Ppcollar (aka Prong) - 2008 Regulation Review - Outcome

[Erny]

Thanks Jeff ........................... For some reason I'm not real clever in finding the sites I need the most. :cool:

No - the link you supplied was not the same as the one I found (the one I found had absolutely no contact info or invitation).

I have sent an email to Mr. Sprenger.

Cheers!

Erny

ETA: Thanks for the above post too, Jeff. It came in as I was posting this to you.

Edited August 11, 2007 by Erny

[Erny]

Oops! I see Rom has helped out too ..... sorry Rom. You guys were busy at the same time as I. :cool:

Appreciate the really fast help !!!!

[Erny]

I have received a letter from the DPI acknowledging receipt of my application for info pursuant to FOI.

It says :

"Some of the relevant document may contain personal information (for example, name, address) of other people. In order to process your request, I would need to consult each person to determine if disclosure of their personal information is unreasonable. To avoid any unnecessary delays in having to consult with all of these poeple, could you please advise if you agree to have the personal information deleted from the documents, I would appreciate your advice at your earliest convenience."

I would expect that the fee for time which the DPI will charge for, will increase if they have had to consult with each person, so my knee-jerk reaction is to say "no" .... I don't mind if this info is deleted (which saves them having to contact each person).

But does anyone foresee any reason why knowing a specific name (within a group .... eg. RSPCA; Animal Welfare; etc) would be of important value?

Edited August 12, 2007 by Erny

[Rom]

I wonder how many people we'd be talking about?

If there are no names, would the documents hold as much weight? Could the company or organisation that the person was involved with state that they didn't give anyone authorisation to make a submission? And if so, would that invalidate the submission? I wonder if submissions without personal info would be treated by the law in a similar fashion to hearsay?

I guess much of it depends on exactly what is in the submissions...if they are referencing other works or studies, then maybe it wouldn't matter so much.

I guess we could go ahead with docs with deleted personal info, then if any questions are raised try persuing the personal info at a later date if need be. The other side of this is that at least you'd get a look at the submissions, and decide which would be worth persuing to get the personal info for.

Geez...its a toughie, eh?

[Erny]

I guess we could go ahead with docs with deleted personal info, then if any questions are raised try persuing the personal info at a later date if need be. The other side of this is that at least you'd get a look at the submissions, and decide which would be worth persuing to get the personal info for.

Yes, that's what I was initially thinking.

It's a bit "crystal ball" really ..... maybe get the docs with people's individual names deleted and re-approach DPI if a name is needed?

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? I plan to telephone DPI tomorrow and let them know the answer.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Erny

[Jeff Jones]

maybe get the docs with people's individual names deleted and re-approach DPI if a name is needed?

That is what I would do.

[Erny]

Thanks guys. Well, it seems we're thinking on the same lines so with the consensus of opinion, that's what I will do.

Will contact DPI tomorrow.

Cheers!

Erny

[MonElite]

Instead of DPI contacting people you could get a satement form each person advicing that they either agree or disagree with their personal info being there.

[Erny]

Instead of DPI contacting people you could get a satement form each person advicing that they either agree or disagree with their personal info being there.

Don't know if either you have misunderstood, or if I misunderstand you, Myszka .

How can I contact the people if I don't first know who they are?

[MonElite]

Oh sorry I must have misuderstood than, I thought they are asking for agreeance of those that wrote stories.

[Erny]

Oh sorry I must have misuderstood than, I thought they are asking for agreeance of those that wrote stories.

Aaah .... I see where you were coming from. No - this is an application for copy documents/reports that were submitted to government by those who sought to ban the prong.

[Sarah L]

Hi Erny

I would like to say firstly that I admire the professional way you are going about what you are trying to achieve.

I have had a few thoughts while I have been reading this thread and wonder if you can give me your point of view on them.

