Erny Posted December 12, 2007 Author Share Posted December 12, 2007 (edited) Will try to get it done this weekend Erny Erny would it be better to have two separate ones from myself and OH or a single one from both of us as the business? You are each trainers in your own right ....... separate ones under the same business will be fine. After all, you are two individuals expressing your own individual views. Just a reminder. Edited December 12, 2007 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Mine is going to have to wait until a week off in early Jan now. Between personal and professional life, i don't have a spare minute in the day at the moment. But you definitely have our support and will have this in writing by the due date! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted December 12, 2007 Author Share Posted December 12, 2007 (edited) You have a PERSONAL life????? Okally dokelly Cosmolo ..... 'twas just a nudge. ETA: Besides, it put the order of my two 'related' topics the way I like them . Edited December 12, 2007 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted December 23, 2007 Author Share Posted December 23, 2007 (edited) Hi .... just to post an update (as much as can be posted here anyway) .... These are the things I now need :- Submissions from Professional Trainers (these have been promised but so far, none received). Submissions from Group Organisations. This part is difficult ..... because most of these organisations are "breed groups" and given the current trend of Councils, Welfare Societies and Govt targetting "breed", many are understandably frightened to bring attention to their breed - attention that might be twisted to suit the Government's "other" BSL legislation. I'm not sure how to handle that - between the various legislations it feels as though 'they' have tied it all up in a nice tidy bow. Submissions from Group Organisations would be valuable, but I understand any reluctance. Petition. Unfortunately the Govt will ONLY recognise signatures to Victorian residences. This is awkward, as the ban on prong-collars has been in for just over 4 years and this has precluded many from even knowing they exist, let alone how they are designed to work and their benefits. BUT I do plan to design (if I can .... I am NOT computer literate and wouldn't have a clue how to begin this) a down-loadable petition form and ask that people sign and send it to a nominated address. (I must have original signatures, so snail mail return will be necessary. I will ALSO make the petition available to our other States of Australia and although it won't be able to be formally recognised by our statute (right word?) laws, it may at least lend further weight to the strength of public opinion. At least 3 more letters from Vets who recognise the value of the prong-collar in so far as it being the better training tool for NOT causing ill-effect to the dog physically (including muscularly and skeletally). For people to make an appointment to meet with their OWN local MP. This last is VERY IMPORTANT. I have consulted with my local MP, but his presentation to parliament will be a lone voice unless the assistance of others is also sought. To this end I am willing to accompany anyone to their meeting with an MP (distance dependant I guess - within reason) should they prefer me to be the spokesperson. (I have become quite conversant with the prong-collar and with answering to questions about it, as well as to the animal-welfare aspect and to certain (albeit limited) extents, legislative law (thanks to Rom :rolleyes:.) So in all or any of the above ..... I CANNOT do this without you and would be glad of your help. PS. Some new information pertaining to when the ban on use of prong-collars was legislated in 2004, has come to light. It is interesting, to say the least ...... and reveals a couple of anomolies which are encouraging. Edited December 23, 2007 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted December 28, 2007 Author Share Posted December 28, 2007 (edited) HELP please !!!! I'm organising the petition referred to above. There are fairly strict rules that need to apply to petition wording if they are to be accepted into Legislative Assembly. I've mentioned a few of the rules further in this post. This is the wording I've so far put up ... "To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria The Petition of the Residents of Victoria draws to the attention of the House In controversy with Regulation 7D of Version No. 015 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 1997 S.R. No. 159/1997 by which regulation banning use of the “Pressure Point Collar” [the Collar] (also known as “Pinch” or “Prong” Collar) was imposed on the public of Victoria, the benefits of use of the Collar to the dog in terms of its welfare, training and behaviour modification. The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria reinstate permitted use of the Pressure Point Collar (also known as “Pinch” or “Prong” Collar) under supervision of a qualified dog trainer or pursuant to similar/same ‘restrictive use’ terms referred to in Section 7E of the said Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1997. The BLACK font is MANDATORY wording - it forms a part of the prescribed petition "form". I have inserted the RED paragraph in the section where the prescribe form dictates that I "insert here the circumstances of the issue". I have inserted the GREEN paragraph in the section where the prescribed form dictates that I "insert here the request of the petitioners, showing clearly the nature of the remedy or action requested." I am a bit stumped on what the Govt are or will be looking for and whether I've said enough or whether to say further is too much. I've spent the last few hours on this - adding, amending, changing .... and I'm no more confident with the wording now as I was when I first addressed this. SO I NEED YOUR HELP PLEASE, if SOMEONE would? . Now - a few "Petition Rules" to observe : A brief paragraph(s) must be included giving the reasons for the petition and should end with the action asked for. No letters, affidavits or other documents (other than translations) can be attached or incorporated on the front of a petition sheet. The wording must be respectful and not offensive. No reference can be made to debates that have taken place in Parliament. No information that seeks support for the petition should be added .... Please help - I am completely stumped and brain-strained from thinking about it for far too long. I have a blog-space ready to go so I need to get this Petition Form finalised and attached ASAP. People will then be able to open in PDF, print out, sign and post it back. Hoping for some early replies ..... I've made some phone calls but the people who I thought would be the most able to help are away for the Christmas duration (some for up to a month .... ). Edited December 28, 2007 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted