Ppcollar (aka Prong) - 2008 Regulation Review - Outcome

[Erny]

For interest sake, here is an excerpt from the "RSPCA News" Volume 8 * Number 2. I can't find a link to the mag via the internet, so needed to copy it here ...

"

Wirth Here!

Honorary President RSPCA Victoria

Towards a National Approach

For some thirty years now I have been attending many meetings of federal and state government advisory committees and just as many non-government committees, including those of the RSPCA, all of which proclaim that they exist to achieve a uniform and consistent national approach to animal welfare. Every so often the cynical side of me asks the simple question "if so, what has been achieved?"

There is abundant evidence that the majority of advisory committee members do realise the benefits of a national approach and mostly they work to this end. But far too commonly the final outcomes rarely reflect this intent. What then goes wrong?

The greatest handicap by far is the three tier political system adopted by the Australian federation. none trust the other and therefore each remains suspicious of proposals not initiated by itself and each maintains a culture where they conveniently believe that another level of government is, or should be, responsible for animal welfare outcomes. Local government is variably effective with animal management but maintains animal welfare is not its responsibility. State government accepts it is responsible for animal welfare but only on a local basis as the Commonwealth is the national government. In turn the Commonwealth argues that the Australian constitution does not mention animals so it can only act as the honest broker in animal welfare and then only farm animals, wildlife and pest animals, but not companion animals.

Both government and non-government organisations go to Canberra put their hand up to adopt a national proposal such as the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and then leave the city immediately forgetting this commitment.

Obviously it is always necessary to compromise to reach agreement on a national approach, but all too often this in practice means a lowest common denominator compromise. The animals deserve better than this. If a refusal to unnecessarily lower one's standards means being branded as negative, then so be it."

Might sound ok to some in theory. But what scares me is that what Mr. Wirth wants isn't what all .... or even the majority of us wants, and I can profess by experience isn't IMO always the best in terms of dog-welfare. Moreover, that certain voices simply won't be heard if it doesn't suit his agenda or wishes. Once he manages to 'level the laws on a National basis' ..... will this simply be a green card to Mr. Wirth's influences within Government : cease the ideology of 'democracy' and oppress us further from what doing what many dog owners recognise as the more beneficial for our dogs. I mean, for the laws ithat he himself has managed to impose upon the population of Victoria under the guise of "dog-welfare" ..... has that succeeded in diminishing dog abuse and the numbers of dogs abandoned (the most common reason being for "boisterousness")? What dog abuse do they now NOT see, given they have prohibited the good use of the PPCollar (aka "pinch" collar)???

In the next post down, I've put up a draft of a letter ..... it's incomplete, but if anyone would like to voice their concerns to their Minister and MP's around Australia, feel free to take whichever ideas for letter writing that you might like, from it and put it to good use.

Edited August 3, 2008 by Erny

[Erny]

DRAFT (incomplete) ..... (refer above post)

This paper references Dr Hugh Wirth’s recent “Honorary Presidential” Statement given in the RSPCA News (Volume 8 – Number 2 edition) titled “Towards a National Approach”.

Whilst I can sympathise with Mr. Wirth’s view on the ‘three tier political system adopted by the Australian Federation’, there are some major points to his view that appear to be neglected.

The first point being ‘healthy opposition’. To have a ‘one view’ for all can be dangerous in that it precludes one from the freedom of identified benefits of a differing view which in itself appears to oppose the very democracy that our Country has proudly boasted throughout the centuries.

The second point being the very real possibility (read : likelihood) that views, and therefore, laws, are different from one State to another because of the fact that the advent of the regulations which Mr. Wirth might prefer to be all encompassing (nationally speaking) are fraught with flaws – flaws which reveal that his view is not necessarily the right view from the point of animal welfare. And in this my involvement strictly relates to dog training and behaviour, which is the focus of my expertise and passion and therefore my point of discussion.

Mr. Wirth implies that unless laws pertaining to his view of “animal welfare” are not recognised on a national level, the animals are not receiving what they deserve.

I think first and fore mostly, Mr. Wirth should study the laws that are already imposed (as has been encouraged and supported by Mr. Wirth himself) in relation to (eg) dog training equipment. Mr. Wirth supports the imposition of the ban of use of “pinch” collars in the very blatant lack of evidence of any harm having been caused by its use (in the hands of a novice handler or otherwise) yet fully supports and loudly proclaims the ‘kinder gentler’ head collar, the evidence of (albeit inadvertent) harm to dogs is easily, broadly and frequently available.

Mr. Wirth first needs to investigate these anomalies and provide discussion by way of ‘answer’ to these before he decries the Australian Federation political system. Perhaps for the very system it is, it has offered at least some safeguard against the imposition of a view which is evidentially flawed, becoming a National imposition and for the sake of fairness of trade and not the least, welfare of dogs, this can only be a good thing.

It would be an easier task, perhaps, for Mr. Wirth to now lobby for nationalism rather than to state and debate his views (debate which, when it comes to the imposition of the banned use of “pinch” collars, appears vastly absent from Mr. Wirth’s court) and convince the general dog-training and behaviour enthusiasts and experts as to what very good and evidentiary reasoning he has for this regulation.

In my own opinion, conditionally recommending the use of training equipment (and yes, this would have to include the head collar, given there IS evidence of harm to dogs through its use, as opposed to the “pinch” collar, where there is NO such evidence) by including these items under Section 7E of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act would be the more democratic, fair and reasonable approach – not just for those trainers and behaviourists who with their skill and knowledge are able to utilise these tools in a beneficial manner in keeping with dog welfare, and who are able to educate those others on their correct and humane application, but for the dogs themselves, who by fair, humane, clear and efficient means of learning are relieved of the unnecessary pro-longed stress that other methods/tools might require, not to mention having the opportunity through efficient training, to escape the clutches of the “green dream” .... a synchronism for “being destroyed”. Surely this last is something that Mr. Wirth’s focus and interest should be sufficiently keenly sharpened, particularly where dog-welfare can remain to be evidenced?

