Jump to content

Ppcollar (aka Prong) - 2008 Regulation Review - Outcome


 Share

Recommended Posts

hope you're still working on this, Erny...

i have only just gotten around to writing out my submission, and i'm sending it off for a second opinion before i forward it to you...

sorry for being so slack, hope i'm not too late!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 209
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

No - not too late Scope and I look forward to receiving the submission. Please be sure to email it to my address as in the first post (ie not via DOL).

I have recently heard back from the DPI (FOI) - estimated cost for search = $100.00. I've given them the go ahead so I expect I'll be receiving something from them soonish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jeff ................ but I don't really feel or think my job has started yet. I mean, the hard task is still to come.

But in the interim, what I (we) need is a tonne more of written submissions (from all and any States) to my email address.

Edited by Erny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I've received docs via FOI and am furthering my work on this submission.

One of the Dog training organisations that had input to the legislation before it was passed, was "Whylie's Working Dogs". The other was the Australian Association of Professional Dog Trainers.

My question is, does anyone know who "Whylie's Working Dogs" are? I've never heard of them nor could I find anything on them via google.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for trying Jeff. Not to mention that the above link shows them as being in Queensland ???

The spelling of "Whylie's Working Dogs" is correct as given. They are referenced in "Certificate of Consultation" made by Bob Cameron, Min for Ag and gives a list of "organisations which represent industry members upon whom any appreciable burden will be imposed" and who have therefore been consulted. Only AAPDT and WWD are listed as the dog training organisations that were consulted.

:laugh: :D

Funny how he didn't seek to consult with an organisation such as NDTF :)

Now ..... who the heck are "Whylie's Working Dogs" ???? If they were *big enough* to be considered as a viable organisation fit for consultation in a matter where legislation is to be passed, surely they would be *big enough* to be able to be found without too much sherlock holmes style effort???

Edited by Erny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if its of any relevance or help, but Michael Tucker, the gentleman who's articles were discussed in the Vic Dogs thread is the president of the Australian Association of Professional Dog Trainers.

www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=115486

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Rom. I PM'd you asking if you happen to have a copy of that article (I had previously seen the thread, but didn't realise he is president of APDT) and if you have, whether you could provide it to me. Why I just didn't post that here, I don't know :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for trying Jeff. Not to mention that the above link shows them as being in Queensland ???

The spelling of "Whylie's Working Dogs" is correct as given. They are referenced in "Certificate of Consultation" made by Bob Cameron, Min for Ag and gives a list of "organisations which represent industry members upon whom any appreciable burden will be imposed" and who have therefore been consulted. Only APDT and WWD are listed as the dog training organisations that were consulted.

:laugh: :D

Funny how he didn't seek to consult with an organisation such as NDTF :)

Now ..... who the heck are "Whylie's Working Dogs" ???? If they were *big enough* to be considered as a viable organisation fit for consultation in a matter where legislation is to be passed, surely they would be *big enough* to be able to be found without too much sherlock holmes style effort???

Strange, I just tried searching the yellow pages and the white pages for all the variations I could think of for "Whylie's Working Dogs" and only came up with two residential addresses in Victoria for Whylie. To protect the innocent I won't put the search results here. :D

As you say if they are big enough to be considered representative of industry members they would show up somewhere - particularly in the white or yellow pages.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

Bear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for trying FaxonandBear and for adding to the list of *attempts to find*. If I can't find out who they are, I figure all I can do is make a point of mentioning in the submission that their credibility can't be established at this time.

Go figure .................. why would someone such as Bob Cameron source out what presently seems to be a 'needle in a hay stack', when NDTF stood ready willing and able to be consulted at that time. :)

Anyway - not to spend too much time on that ponderance :laugh:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never tried a prong collar.

One of my ex dogs constantly choked himself and tore his fur out with his collar, I tried Sam with a flat collar and he pulled so I went back to the choker/check chain. Mishka has a harness because he whines if I put a collar on him.

Prong colars look just as bad for the fur if you have a longhaired dog?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never tried a prong collar.

One of my ex dogs constantly choked himself and tore his fur out with his collar, I tried Sam with a flat collar and he pulled so I went back to the choker/check chain. Mishka has a harness because he whines if I put a collar on him.

Prong colars look just as bad for the fur if you have a longhaired dog?

No - actually they are not. They tend not to damage the fur anywhere near a slip collar, check chain or, again, a head-collar (which often damage the hair across the dog's muzzle, if it doesn't chaff the skin), if at all.

Please don't take prong-collars for how they "look". Because they do *look* bad, many people make false assumptions. I know my reaction when I first saw one was to screw up my nose. But on closer investigation and experimentation I found my initial reaction to be unfounded.

Edited by Erny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I've been trying to do a business name search on Whylie's, but my old computer and shyte dial up speed are letting me down, can someone help out by trying a search at either:

Asic

or

justice.vic.gov.au

Thanks Rom. Leave it with me. It's late now. I'll try it tomorrow. :)

Extracted from ASIC's database at AEST 07:50:37 on 16/10/2007

Name WYLIE'S WORKING DOGS - note the different spelling of Wylie.

Registered state/no.

VIC 1383975P

Type Business Names

Registration Date Unknown

Next Review Date Unknown

Status Business Names - Removed

Principal Place of Business not available

Jurisdiction Office of Fair Trading & Business Affairs,Victoria

No document list available for this organisation type

Partial Extract

The following details were extracted from the Register at 07:49 AM 16/10/2007.

Business Name

WYLIE'S WORKING DOGS

Business Number

1383975P

Nature of Business

DOG BREEDING

Date Registered

26/05/1998

Date Deregistered

26/05/2004

Renewal Date

26/05/2004

Trading Suburb

Trading Postcode

MUMBANNAR

3304

Purchase Business Name Extract

A Business Name Extract includes additional details including business contact and owner details. See Demonstration for an example

Edited by FaxonandBear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faxonand Bear

Thank you so much for that.

So Wylie's Working Dogs are now a deregistered business?

And they were a business based in breeding, not training?

Doesn't sound like much 'grunt' upon which to gleen and base opinion for the passing of a legislation.

Wonder if Wylie's was a person known to Bob Cameron and/or RSPCA?? "Mates rates" type of thing. :laugh:

I will add the info to my submission.

Thanks heaps.

Erny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also strangely enough, this "organisation" Bob Cameron consulted with (one of only two in the category of "Dog Organisations") was de-registered only TEN DAYS after the beurocratic forms in support of the ban were signed off by Bob Cameron.

Could be/Maybe coincidence, but ..... :laugh:

From a legal perspective what constitutes an "organisation"? - Is "Pro-K9" an organisation even though it's just me???

Edited by Erny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...