How Can We Go About Getting Prong Collars

[Rom]

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

I'd be worried that the plastic prong could do more harm than good to the debate. If you're trying to sell a concept based on a quality product, you don't demo the concept with a cheap imitation

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.

This sux, eh?! One thing that I took away from the Jan Fennell seminar that I like is the following quote: "The mind is like a parachute...it only works when it is open" Best thing to do here is to impress them with the performance of your dog after training with Steve's methods.

It looks like the Vic legislation is based on a very shaky foundation and I'm all up for anything I can do to help here!

ETA: another thought. If the RSPCA was involved in forming the legislation perhaps they can be asked for stats on what objects have actually been used to perpetrate the cruelty in cases that they have actually been able to prosecute? Things that come to mind are dogs being cooked in ovens, dogs being thrown out of windows, dogs being dragged behind cars, dogs being battered with blunt instruments...nothing to do with training equipment!

The other thing that I find hypocritical is that check chains are known to cause injury, yet why is it that they haven't fallen under the same legislation?

Edited November 21, 2006 by Rom

[MonElite]

I have been a member of two ob clubs and was basically thrown out form one for walking onto the ground with Rex ona half prong.

At the other club I aproached a person in charge saying I have a problem can I please use this tool as its recomended by a professional and Ill cover it so that no other people see it.

She reluctantly agreed but knew me well enough to trust taht I wont obuse the tool.

Since than we have quietly recomended the prongs to few people in our club, its rare when we do but when a 45 kg female walkes in with a charging tank on legs (example: huge male rottie) and has no control of the dog than its time to step in with the right tools.

[cavNrott]

.

Edited May 29, 2009 by cavNrott

[Erny]

All quotes taken from the Vic Govt's report as posted by Jaybeece above:-

By pulling on a sliding chain the prongs on a second chain are raised and forced into the neck of the dog.

Wrong. The prongs are rounded and bent and the action of the links closed the prongs on the skin of the dog, not into its neck.

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.

Huh?

So, even though I'm sure formally prepared and documented submissions would have given rise to explanation as to the operation of the prongs, are they saying here that the submissions from individuals didn't also give them this explanation? If that's the case, then this needs to be remedied and not repeated the second time around.

Most dog training organisation during stakeholder consultation pointed out that these devices should be viewed as unnecessary training methods that were potentially cruel.

And the same could be said of the head collar; the flat collar; the martingale; the no-pull harness; the check chain; not to mention some owners, even in the absence of any training equipment.

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

How can they use "public opinion" as any part or form of basis for decision to legislation prohibition on a tool that the majority of "public" don't know of, about or understand? What percentage of this "public opinion" even derived from dog owners? How many of them even trained their dogs?

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.

Hhhhmmm. So, a headcollar is designed to apply pressure to areas associated with the nerve rich craneal area at the rear of the skull, as well as across the muzzle close to/at the nerve rich area in the proximity of the eyes. A no-pull harness is designed to apply pressure to areas associated with the nerve rich areas located underneath the dog's forearms. And none of these actions are viewed as punishment?

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 couldn't we say the same of ANY piece of equipment (training or no) that we use on and around our animals? What a useless statement this one is, IMO.

ETA: I would like any submission/argument to OMIT/AVOID emphasised comparison/reference to the check chain. I prefer the prong to the check chain, hands down. But as a result of the Vic Legislation banning prongs, the check chain is all that is left for SOME dogs who I've known to have already trialled - and failed - via certain other training methods and equipment and without which would certainly not be here and living happily today. If I know prongs are in, then I'm not so worried about the check chains, but I wouldn't like to be depleted from both pieces of equipment as a result of this possible appeal battle.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Erny

[Erny]

The metal prongs should only be made available for use under the instruction and guidance of a reputable, professional dog trainer IMO.

Yes .... and not for general sale/purchase at a pet shop either.

[SpikesPuppy]

Who would and how would the use and sale of prong collars be policed though? What's to say John Smith hands his collar over once he's finished with it (dog's trained, died, whatever) to Mary Jones down the road who then uses it on her dog?

I guess the collar could only be used whilst under direct instruction from a professional (but what makes a professional, reputable dog trainer? Bark Busters (for example) are considered 'reputable' by many who aren't in the know, but they are well known in this country!), but this would prove impractical and potentially very expensive. Whilst many people love their dogs, not all have the money for regular, private tuition, and what of those who live in rural areas and cannot attend regular training sessions? But could attend a single seminar or lesson in how to use the collar correctly.

I agree wholeheartedly that anyone who is to use one should be taught how to do so under guidance of someone who knows what they are doing, but i cannot see any way of policing this? Aside from only allowing certain people to sell them... but once the collar is sold, anything can happen and anyone can use one!

[Erny]

... how would the use and sale of prong collars be policed though? What's to say John Smith hands his collar over once he's finished with it (dog's trained, died, whatever) to Mary Jones down the road who then uses it on her dog?

... but once the collar is sold, anything can happen and anyone can use one!