Edited August 3, 2008 by Erny

[Kelpie-i]

Bloody Hughely Wirthless....hasn't someone shot him yet???

[Erny]

:rolleyes: - Kelpie-i.

I can imagine him thinking he should be getting around in a pope-mobile next. I'm sure he would love the lime light.

With regards to his "National Approach" push ..... I see it as his way of controlling the whole of Australia in relation to animals and what people can/can't do. And instead of targetting the 'real' cases that should be targetted ('cause they're more difficult, nevermind the more necessary and urgent), he'll target 'soft' cases ..... cases that aren't even necessarily a matter of cruelty but that he'll easily convince the unsuspecting into thinking they were. And thereby get more $$$.

Makes me so cross when anyone uses "dog-welfare" (or any animal welfare) as a guise to financial benefits.

Edited August 3, 2008 by Erny

[Erny]

Hi all

Just a reminder about this subject (yes, sorry .... yet again ).

Without being too revealing via a public forum, there is very good reason to act now (refer links to MP Letter - Australia wide; Petition) if you have not done so already. I almost feel guilty for raising this thread back to the front again and I do apologise if this comes across as 'nagging', but IMO this issue is important enough to risk that. I hope that many of you see that as well.

[Jessca]

Hi erny, im still waiting for a response from my dog club as to whether they can send the petition around.

there apparently having some trouble as they are not allowed to 'support' the use of pp collars, and a few people have complained about the use of them. i'll let you know as soon as i know anything.

sorry it has taken sooooo long, phone call after phone call is getting me know where, if they still havn't called back by tuesday i'll give them another call.

sorry again, jess.

[Erny]

The Victorian Government have reviewed the current regulations which form part of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. There are some changes proposed but there are none proposed in so far as Section 7D is concerned, which is the section that prohibits the use of the PPCollar (aka 'prong' collar) in the training of dogs.

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nrenfa.nsf/L...A256EDD0082EDF1

However, Public Comment to the proposed regulations (and given that the regulations sunset in December 2008, they are ALL proposed whether changes are noted or not) is NOW invited.

The deadline for submissions is 5.00 pm on 17th November, 2008.

All signed petition sheets (for those arranging them) must be sent to the address given on the foot of the petition sheets to be received by no later than 5th November, 2008. Remember that the sheets do not have to be filled completely - EVERY signature counts.

It will still be useful to utilise the download letters provided in www.doglaws.blogspot.com, regardless of whether you reside in Victoria or not.

Now is NOT the time to relax (as much as I can promise you I'd prefer to be doing). NOW is the time to motivate (yourselves and anyone else you can motivate) and become active by putting pen to paper and making your voice heard.

The Government decision maker based his decision to pass the current regulation WITH NO EVIDENCE to support the opinions of the 'key organisations' it chose to listen to.

The American Humane Association's "Guide to Humane Dog Training", which was funded by the Delta Society, attests that the prong collar is "conditionally recommended as a humane training restraint". The Association of Pet Dog Trainers used this guide as a reference to support their own views on the prong collar. The Government needs to hear this loud and clear so that it might see that permitting restricted use of the prong collar in training will be beneficial and within the realms and interests of dog welfare.

The Government wants to hear evidence that reveals that the 'prong' collar can be successfully used in the rehibilitation of dogs and that dogs can actually LEARN sufficiently so as to not to have to rely on the 'prong' collar to demonstrate improved behaviour.

If anyone has any questions/queries in relation to the current review of the regulation, please post here. But in the meantime, every letter that you write or email to the Government in support of the PPCollar WILL help to make a difference.

Comments should be sent via email to [email protected] or by post to:

POCTA Regulation Review

Bureau of Animal Welfare

475 Mickleham Rd

Attwood VIC 3049

All comments must be in writing and submitted by 5pm, Monday 17th November 2008. All submissions will be treated as public documents.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Erny

[arawnhaus]

Erny,

We are gathering sig's.Will post them at the end of the week.

[Erny]

Thank you Delkerabo . I'm on 'alert' for petition sheets coming in.

Please send me a message to let me know what day you've posted them so I make sure they're received .

Oh ... and please indicate on the back of the envelope (or on a slip of paper inside the envelope if you prefer) who they are from. If you've written/contacted me under your DOL name, please use your DOL name as I find it hard to keep up with who is what DOL member. This way I will know that the one/s you've sent are the one/s I've received.

If that makes sense.

[Erny]

Hi Everyone.

News of the outcome of the POCTA regulation review 2008 results came out yesterday.

Regardless of the depth and breadth of factual information along with submissions attesting to the success of training with the PPCollar, the Government have elected to NOT permit any change to the prohibition of use of the collar.

The new regulations and Act, as well as a range of other relevant information, can be downloaded from the following links

www.dpi.vic.gov.au/animalwelfare (follow links to legislation page) or

www.legislation.vic.gov.au click on 'law today' then select statutory rules or Acts beginning with 'P'.

Details of amendments to the Victorian POCTA Regs can be found in the Notice of Decision which is available at www.dpi.vic.gov.au/animalwelfare.

This is a copy of the 'parent' submission (just to give you a visual image) and was supported by what turned out to be a not too shabby petition which was tabled at Parliament.

I will be taking a break for Christmas but I haven't quit on this and already have an idea or two bouncing around in my head.

Thanks to everyone who made an effort to assist in this campaign. Although it might feel like it right now, your efforts are not in vain nor wasted.

Cheers, and to you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year :D.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Erny