Erny Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Prong collars are legal to sell and buy, but not to use. Go figure. E-collars are allowed to be used by a few people with specialised training for training specific types of hunting dogs. So as good as banned. Not in Queensland (at this stage). Yes - if you are an accepted importer you can import PPCollars. The only place in Australia where they are illegal to use by law, is Victoria. There are some groups who do not permit their use on their grounds or at their sanctioned events. But that does not constitute "illegal" in the formal sense of the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yesmaam Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 What makes me laugh about this article is that there is plenty of statistical evidence that proves common choker collars cause far more damage than anything else, yet here we are again with an anti-prong article...... The "BARBARIC TORTURE DEVICE".... "CLAMPED AROUND DOGS NECKS", “PIERCING THE SKIN”, the blood dripping, the flesh ripping hooks designed to injure and maim, oh the blood, oh the blood ahhhhhhh. It’s just total BS and completely unfounded. Find me the evidence to prove that prongs are as bad as they say......please someone.... Its all hysteria, unless someone can prove me wrong that is ;-) If anyone has a copy of the newspaper article, go and pick up your dog poos with it because that's all it deserves.....lol In the meantime, if we all emailed that "behaviourist" I'm sure she would get the message that her unqualified opinions are not wanted..... Just Google her name and you will find her website address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 They could measure the cortisol levels in the blood - before, during and after a correction. Cortisol levels rise when very stressed. More complex than you might think. Corisol levels fluctuate with any stress .... even when simply learning a trick off lead and 'naked'. So, if the dog was wearing a PPCollar and was corrected, how do you know that the cortisol fluctuation had anything to do with the correction, and nothing to do with something the dog saw, thought, anticipated. Cortisol fluctuates as a result of excitement too. So, for a research study you need control groups. You also need dogs who have been trained the same way and with same or at the very least, very similar temperaments. Perhaps same breed, even. To provide a research study for what initially might seem such a simple thing, you need at least in the vicinity of $40,000.00 to fund it. Anyone got that sort of dough they could volunteer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekhbet Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I think people also misunderstand that trainers dont exlusively plug away with nothing but a prong and thats it. It's not that we want one side or the other we want it as an option to use IN CONJUNCTION with other methods. There is no one umbrella out there and to say using one is just lazyness is plain wrong. Using just one method on all dogs is lazy and uneducated no matter what that one thing is. As for sensory deprivation and locking dogs in crates for extended periods to get them to work better all the time, I believe that is cruelty. A dog is not a toy it is a living, breathing creature. If you call that part of positive training you need your head read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 (edited) Anyway... Whether or not prongs are banned elsewhere is beside the point. The point is that how can we, in Australia, allow our government to ban the use of a tool that has no proof or evidence of causing pain or harm? ... Huski - with all due respect, I think there is mis-wording that you've used. Liken "pain" to "discomfort". The PPCollar causes discomfort or pain. The Head Collar causes discomfort or pain. No-pull Harnesses cause discomfort or pain. A pop on a flat collar can cause discomfort or pain. If there were no discomfort (or pain) then there would be no reason why a dog would respond to it. There is "no recorded evidence of harm" cause through the use of the PPCollar. But I don't think "pain" is the correct word to include and indeed does go outside the actual quote given by the Victorian Labor Government. Hope you don't mind me picking up on this, but I think the accuracy of it bears considerable importance and needs to be corrected (pardon the pun) early, before it becomes a twist of words that carries through far into the discussion. Edited August 5, 2011 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 What makes me laugh about this article is that there is plenty of statistical evidence that proves common choker collars cause far more damage than anything else, yet here we are again with an anti-prong article...... The "BARBARIC TORTURE DEVICE".... "CLAMPED AROUND DOGS NECKS", “PIERCING THE SKIN”, the blood dripping, the flesh ripping hooks designed to injure and maim, oh the blood, oh the blood ahhhhhhh. It’s just total BS and completely unfounded. Completely agree. I wrote to the Customs department who had wording on their website to the effect of (quoting from memory) the collars being designed to pierce the dog's neck. I wrote to the Customs department asking where they had the evidence to establish and state that this is what the collars were designed to do and did. I was unable to obtain an answer other than to tell me a certain person within their department said it but they would not respond to my request for where that person obtained that information. False and/or misleading propaganda was much used as a devious way of lulling people into supporting those who nay-sayed the PPCollar. I guess you have to use that when there is no factual evidence or reason to