Funny though ..... when they were legal in Victoria, I didn't see every tom, dick or harry running around with one. Probably for two reasons (a) They weren't sold in pet shops and (b) The cost of them (which is probably why pet shops didn't sell them, because the turn over wasn't that great).

Whilst I appreciate your concerns here, SP, you need to consider that at this point, check chains are sold willy nilly. ANYONE can use one. ANYONE can purchase a head collar and use one, also with dangerous ignorance, although no-one is up in arms about that. The people who live in rural areas who can't attend regular training sessions? Well .... how do they get on now? IMO, if they have issues with their dog then they have need of lessons and that requires them to get to some lessons.

I don't think we need to make this any more complicated than it needs to be.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Erny

[♪♫LMBC♫♪]

Hey, I had this great idea to stop people getting attacked by dogs! Why don't we just ban all the evil, aggressive, bad 'pit bulls' and restrict our right to use a valuable training tool to control our dogs! Sounds good to me!

Our government makes me laugh.

[Erny]

Hey, I had this great idea to stop people getting attacked by dogs! Why don't we just ban all the evil, aggressive, bad 'pit bulls' and restrict our right to use a valuable training tool to control our dogs! Sounds good to me!

Our government makes me laugh.

You're right PL. The government makes me laugh too. But that's what we've got. And that's what we have to work with and around. I appreciate your comments regarding BSL, but that is a separate argument and topic (one which I too have shared your sentiments) and is not really relevant to the topic in this thread. Let's not get off track and let's keep things to informative and constructive discussion pertaining to the re-legalising of prongs.

[♪♫LMBC♫♪]

Sorry Erny, just venting.

[Erny]

Sorry Erny, just venting.

I know. It gets that way sometimes. Stay cool, calm and focused.

[Alpha]

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.

Notice they name the animal welfare organisation but not the "training" organisations, wonder if any behaviouralists or handlers were invited to comment/advise?

That is the FATAL flaw with some legislation and becomes the crevice in which to place the lever. Exclusion, purposely or by geninue ommission opens the door for amendments based on other experts testimony and opinion. This has been done with many amendments, albeit, often minute in syntax and change but as the law is rendered, changes the whole meaning and who/what is encompasses.

Enough experts to counter what the leg'n states, enough stop gaps to alleviate mis use (Really though, how many people have seen/heard of a lot of mis use of PC's? Who here was not intro to it by an expereienced handler/trainer and given CLEAR, CONCISE instructions as to is uses, benefits and workings.Or used it under supervision. It's useage has been without real trauma WITHOUT monitoring for years)and we may as well give it a try.

I am willing to put my time into it......

[Kelpie-i]

Re my suggestion about the plastic prong..... Okay okay, bad idea!!!

There are so many good points raised in this thread and I think you should all get together and nut them out on paper and present it.

Notice they name the animal welfare organisation but not the "training" organisations, wonder if any behaviouralists or handlers were invited to comment/advise?

Actually there are some trainers/behaviourists on this committee, they are members of the PDTA (or something like that)....they also run a well known dog training school in various locations around Melbourne. It's a pity that they either didn't make an impact or perhaps didn't even try- who knows!!

Seriously guys, stop talking and start doing.....when do we start!!

[Rom]

Where do we start?

Do we form an association? Start fundraising to get legal help? Do we look for a sympathetic pollie and start collecting signatures for petition for this stuff to be raised in parliament, and if we do, how do we word the petition...need to get it right the first time? Do we look for a film maker wanting to make a contoversial documentary? Or all of the above?

I've never been in on the beginning of something like this before, so whilst I'm happy to start, don't want to go be the fool charging in and causing more damage or making the fight harder.

[Erny]

I'm going to try to get hold of some submissions that were made when the legislation to ban were proposed. Was indirectly informed (after the ban was legislated) by a polly "in the know" that these submissions weren't even read.

Don't know if the "keeper" of the submissions will provide them, or even if they have been kept. But will ask. Might be a start.

[Roguedog]

hi guys, although not in Vic, would be more than happy to do what I can to help get the prong back in vic... signatures, letters, whatever is needed....

[jesomil]

These are all fantastic replies. I knew by posting this on here i would get some good ideas and discussions.

But as someone else said, where do we start?? It is something that has to be done very carefully and professionally. I have been looking into a few things.

Maybe a good start would be to speak to someone who works in the legal field?

[oonga]

well i sent an email to a lawyer that is not at all related to this field,

but is a workcover lawyer,

just asking for advice or if he knew of a lawyer who would be related to this field, unfortunately i have not yet heard back

i like Erny's idea of getting those submissions if she can.

i do think we probably need to get together and have a serious talk about our options, and what strategies to use.

[MonElite]

Might be a start, dont know but there is a lawyer Malcolm Mc Donald he owns dobermanns and is/was a breeder/exhibitor.

02 47314055

[Alpha]

I will search the Hansard for who put up the proposed leg'n and if I work back from there we can get some names, organisations, etc. Erny is right, subs are often not read but b/c of who puts then forward ( Hugely Worthless, et.al) that Govt takes it as the god told truth.