How Can We Go About Getting Prong Collars

[jesomil]

Hi all,

I was shocked when i moved down to Melbourne to find that prongs are illegal down here. Someone also stated that Victoria is the only state in the world to have them made illegal. That is just crazy.

Is this another not so clever, uneducated move by Hugh Wirth??

My problem is, i dont know where to start to try and get this law changed.

How come everyone is just accepting the law? Is it possible to try and get it changed?

I know of heaps of people who would become involved in trying to change it.

Any ideas on how one could go about this??

By the way, this is NOT a discussion on the use of equiptment or training methods. If you dont like the prong, please dont take part in this discussion. Thanks.

[MonElite]

No idea where and how to start, but if you need an extra signature on something to legalise them Im definitelly signing it.

[Denis Carthy]

Jesomil

Is it possible to try and get it changed?

Denis

Hi, maybe a start would be to get a lawyer to look at the wording of the law and check for its actual legality and also if there are any grey areas where you test the law.

I am in UK by the way so I can only think in terms of some of our past flawed legislations.

Edited November 19, 2006 by Denis Carthy

[Alpha]

I can only speak for myself but I think the acceptance of the law comes from the fact that it can not be easily monitored. I was introduced to the use and benefits of pronged collars over a decade ago by a very, very experienced handler and trainer. We never doubted his assurances about it and saw for ourselves the benefits after only TWO DAYS this was on our dog aggro boy, Tolkien. I have seen people training at clubs with PC's; under some less knowledgable and worldly instructors; who did not even realise that had a possible infraction of a law under thier very noses. I have also done this once to prove a point and no one knew or realised.

No club wants to be investigated by the VCA or any other regulatory body, so they simply ask the handler not to use the collar at club ( three instances I know of). So, who's going to report it?

Training anywhere you want, whose going to get close enough to notice and how many would really realise its not a martingale anyway?

Stupid law, yes.

But right now, IMO, it's not monitored nor enforced so why draw attention to the many people who may use it. If we were to attempt to ratify its use, you'd have the likes of Worthless et.al and spot inspections at clubs and parks once it became known how widely used it MAY be.

[Purple Julie]

I am wondering how many laws once they are made ever get reversed? It is so much harder to reverse a law than to prevent it from becoming a law in the first place. So maybe it is too late. I don't know what you can do jesomil, but go for it!

[haven]

I am wondering how many laws once they are made ever get reversed? It is so much harder to reverse a law than to prevent it from becoming a law in the first place. So maybe it is too late. I don't know what you can do jesomil, but go for it!

Not so long ago GSDs were banned in Australia........there is hope for the prong in VIC yet

[leopuppy04]

Not so long ago GSDs were banned in Australia........there is hope for the prong in VIC yet

I had never heard of that!!!! how long ago was that?!?!?!?

I have a feeling that trying to reverse the 'prong' laws would be like trying to reverse the 'docking' laws. There are so many silly arguments for and against and people who feel so strongly about whichever side that it seems that you would be fighting the impossible IMO!

Good luck anyway and I wish you the best

[Erny]

I think it should be approached not on the basis that we want the legislation thrown out (oh no .... that would perhaps embarress the government and would not work to getting them 'on side' for this purpose), but perhaps 'altered', coming more in line with the legislation Vic has for e-collars. IE Restricted use. Except that I wouldn't have it where Vets need to give the ok to use one, but would stick with the use being allowed under supervision and/or instruction by a qualified trainer. I think the government would be more inclined to re-visit the legislation on that basis, rather than a complete ditching of the legislation.

[Ruffles]

I definately agree with you on that one Erny!

I was thinking about this last night... There are people that I would just not want to have prongs.

I wouldnt be opposed at all to having the legislation changed so that you had to have the instruction of a qualified trainer before being able to use one.

[Jeff Jones]

I had never heard of that!!!! how long ago was that?!?!?!?

from 1928 to 1972

I think it should be approached not on the basis that we want the legislation thrown out (oh no .... that would perhaps embarress the government and would not work to getting them 'on side' for this purpose), but perhaps 'altered', coming more in line with the legislation Vic has for e-collars. IE Restricted use. Except that I wouldn't have it where Vets need to give the ok to use one, but would stick with the use being allowed under supervision and/or instruction by a qualified trainer. I think the government would be more inclined to re-visit the legislation on that basis, rather than a complete ditching of the legislation.

just hope you dont draw to much attention to the e-collars

[jesomil]

Hmm, I see i will have to do some more research into it as i can see we would need to be careful in some areas.