December 28, 2007 Author Share Posted December 28, 2007 (edited) OK - thanks to the suggestions of a person (not a Legal Eagle, but gave a good go at helping ;) ) I've reworded the Petition Intro .... To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria The Petition of the Residents of Victoria draws to the attention of the House The BENEFITS of use of the “Pressure Point Collar” [the Collar] (also known as the “Pinch” or “Prong” Collar) to dogs in terms of their WELFARE, TRAINING and BEHAVIOUR modification ARE RECOGNISED IN CONTROVERSY with Regulation 7D of Version No. 015 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 1997 S.R. No. 159/1997 by which regulation banning use of the Collar was imposed on the public of Victoria. The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria reinstate permitted use of the Collar under supervision of a qualified dog trainer or pursuant to ‘restrictive use’ terms for which may be referred to in Section 7E of the said Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1997. The italics represent the wording that I've put in - first para to "describe the circumstances of the issue" and the second para to state "the request of the petitioners, showing clearly the nature of the remedy or action requested". I think it now reads better, although I'm still not sure I've covered what I need to cover to ensure appropriate emphasis. Heck - it turns out I may have had myself confused and that the "PPC-ban" is regulation not legislation and that the petition wording I've been directed to follow is incorrect. Still checking ............................. Edited December 28, 2007 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Jones Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 The italics represent the wording that I've put in - first para to "describe the circumstances of the issue" and the second para to state "the request of the petitioners, showing clearly the nature of the remedy or action requested".I think it now reads better, although I'm still not sure I've covered what I need to cover to ensure appropriate emphasis. It looks good from here Erny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted December 28, 2007 Author Share Posted December 28, 2007 It looks good from here Erny. Thanks Jeff .... but I'm still not sure about something in the second para. To explain : Legal use of the E-Collar is governed by Section 7E which provides that the user must have their Vet give assent to the dog being in good and suitable physical condition for e-collar use AND must have qualified trainer supervision and/or instruction. (These are not the actual words - just my words to give you an idea) Now, if I could have my own wishes, I'd prefer for the "Vet" part of this to be removed - mainly because I've found MANY many Vets simply don't understand the use of equipment such as e-collars and I expect the same difficulties with regards to the Pressure Point Collar. Many Vets aren't giving opinion on the dog's health or physical condition - they are giving advice to clients based on their very small (if existent) understanding of the equipment in question. And my thoughts are if they are not familiar with the equipment or its uses, why would they want to feel they're sticking their necks out by saying the dog is suitable for the use of same (in fact, HOW could they?) .... from their POV it would feel safer to say "No" (even though they may not realise they are NOT doing the dog or owner any favours by doing so). Ok - so that would leave "qualified trainer" .... and definition needs to be taken into account/taken care of. Let's assume (for the time being) that it is or will be. BUT, if the Government won't entertain anything LESS than "Vet and Trainer" then I would at least be satisfied enough with that for the sake of being able to arrange for the PPCollar to be used legally - even if it does mean a bit more mucking around via the Vet. It wouldn't be my ideal though. So - back to the wording .... In the second paragraph as it reads (in post above) ... The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria reinstate permitted use of the Collar under supervision of a qualified dog trainer or pursuant to ‘restrictive use’ terms for which may be referred to in Section 7E of the said Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1997. Now - I'm thinking of simply removing the words highlighted in red. This would still cover the aim of the petition, wouldn't it, even if the Govt insisted on going down the "Vet" track? I think so. Opinion appreciated. Although still checking the political process side of things out - the wording of this petition may still not be relevant due to "regulation" rather than "legislation". Funny how you've got to do a crash course in politics and its ways to be able to talk to Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Jones Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 I have sent you a PM with my ramblings Erny Just *Bumping* for others to throw there ideas around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted December 29, 2007 Author Share Posted December 29, 2007 (edited) Thanks Jeff - have replied. So much to do, so much to do....................... As for the petition - I guess unless someone with government insight and/or legal knowledge can help me, I'm going to need to wait until some certain people get back from Christmas leave. But thanks to those that have offered suggestions. They have allowed me to re-write it to the degree that I think it reads easier and is more succinct. :D Thanks for the *bump* for help, Jeff ;). :D Edited December 29, 2007 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted December 31, 2007 Author Share Posted December 31, 2007 (edited) One more before the end of the year . A number of queries in relation to Regulatory law have arisen and I need to wait until the New Year for certain people to return to work so I can seek answers to them, so I've taken this time (hours) to sort through the submission folder and sifted my way through download upon download of various Government Acts, making notes as I go. For this same reason, I've had to put the petition 'on hold'. I can't do too much more until the questions in my mind are answered, but in the meantime I'm hoping to receive the submissions needed from professional trainers. Thank you to those who have submitted - your help I can not do without and it is appreciated. I hope I can achieve for you an outcome that will benefit all whose interest lay in dog training and dog welfare. That's not to say that I don't have the need for any more submissions from dog-owners who have used the "Pressure Point Collar" and recognise its benefits. So guys .... my New Year's wish is for submissions in support to come flooding through in overwhelming fashion and for this I wait. Impatiently, admittedly, but waiting all the same . My other New Year's wish is for all to share in peace, health, happiness