If you achieved your goal of making the use of prong collars legal to use in Victoria, then would this give rise to people using them in the wrong way and others who do use them correctly would have no recourse to implement their proper use as many people may just read the fitting instructions on the packet and away they go. No doubt whether they are banned or not we all know they are being used. But at least at the moment this may still be taught by someone who knows what they are doing. The fact that they are banned may discourage or not the idiots out there using them wrongly. Even if you got the use of them permissioned under the "restricted use law" could this still be just another loop hole for people to abuse. I know you and other trainers know how to use them properly and can instruct on how to do so, but I feel once you give free rain on some of these training tools then more often than not they will be abused by people who do not want to spend the money being taught on how to use them properly. We would have nothing to fall back on in cases of animal cruelty if they were to become legal. I hope you can see what I am trying to say and realise I am not attacking you. As I said I know you know how to use and instruct on how to use them properly and with the legal or restricted use law coming in you would be able to teach without repercussions, but I am just to worried that to many people would not take the time or spend the money to be taught.

What do you think?

[Erny]

Hi Pinnacle. To answer, I've given your comments consideration my response to which are in bulleted form below ...

• As you've acknowledged, the submission seeks a change from "ban" to "restricted use" which will (if our aims are met) give docterine for use under the supervision and by instruction of a dog trainer.
  
• As is already the case, the prong may only legally be imported by those with special licence/permit to do so. It is not something that is likely to be hung in pet shops with scant labels on "how to use".
  
• The prong collar is a comparitively more expensive piece of equipment than those such as the check chain; head-collar; harness; etc. I think this is in part why prong collars have never been - even when legal here in Victoria - hung in supply at the average general pet store. The majority of people whom I know of who have used them have all sourced them through their general knowledge of dogs and dog training. In otherwords, they've had some contact with dog trainers and/or dog training. A far cry from many who pick up check chains and head-collars from supermarkets and your general average pet shop and trot off blissfully ignorant to the damage that can be caused by their mis-use. Personally, I'd like to see some sort of "restricted use" for those too, although I recognise some impracticalities in that.
  

You know, years ago prior to me becoming a trainer and when there was no ban on prong collars, I never even saw one, least of all by anyone of the "Joe Average Public" whom I don't think even knew they existed either. I didn't know that they existed nor what they were about until I became involved in training.

I think this lead to the ease with which organisations such as the RSPCA (who seemed to be the most public advocator for the push to ban) to gain public support and to have the legislation passed. It was easy to snap a picture of the prong collar and publish it in the newspaper. Clarity of the picture was not there and they look awful - especially to the uninitiated, the unknowing. The first think people think are of the "spikes" digging in (and piercing?) the dog's neck. (Of course, headlines such as "equipment of torture" didn't help but to confirm the uneducated opinions people in general made of them.) Although you and I know that this is far from the truth of the effect they have on the dog, I doubt the Joe Public would randomly chose to purchase one - if not for the matter of price; if not for the matter of them not being so freely available; but then of their own perception of it - albeit wrapped in ignorance.

Banning does not and hasn't stopped people obtaining them. If they've wanted to obtain them and use them illegally, they have, as they always will. What we aim here is to re-deliver the right to law abiding people, to people who understand the prong and who see the many benefits for the dogs and the people in the right circumstances, to use the prong collar. It is not a "free rein" for use.

Hope the above serve to answer to your query/concern.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Erny

[Sarah L]

Hi Erny thanks for your response, you have answered my concern very well. I have no objection to useing prong collars but you and I know that there are a great many idiots out there. Wishing you all the best in your endeavour.

[Erny]

Hi Erny thanks for your response, you have answered my concern very well. I have no objection to useing prong collars but you and I know that there are a great many idiots out there. Wishing you all the best in your endeavour.

Thank you Pinnacle.

Yes - there are a great many idiots and unfortunately they'll always be there. The problem with bans is that it only removes from the sensible law abiding people ....... the ones who could most appropriately use the banned item in the first place.