support an anti-campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted August 5, 2011 Author Share Posted August 5, 2011 (edited) Anyway... Whether or not prongs are banned elsewhere is beside the point. The point is that how can we, in Australia, allow our government to ban the use of a tool that has no proof or evidence of causing pain or harm? ... Huski - with all due respect, I think there is mis-wording that you've used. Liken "pain" to "discomfort". The PPCollar causes discomfort or pain. The Head Collar causes discomfort or pain. No-pull Harnesses cause discomfort or pain. A pop on a flat collar can cause discomfort or pain. If there were no discomfort (or pain) then there would be no reason why a dog would respond to it. There is "no recorded evidence of harm" cause through the use of the PPCollar. But I don't think "pain" is the correct word to include and indeed does go outside the actual quote given by the Victorian Labor Government. Hope you don't mind me picking up on this, but I think the accuracy of it bears considerable importance and needs to be corrected (pardon the pun) early, before it becomes a twist of words that carries through far into the discussion. Thanks Erny! I agree I worded that poorly. Of course there is an element of discomfort/pain there as there is with any aversive tool Edited August 5, 2011 by huski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I find it's a bit of a round-about argument. If they caused pain and harm as obviously as anti-prong collar advocates would have us believe, why is the proof and evidence not out there, easy and readily available to find? You were the one who put it forth as an argument for supporting prong collars. If it's a roundabout argument, is it a good one to base an opinion on? Is that like saying someone is guilty until proven innocent? Well, we know prong collars have to be aversive in the first place, or they wouldn't work. So it's more like asking whether a convicted criminal is a small time crook or a drug lord or one of those women that give other women abortions when it's illegal or something. Everyone knows that aversives are vital to life and a big part of learning about the environment and so forth, but that doesn't make them pleasant. I would assume a bird flies unless proven otherwise, wouldn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Thanks for accepting my 'pick up' in the well-meaning spirit intended, Huski . Hey - I'm going to butt out and not dominate this thread beyond what I have already, but before I do, one more thing to say and that is that I spent a few hundred in purchasing documents via Freedom of Information. The documents I sought and purchased related to when the Victorian Labor Government banned the use of the PPCollar (despite the many objections submitted). Back then I figured that whilst I could not fathom through my own experience or the experience I knew of others around me, why on earth a law could outright ban a training tool that had done nothing but help in training ..... there had to be something I was unaware of. Once I got the documents from FOI I spent countless hours ploughing through them. And that is when the ONLY thing of such relevance that I could find was when the Labor Government itself stated there was "no recorded evidence of harm" from the use of the PPCollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted August 5, 2011 Author Share Posted August 5, 2011 You were the one who put it forth as an argument for supporting prong collars. If it's a roundabout argument, is it a good one to base an opinion on? Ah, no, I don't think so. I simply said there isn't any proof that these tools cause injury or harm to dogs especially the in the way anti-prong advocates claim they do. Well, we know prong collars have to be aversive in the first place, or they wouldn't work. So it's more like asking whether a convicted criminal is a small time crook or a drug lord or one of those women that give other women abortions when it's illegal or something. Everyone knows that aversives are vital to life and a big part of learning about the environment and so forth, but that doesn't make them pleasant. I would assume a bird flies unless proven otherwise, wouldn't you? Well, yes, obviously. I never said anywhere that they weren't aversive or that they were pleasant we all know that prong collars are aversive tools just like any other corrective tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaJ Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Prong collars are legal to sell and buy, but not to use. Go figure. E-collars are allowed to be used by a few people with specialised training for training specific types of hunting dogs. So as good as banned. The information I found stated that they are banned in official competition not for general use. The info you found is wrong. I am Norwegian, I know the rules. Perhaps you yourseld mis-understood the rules. I googled them just before I posted, to make sure they hadn't changed. The info you found is wrong. I am Norwegian, I know the rules. I'm sure you appreciate that it's not easy to find information on these laws - I've been searching all afternoon and haven't found anything to support prong collars being 100% illegal in the countries mentioned. I'm not saying you are wrong, but the information is not readily available or easy to access. Anyway - as per my previous post. Whether prongs are banned in places outside of VIC is quite irrelevant to the big picture. Sorry, didn't mean to sound harsh. I do understand that it's difficult to find info on it, as I googled the same thing last night and found nothing. Earlier today I googled in Norwegian and found more useful info. Huski I understand you want as many tools as