I agree with the restricted use idea. I can imagine it would be one hell of a fight to get the law reversed and maybe even impossible, but maybe getting the law changed to restricted use only might work.

I will have to do a bit more thinking about. Its a topic that people can get very emotional and heated about.

[Erny]

just hope you dont draw to much attention to the e-collars

Yes I know. I've thought the same myself, Jeff. And I wouldn't propose putting too much (the lesser the better, if any at all) emphasis on the e-collars.

[Kelpie-i]

I remember when they were just about to bring the new legislation into play...we were desperately rounding up as many testimonials on the prong collar as we could. I even knew of a few people who were willing to march into the Minister's office with their super pulling dogs on flat collars just to prove their point - but unfortunately I don't think the deciders were willing to look past the hype.

I agree with Enry in that the only way we will probably achieve this is by suggesting they be made available for resitricted use.

I think the first step is a letter to the Animal Advisory Board of Vic along with heaps of testimonials. It probably wouldn't hurt to add in some facts and figures about the prong collar and invite a discussion from these people. Maybe ask Hugh Wirth out for dinner??? Sorry, couldn't help myself just then.

Perhaps try to introduce the plastic prong first on a restricted basis and then slowly work towards the metal variety??

[2tollers]

You'll have a hard time convincing some people.

I recently had Steve (k9) lined up to do a workshop at our club and someone on the committee looked at his website, saw he promoted the use of prongs and also did protection training, and they decided they didn't want to be involved. It wasn't open for discussion at all.

[Erny]

Perhaps try to introduce the plastic prong first on a restricted basis and then slowly work towards the metal variety??

Hi Kelpie-i

IMO, I wouldn't involve the plastic prong (is that legal or illegal here in Vic?). I think sing the virtues and practicalities of the prong and push for restricted use of it straight off.

Maybe ask Hugh Wirth out for dinner???

Or we could try an intermediate step and stand on a nest of stinging bull ants. I think that might be more enjoyable, don't you think?

Edited November 20, 2006 by Erny

[Alpha]

I think it should be approached not on the basis that we want the legislation thrown out (oh no .... that would perhaps embarress the government and would not work to getting them 'on side' for this purpose), but perhaps 'altered', coming more in line with the legislation Vic has for e-collars. IE Restricted use. Except that I wouldn't have it where Vets need to give the ok to use one, but would stick with the use being allowed under supervision and/or instruction by a qualified trainer. I think the government would be more inclined to re-visit the legislation on that basis, rather than a complete ditching of the legislation.

Definitely, it is easier to have a law "amended" than reversed or abolished. Heck, you can still be arrested for vagrancy if you have less than $5 and no id on you ;)

Amemded to authorised handler use or some such wording, justifying the use, pushing the benefits, tying it into the current Companion Animal laws, etc. Would take some push could even appeal to some ego driven politico who wants the amendment named after them...that's a crumb that could be offered.

[Erny]

Heck, you can still be arrested for vagrancy if you have less than $5 and no id on you

;) I think that's a good law though. If one has less than $5.00 and no fixed place of residency, being arrested assures you of a meal at least.

... could even appeal to some ego driven politico who wants the amendment named after them...that's a crumb that could be offered.

Yep - need to appeal to any polly's sense of ego. The first part is factual submissions (eg. formally prepared scientific reports) expressing/convincing of the greater qualities/uses of the prong. The second part is submissions from individuals (eg. personal experiences evidencing prong benefits -vs- no prong). The third part is something along the lines of petitions. Wrap all of that up and tie it with self-gratuitous ribbon that the polly can use for his/her own gain/recognition and we might get this past first base.

[jaybeece]

You'll have a hard time convincing some people.

I recently had Steve (k9) lined up to do a workshop at our club and someone on the committee looked at his website, saw he promoted the use of prongs and also did protection training, and they decided they didn't want to be involved. It wasn't open for discussion at all.

