit

I also would of like to of seen a program brought in where if people breed to the extreme IE ghd x 3/4 whippet , then they were wholly responsible in the welfare , re-homing for the saplings that went over the 55lb cap ...

I am now concerned that there are at least 4 litters that can not register and other saplings that will go over the 55 lb limit due to the breeder not been aware of these sudden changes
 
I wasn't at the BWRA proposals meeting so I won't comment on what was said at the time. However I did put forward a proposal on scratch racing that was seconded and on time. Because the proposal was complex and I didn't want the timing of implementation of various parts of the proposal to be stated on the ballot form without discusion with the reps I had left that part open. The proposal was a package and would have only worked as such IMO.

Gary,

of course people could lie about the breeding of their dogs but my view is that the propsals as package would deter people from buying a pup that contravenes the rules and without buyers for the pups very few litters are likely to be bred that breach the breeding rule. We have had breeders lie about the parentage of pups before and usually the truth has become known. I doubt there would be many buyers for pups who would run the risk of having a pup where the parentage was in question when they had to rely on a fraud remaining secret.
 
i know a lot of you know that me and gary are freinds but on his breeding programe that he has been involved in for a few yrs he has not done it to upset anyone his just wants to get the best breed line he can get and i hope maybe in a few yrs the lines that were trying to get rid off will be future genes for all of us and i can see what he is doing on here making a point that what he has done so far is in vain.
 
weathergirls said:
I was also at the reps meeting where proposals were voted on to go forward for the ballot and on this subjesct Tony Taylors wasn't accepted for discussion to go on the ballot paper as he did NOT put it forward as a proposal but merely as a suggestion.
Click to expand...
At the rep's meeting you stated Tony's suggestions couldn't be acknowledged as they weren't dictated proposals. As I voiced at the meeting, I will again here. Tony didn't wish to put through each suggestion as proposals as he knew that one wasn't workable without the others in place too, furthermore he didn't wish to dictate exact weights and dates so the BWRA had some leniancy in implementing a workable solution.

Dee, there was quite a few who felt a breeding rule would suffice alone to which I pointed out that there was nothing stopping people from lieing about a dogs parentage. A weight cap of some form also had to be implemented in tandem with a breeding rule because it is perfectly feasible for a greyhound to weigh less than 55lb.

I do sympathise with those who are effected by the new rules and understand their criticisms but you've got to look at it from the BWRA's point of view. DEFRA's is a force we do not want to recon with and we'd be screwed trying to prove some dogs were whippets. What workable solution would you implement to ensure it's whippets running?

I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm genuinely keen to see if someone could offer a solution that would please all but I can't help think that breeding has progressed in such a way that no sole solution could be found that wouldn't effect someone's dog from running. :(
 
if there is to be another vote ,it must only involve the people that voted on it in the first place.

i think that you should be able to breed from 2 i.e. whippet /greyhound, but having said that there will still be certain people lying about the way they have bred. but like i said in a previous post,everybody were warned 5/6 year ago to control the way they were breeding,i.e. whippet/greyhound x to full greyhound,in my opinion this is not acceptable in whippet racing.

There is no need for another vote John.The passed proposal put into practise,means exactly what it says.You cannot put a half cross whippet/greyhound back to a full greyhound,nor can you put any offspring from the said half cross bred to a whippet,back to a full greyhound.The onus in the passed proposal was breeding to a full greyhound,nothing else.
 
weathergirls said:
rodders said:
Was I the only one on here who attended the AGM?As I remember it and as Alison has recorded it in the Whippet News,the only proposal that was discussed at length was the Capping proposal,because I queried it.I thought your's was a suggestion at the reps meeting Tony and not a proposal?Either way the breeding proposal that Marie put forward and we as members voted on, is self explanatory.No mention of the breeding of w/g to w/g
Click to expand...
I was at the AGM Karen and you are spot on in what you are saying. I was also at the reps meeting where proposals were voted on to go forward for the ballot and on this subjesct Tony Taylors wasn't accepted for discussion to go on the ballot paper as he did NOT put it forward as a proposal but merely as a suggestion. Maries was the one that was passed just as she has stated it

NOWHERE IN THAT PROPOSAL OR ON THE BALLOT FORM DID IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT PUTTING WHIPPET X G/H TO WHIPPET X G/H