possible available to all of us for training/assisting/guiding/correcting/use-any-word-you-see-fit our dogs. One day any of us might own a dog who will be best helped by us using something less "conventional". Victoria has taken the stand to ban prong collars. Victoria is not the only place prong collars are seen as undesired. Sweden and Norway has taken the stand to ban the use of prong collars on dogs (not illegal to sell in either country), wouldn't surprise me if the other Nordic countries are the same. Until your Swedish and Norwegian is more fluent you just have to trust that Fuzzy82 and LisaJ not only have the language and research skills they are also honest in relaying the latest information. You find a lot of good information and research papers if you are multi lingual. The common choke chain causes more damage to dogs than the prong collar. I can't remember if I saw that research paper in English or German. Your original post has generated a lot of replies. That is GREAT!!! Dog training isn't one-size-fits-all - dog or trainer. Most of us have a preferred one though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Jones Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Stopping hysteria and online dog forum very rarely go hand in hand. Nice facebook page though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovemesideways Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 (edited) Yay for prong collars I would go so far as to say that in a lot of cases involving aggression, a simple flat collar is going to be MUCH more painful and damaging than a prong collar. Dog lunging against a flat collar repeatedly is going to cause a hell of a lot more damage to itself and its handler than one lunge and self correction (which are NOT painful, uncomfortable yes but not painful) on a properly fitted prong collar. Edit to add: Not sure if this is gonna be OT or not, but something people forget to think about it its not just about the dog, its about the handler and their abilities too. Edited August 5, 2011 by lovemesideways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsdog2 Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 So will the ban also include the military? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I would expect so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Jones Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 So will the ban also include the military? I highly doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I don't think you can make generalisations about how aversive a tool is. Obviously it changes from dog to dog and from moment to moment and from handler to handler, even under the banner of "proper use". I also consider claims that a tool or method were the only one that would work unsubstantiated. Having never even laid eyes on the dog in question, I'm in no position to believe or disbelieve those claims. I think for that reason, the arguments need to stay squarely in the realms of the potential to do harm. In my mind, we can train people all we like to use things like prongs and e collars properly, but the potential for harm due to misuse doesn't change. As Steve White has mentioned, punishing a dog is rewarding to the handler. Because it makes the annoying/upsetting behaviour stop. Even if just for a moment. Steven Lindsay notes that all collars used forecefully against the neck (including prongs and head halters) may cause prolonged pain and/or bruising. It's got to come down to how easy it is to cause harm through misuse. As far as I know, no one has ever quantified that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusky Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 YES!!! Exactly, we need to bring caning back too, used properly extreme pain is a most efficient teaching tool. No-one who uses prong collars properly uses 'extreme pain' as a teaching tool. But I'm sure you knew that ;) Begs the question - how many are used incorrectly? How many people use check chains incorrectly? Or head collars? Or martingales? Any tool can be used to abuse a dog, that is a problem with the user not the tool. so how do you control the user ? you can't.The only way to stop abuse with tools of training is to ban them. People will still abuse and hurt their dogs but while these products are for sale on the open market they will be used to hurt dogs legitimately. A few years ago on this forum K9 force was explaining to people how to import prong collars in bits and fit them together. I was horrified for a multitude of reasons. K9 had /has a cult following on this forum...the people who were wanting to buy them in bits had no idea in the world how to train a stuffed dog from the posts they made. They did import they did use them I guess and no one showed them how to use it "correctly' which is the one word on training tools which irritates me more than any other. So long as they are used 'correctly' yeah right ...imported in bits and put together just like the other contraversial collar with the user not having a clue. chip chip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve K9Pro Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Rusky your either mistaken or a liar. Look at any or every old post of mine and you will see I have never said any such thing. Miss labeling anything you import is a federal offense. I also don't agree with anyone buying any tool and not being trained to use it. Why would I? I am a trainer. Cult ? ?? Get a grip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve K9Pro Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 How do you control the user? You can't. So ban everything that can cause harm or be miss used. That would be everything. 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