and hope. Happy New Year to all. :rolleyes: Cheers! Erny ETA: There is a very special person out there who has been an immense help - both by way of backstop as well as my 'right-hand-man'. She has relentlessly searched, dug and uncovered areas within the laws of Government for further investigation in support of the submission presently underway. I'm not sure if she would like to be named but she knows who she is. To her, a special thanks . Edited December 31, 2007 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rom Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 ETA: There is a very special person out there who has been an immense help - both by way of backstop as well as my 'right-hand-man'. She has relentlessly searched, dug and uncovered areas within the laws of Government for further investigation in support of the submission presently underway. I'm not sure if she would like to be named but she knows who she is. To her, a special thanks . She is happy to be of assistance cuz she realises not only the exceptional level of commitment that you are affording this endeavour , but also the positive impact to the welfare of dogs that success in this endeavour is aimed at. Happy New Year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkS Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 This in part is pasted from the C4S forum. As I am not sure when you will get back there to read it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I still haven't forgotten... and am doing my best to have my submission into you way before the due date. I can't get out of my head that if I write a submission on how I believe these collars are a very safe and humane training tool, that I will just sound like another dog trainer pushing an agenda. I know that your main reason for submissions is to show you have the numbers to support your claims, and so any submission writen by a professional must account for something. I could give many many examples of where these collars were responsible for helping owners control their dogs. But I can't help thinking that 'they' have heard it all before. I would rather focus the attention on the Government giving scientific evidence to support their claims. How can they ban something with no direct evidence to support their claims, but fear tactics by uneducated people? It's the same example as when Innotek took RSPCA to court for using unfounded statements against e-collars. The courts judgement was for Innotek because they supplied all the scientific evidence to support their claims. RSPCA could not produce one expert to support their claims. The court awarded Innotek $100,000.00 in damages. So in all reality then how can a government ban such equipment? Has anyone that you know of asked the minister responsible to produce the scientific evidence to support his claims? As to fight against an injustice you need to be able to disprove thier evidence, if they have any. I am sure they have NO scientific evidence to support their redicules claims. The ministers claims are all based on emotion and not scientific facts. So still beating my head on the best way for ME to offer a submission that the Minister will take seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rom Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 (edited) Mark, I've read your website and have full confidence that you can come up with a super submission Edited January 1, 2008 by Rom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted January 1, 2008 Author Share Posted January 1, 2008 Hi Mark. It's ok .... I have the topic in the c4s site being "tracked" so I normally receive an alert when someone posts on that thread . Have responded in the c4s site and also PM'd you (via c4s). Cheers! Judi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted January 22, 2008 Author Share Posted January 22, 2008 My goodness! Page 6? Can't have it sitting there! I've been working (hours) behind the scenes, trudging my way through government documents and so forth, and refining/additing to the (now 16 pages plus) covering report which will form the introduction to the submission to government. Meanwhile, I would welcome more submissions from folks who recognise and have experienced the benefits of the "Pressure Point Collar" (PPCollar). Also would welcome contact from people who have been able to make an appointment to see their local MP. Remember, that provided the distance is within reason, I am happy to accompany as "spokesperson" if you prefer. Cheers! Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Submission sent via email Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkS Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 You should have mine by this sunday Erny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 (edited) Thanks Cosmolo - have received it. Just got in so haven't had a chance to read it yet. I'm sure it will be good. :p Thanks Mark - I'll look forward to receiving it. :p Have just spent about 20 + hours over the last 3 days doing some more work on the main submission. My eyes are red and square but the main introductory submission is certainly growing. And so is my support network - thank you everyone for your submissions. Without them I can't do this. Thanks also to a couple of people (at least one known well to DOL) who have been putting in some hard yacka behind the scenes and also to one who like a breath of fresh air has also recently swept in and offered to carry through/help with the momentum of mustering support. There is a fair amount of more work to be done yet. Due to some delays in some things (Christmas didn't help) and also due to some additional ideas that seem to keep popping their way in :D. The meeting with the Minister will therefore not be quite as soon as I had originally hoped, but I am pushing full steam ahead with my goal to draw the whole submission to a conclusion as soon as possible. I will let you all know soon where you can down load a petition (PDF) - petition will not lend as much weight as individual submissions but no reason that petition can't be signed by those who have been good enough to make a submission - when it is ready to go. Of course, getting people to sign the petition who otherwise might not have submitted or contributed anything, will also be a help. Anyway, further news on that soon. I'm waiting for my MP to get back to me on something about it, before I put it out. Have had the support of a few Vets too ..... :p . Their letters will be very very helpful. Of course, if anyone knows of more they can get, all the better. DVD's and photo's will also form part of the submission. Collecting footage as I can. Anyone have any contribution they can make there, would definately be helpful. It is rolling along guys - and building. Edited January 25, 2008 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Do you want pics of dogs wearing them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now