The vote went in favour of the offspring from whippet x g/h not being put back to greyhound for 2 generations
Click to expand...
And that is all this new ruling should be, and if it's been altered, then someone is out of order, I'm fully aware, that I can't put our Buzz or Penny back to a full greyhound, but if the new ruling states that I can't put them back to a whippet x greyhound, then its all aload of bollox :rant:

I personally have no problems with scratch dogs weights.
 
milly said:
weathergirls said:
rodders said:
Was I the only one on here who attended the AGM?As I remember it and as Alison has recorded it in the Whippet News,the only proposal that was discussed at length was the Capping proposal,because I queried it.I thought your's was a suggestion at the reps meeting Tony and not a proposal?Either way the breeding proposal that Marie put forward and we as members voted on, is self explanatory.No mention of the breeding of w/g to w/g
Click to expand...
I was at the AGM Karen and you are spot on in what you are saying. I was also at the reps meeting where proposals were voted on to go forward for the ballot and on this subjesct Tony Taylors wasn't accepted for discussion to go on the ballot paper as he did NOT put it forward as a proposal but merely as a suggestion. Maries was the one that was passed just as she has stated it

NOWHERE IN THAT PROPOSAL OR ON THE BALLOT FORM DID IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT PUTTING WHIPPET X G/H TO WHIPPET X G/H

The vote went in favour of the offspring from whippet x g/h not being put back to greyhound for 2 generations
Click to expand...
And that is all this new ruling should be, and if it's been altered, then someone is out of order, I'm fully aware, that I can't put our Buzz or Penny back to a full greyhound, but if the new ruling states that I can't put them back to a whippet x greyhound, then its all aload of bollox :rant:

I personally have no problems with scratch dogs weights.
Click to expand...
The passed proposal hasn't been altered Geoff,Alison stated she hasn't changed any of the proposals.After reading this topic over and over again :lol: I think (JMO) that somebody has misread the proposal.The fact that there were a few proposals about the breeding issue,put forward at the reps meeting,it is possible that there has been some sort of mix up when answering Gary's query.The fact of the matter is Marie's proposal was put to the membership for voting on and we as members voted on it.Thats it,the end of the matter,all that needs to happen now is for the BWRA to put the passed proposals into practise.Am I glad we're at the Derby tomorrow thats much more fun :thumbsup:
 
So you are aloud to put whippet x greyhound to whippet x greyhound then
 
wild whippies said:
weathergirls said:
I was also at the reps meeting where proposals were voted on to go forward for the ballot and on this subjesct Tony Taylors wasn't accepted for discussion to go on the ballot paper as he did NOT put it forward as a proposal but merely as a suggestion.
Click to expand...
At the rep's meeting you stated Tony's suggestions couldn't be acknowledged as they weren't dictated proposals. As I voiced at the meeting, I will again here. Tony didn't wish to put through each suggestion as proposals as he knew that one wasn't workable without the others in place too, furthermore he didn't wish to dictate exact weights and dates so the BWRA had some leniancy in implementing a workable solution.

Dee, there was quite a few who felt a breeding rule would suffice alone to which I pointed out that there was nothing stopping people from lieing about a dogs parentage. A weight cap of some form also had to be implemented in tandem with a breeding rule because it is perfectly feasible for a greyhound to weigh less than 55lb.

I do sympathise with those who are effected by the new rules and understand their criticisms but you've got to look at it from the BWRA's point of view. DEFRA's is a force we do not want to recon with and we'd be screwed trying to prove some dogs were whippets. What workable solution would you implement to ensure it's whippets running?

I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm genuinely keen to see if someone could offer a solution that would please all but I can't help think that breeding has progressed in such a way that no sole solution could be found that wouldn't effect someone's dog from running. :(
Click to expand...
Just commonsense :thumbsup:
 
alfie p said:
So you are aloud to put whippet x greyhound to whippet x greyhound then
Click to expand...
AT THIS PRESENT TIME NO

I HAVE IT IN WRITING

AND GARY HAS HAD IT COFIRMED BY PHONE

.

ITS ONLY KARENS OPINION THAT YOU CAN

AND UNTILL THIS IS SORTED OUT THEN THE ANSWER IS STILL NO

GARY
 
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