I had an instructor at my obedience club react pretty badly when I told them I'd love to be able to use a prong collar on my boy, but then the female instructor next to him wholeheartedly agreed with me. Seems to be people either love 'em or hate 'em ;)

I think Erny's idea is great.

Here's what the Vic government has to say (taken from http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/Annu...iew%202004.pdf) ...

Loooong quote ahoy!

SR 63 – Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) 2004

These Regulations prohibited the use of certain procedures and devices on

animals. They prohibited the use of pronged collars on dogs and the use of

electronic training collars. They prohibited the possession of dog or cock fighting

implements and updated certain references.

Subcommittee’s Letter

The Subcommittee considered and deferred approval of the above

Regulations at a meeting on 27 September 2004 pending your response to

the matters raised in this letter.

Pronged (pinch) collars

The Regulations prohibit the use of pronged (pinch) collars.

The Subcommittee seeks your advice in respect a number of matters.

(1) The RIS at page 12 discusses the use of pronged collars and refers to

their use to control dogs that are large relative to their owner’s size. In

terms of larger dogs, what sort of dogs is it envisaged this covers?

(2) The RIS and submissions refer to choker collars. What precisely are

choker collars and how do they work particularly in relation to larger

dogs?

(3) Almost 50% of the submissions refer to the prohibition of pronged

collars. They suggest that pinch collars are safer and more effective

than choker chains in powerful dogs. The Department’s response to

this in its 3 page summary of the main issues is “Inappropriate

selection of dog for person. Generally owners of Rottweilers and

larger active dogs that cannot be physically controlled without this

device being used constantly. Absence of permanent behaviour

change in most depositions”. The Subcommittee is of the view that

issue is not the inappropriate selection of a dog for a person but rather

whether pronged (pinch) collars are of assistance in controlling such

dogs. In that regard why are choker collars allowed and pronged

collars prohibited? Do pronged collars assist with the control of larger

dogs?

(4) The Department sent a standard letter of response to those who made

submissions. It states that: -

Although each submission was individually considered, the major

criticisms of the RIS and/or proposed Regulations were:

· Pinch collars were safer and more effective than choker chains in

powerful dogs………

Following consideration of the submissions received and a review of

the published research papers available it was considered that there

was sufficient evidence and public opinion to conclude that the use of

pronged collars should be prohibited and the use of electronic dog

collars should be regulated to require veterinary practitioner and dog

trainer involvement before use.

Upon what scientific research is it relied to make the assertion there is

sufficient evidence that pronged collars should be prohibited?

The Subcommittee would appreciate your immediate response so that it

may further consider the Regulations.

Minister’s Response61

Thank you for your letter of 27 September 2004 (Ref SR 63-2004), in

which you request additional information with regard to the Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Regulations 2004.

A. What size of dogs is it envisaged that pronged collars should be useful

for?

The issue is one of relative physical size and strength between the

owner and the dog. Pinch collars are advertised in standard sizes

ranging from 35 cm to 65 cm in circumference. Links may be added

or removed to fit the standard lengths to a particular dog. It is

therefore possible to fit them to any size dog. They are advertised for

use in sporting and hunting breeds in particular. The Bureau of

Animal Welfare is aware of significant use in more powerful medium to

large companion dogs, e.g. Rottweilers and Dobermans.

B. What are choker collars?

The attached photo ‘trgcollars.jpg’ compares a choker collar on the left

with two types of prong (pinch collars) on the right. Essentially the

choker collar is a loop of smooth link chain (sometimes of synthetic

material such as nylon that may be reinforced) placed around the neck

that can be shortened and tightened by pulling on the attached lead.

Advice on their use include statements such as ‘A choke chain must

be used correctly to be effective and human’. The risk with these

collars is that they may be jerked too sharply or harshly closed on the

neck and cause injury to the larynx, trachea and throat areas of the

dog.

C. The issue of use of pinch (pronged) collars in dogs relates to control of

large dogs rather than inappropriate selection of those dogs?

Examples of pinch (pronged) collars and their fitting are attached.

They are reportedly designed to mimic the teeth of another dog giving

a corrective bite. By pulling on a sliding chain the prongs on a second

chain are raised and forced into the neck of the dog.