[Sarah L]

Hi Erny thanks for your response, you have answered my concern very well. I have no objection to useing prong collars but you and I know that there are a great many idiots out there. Wishing you all the best in your endeavour.

Thank you Pinnacle.

Yes - there are a great many idiots and unfortunately they'll always be there. The problem with bans is that it only removes from the sensible law abiding people ....... the ones who could most appropriately use the banned item in the first place.

I suppose I am the eternal optimist, always hoping we can get through to the idiots some how. I am not sure if there is anyway I can help you with what you are doing but let me know if there is. I will keep reading your thread with interest and hope to hear of your success

[Erny]

I suppose I am the eternal optimist, always hoping we can get through to the idiots some how.

I think most of us see it that way, which is why we keep trying. Of course (and fortunately) there are many more who are not idiots (quite the opposite) and these people continue to inspire me. They're the ones for whom it will always remain worthwhile.

I am not sure if there is anyway I can help you with what you are doing but let me know if there is. I will keep reading your thread with interest and hope to hear of your success

Thanks again Pinnacle.

While I am waiting for responses to the documented information I am seeking, I mostly need submissions from people (refer post #1).

These can simply be stories of their own experiences before use of the prong and after use of the prong .... or more documentary, if they prefer. This is the part that is still too thin on the ground.

If anyone is able to generate these via their own groups (eg training groups) who may have and/or recognise beneficial interest in being permitted use of the prong, that would be good and welcome as well.

ETA: Of course, for those who are in Victoria where the prong collar is banned, the stories will be from "prior ban" days. :wink:

The other States have no such restrictions.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Erny

[Sarah L]

This is were I got confused I thought because of the privacy act then such documents would cost a fee for the DPI to gain acceptance of them being used. I must be having Mondayitis........ I can try some veterinary colleagues here to see what they think or have on documentation if you like but I am not hopeful they will approve but you never know till you ask.

[Erny]

This is were I got confused I thought because of the privacy act then such documents would cost a fee for the DPI to gain acceptance of them being used.

There is a fee/cost for the info I have applied to get from the DPI.

But the stories from others is to signify support for the change in legislation and to bear an explanation of how people (and their dogs) have benefited from the prong. These stories, as well as reference to and dissection of the info that was initially submitted to the DPI and utilised in favour of the ban, will all make up a good part of the submission. Well ..... that's my plan, anyway.

I can try some veterinary colleagues here to see what they think or have on documentation if you like but I am not hopeful they will approve but you never know till you ask.

Any help is useful. The problematic side with many (not all, mind) Vets is they often don't understand how the prong collar works or why and therefore their opinion may not be based on knowledgeable use. BUT if they do have access to any documentary evidence of things such as physical damage to the dog via PROPER use of the prong (as you know ANY piece of equipment NOT used properly can cause damage) then I'd certainly appreciate it if they could provide the same or at least a link to it.

[Sarah L]

This is were I got confused I thought because of the privacy act then such documents would cost a fee for the DPI to gain acceptance of them being used.

There is a fee/cost for the info I have applied to get from the DPI.

But the stories from others is to signify support for the change in legislation and to bear an explanation of how people (and their dogs) have benefited from the prong. These stories, as well as reference to and dissection of the info that was initially submitted to the DPI and utilised in favour of the ban, will all make up a good part of the submission. Well ..... that's my plan, anyway.

I can try some veterinary colleagues here to see what they think or have on documentation if you like but I am not hopeful they will approve but you never know till you ask.

Any help is useful. The problematic side with many (not all, mind) Vets is they often don't understand how the prong collar works or why and therefore their opinion may not be based on knowledgeable use. BUT if they do have access to any documentary evidence of things such as physical damage to the dog via PROPER use of the prong (as you know ANY piece of equipment NOT used properly can cause damage) then I'd certainly appreciate it if they could provide the same or at least a link to it.

Thanks Erny, knew I had Mondayitis Will let you know how I go with the vets