I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see how.
Last night the New South Wales Government passed legislation banning greyhound racing.
From July, the tracks will be closed or re-purposed, the races will stop and a lot of people who care about animals will dance in the streets.
Their concerns centre mostly around the practice of breeding hundreds of dogs and then killing all but the fastest of them, hoping for a champion with which to breed more dogs.
I agree this is horrid, and I too would love to see it stop, but can we predict any unintended consequences of such a ban, against which to weigh its likely effectiveness in achieving its implied aim of reducing net animal cruelty?
Most of the bigger players are moving down to Victoria or up to Queensland, where the industry is expected to boom.
They've invested generations of effort into their bloodlines and have no intention of quitting.
While the wholesale culling of healthy dogs will no longer occur in New South Wales, (which may be of some psychic benefit to anti-cruelty folk in that state), the dogs still die.
Now a lot of the breeders are smaller, amateur operators, with jobs and family nearby and not enough invested to justify an interstate move.
At least they'll stop, right?
Let's examine one and what we know of him.
1: He enjoys pitting his animals against others in competition.
2: He enjoys gambling on the outcome of these competitions.
3: He doesn't mind if his dogs die.
4: He has invested significant capital in kennels, facilities and equipment for breeding and training dogs from which he expects to profit.
5: He's part of an extensive network of people who share the attributes on this list.
6: People tend to live down to what's expected of them, and the government has
officially declared him a cruel person.
The legislation has no impact on 1-5, and adds 6.
Its only physical effect is to take away large, public tracks where his dogs can compete by running.
How do you think he'll try to recoup his sunk costs?
Can you think of any other ways to profit and gamble on a competition between dogs? Something 'cruel' people might do?
Will the people who meant well, who pushed for this law, feel any sort of responsibility if there's a net increase in animal suffering as a direct result of this new rule? Will they even know?
Intentions aren't outcomes.
Have a fantastic day.
Ouch. I never thought of it that way. I used to have a couple of rescue greyhounds, wonderful dogs, so have always been anti racing. But when you drive something like that underground...you are right...more dogs will die.
We don't have to think of every possible outcome of every possible decision; unless we're making them and forcing them on others. If we do that then we're responsible whether we thought about it or not. Stay humble :)
Matt, politicians only care about short term positive media attention. They understand perfectly well the negative outcomes for the animals but they do not care. The SJW activists also win because they get their virtue signaling, can claim a win for their activism and move onto the next target of their anger. It is easier to use the gun of the state than to make positive change through changing peoples ideas.
I agree entirely. For the sake of brevity I accorded to ignorance what could be better ascribed to malice.
Your right. Have you checked out the liberal democrats
They opposed this bill pretty hard. I dont think the opposition had anything to do with the safety of the animals, more their opposition to government intervention generally.
Yeah, I'm a big fan of David and his party. If I were the voting kind, it'd probably be for him.