Suppliers of these devices arranged for a number of standard

submissions to the RIS public consultation from their clients, in

particular from Rottweiler owners in Victoria and overseas. For

example, of 55 submissions suggesting that pinch collars were more

humane than choker chain collars 14 were late submissions from

Victoria and 27 were from overseas addresses, mainly the USA, who

appeared to be involved with Rottweiler breeding organisations or

trainers.

The issue for discussion in the RIS in terms of animal welfare

regulations was specifically the peculiarities of the use of pronged

collars of any type on any animal. Animal welfare organisations (e.g.

Australia Veterinary Association, Victorian Canine Association,

RSPCA and the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee) objected to

pronged training devices and pointed to their use on dogs as a major

example. Most dog training organisation during stakeholder

consultation pointed out that these devices should be viewed as

unnecessary training methods that were potentially cruel. They also

viewed choker collars in the same way. But the issue brought forward

for consideration was for a ban on the use of pronged collars on

animals.

Users of these collars submitted that they believed they were an

effective tool for training of dogs that they previously could not control.

There appeared to be no recognition of the manner of operation of the

prongs on the skin and upper neck of the dog.

Dog training and animal welfare organisations pointed to the device’s

negative training purpose (punishment) and design intended to push

metal points increasingly into the skin and underlying tissues of the

upper neck where dogs are most sensitive. They are difficult to

maintain high on the neck as required when used, are liable to cause

skin injury if not fitted and used correctly, and are generally viewed by

mainstream dog trainers as liable to cause injury when other training

techniques are recommended.

The relative merits between two negative reinforcement devices was

not considered. The issue was broader than use merely on dogs,

So their biggest concerns are:

* That a prong can be used incorrectly or inappriately and cause injury to the dog

* That they "are difficult to maintain high on the neck as required when used"

* Not necessary as they believe there are other training methods available

* Animal welfare societies believe that prong collars and choke chains are cruel

I'm pretty certain that if this was approached well that all of these concerns could be addressed. They did not have any medical basis for the ban and much of what was listed above was based on heresay, not facts. If presented with some solid evidence and facts, as well as a reasonable (like Erny's) solution I think we may have a tiny little chance at getting somewhere.

So um...yeah, if something needs to be signed/researched/etc count me in I'm shocking at writing and speaking but I'll help in any way I can.

[SpikesPuppy]

I think the most difficult thing is getting past the stigma of using a pronged implement on such an animal as a dog. Regardless of whether they work or not, they look quite barbaric, like some peice of medieval torture device. A head halter looks and sounds gentle and humane. But honestly, the idea of controlling a dog by putting several spikes around it's neck just sounds awful (this is not what I believe but it's what people who don't know the truth do and will think). Like tail docking, the general population only sees that were are cutting a pup's tail off, they don't think about the possible benefits behind doing it. All they see is the pain.

Think about it - if you knew nothing about dogs or dog training and someone showed you a prong collar and said "I put this on my dog's neck", you would probably step back thinking how horrid this person was!

I dunno, maybe something needs to be done about the design and appearance of the collar? How about making them in different colors?

I used to be anti prongs after witnessing a horrific incident which involved an idiot, a Rottweiler and a sharpened prong collar. I've sinced learned that used correctly, and not sharpened!!!!! They can be an invaluable tool and can help save a dog's life.

[oonga]

spike puppy,

i agree we do need to educate the general public!!

i have said before i was quite surprised at the narrow minded opinion of my friends and people at work, who have not even seen one, just mentioned what they are, and how wrong it is that they are banned in victoria, when so many people and dogs could benefit from them!

perhaps you are onto something in regards to having them look a bit different?

but i also think we need to get out there en masse and educate people about the reality of them.

funny about head halters / gentle leaders i think they look terrible on dogs, and i would hate to have to use one, however if my mentor suggested that it would be a good idea, i would put my visual view of them aside and give it a go ;)

Erny,

you are certainly on the right track with the amendment idea!!

like i said in another post i believe they should be used in consultation with a trainer, a point was bought up that once known how to use they are easy to use. a very valid point, however apart from them being sold everywhere if there is no boundaries with them,

i can see how it would be easier to do it this way to make it an amendment rather than a reversal of a law!

count me in for this battle that we are going to win!!