Prong Collar Submission - Victorian Gov

This is a submission I put forward to help support a collegue in her submission to the victorian Government to have the ban on prong collars in Victoria lifted.

SUBMISSION TO VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT

Natural Communication with Canines and the Pressure Point Collar

I am presenting this submission to support [name witheld] submission in regards to the Victorian Governments ban on the Pressure Point Collar (PP Collar), AKA: Prong Collar, Pinch Collar.

Firstly I would like to address the dangers that the Victorian Government has in their wisdom stated are inherent in regards to the use of the PPC.

The Victorian Government have decided that these collars are designed, to quote the Honourable Minister Mr Bob Cameron, “cut into a dogs neck when pulling on the leash” In over 28 years of training dogs in a professional manner, and with a background in police dogs and specialising in dominance and dog aggression, I have not once in all these years seen a dogs neck cut by using a PP Collar.

I have over the years prescribed the use of these collars, and have as yet had anyone complain to me that the collar caused any damage to a dog’s neck. On the contrary all have praised the workings of this collar.

Of all the dog owners that I have prescribed these collars to, at least 90% have found them very effective in helping them gain control of an otherwise unruly or head strong dog and without causing the dog any trauma or injury.

Why is a PP Collar so effective?

The PP Collar is designed to imitate the pressure applied when a dog is correcting or dominating another dog. Dogs instinctively apply pressure to the neck of subordinate dogs in an act of dominance and to correct unwanted behaviour. Mothers correct their pups in the same manner. Just as a dog does not apply enough pressure to penetrate the skin of the subordinate dog, either is the PP Collar designed to act in such a manner. The collar, because of the way it is designed places pressure on the dog’s neck in much the same way a dog places pressure on a subordinate dog. Dogs instinctively understand this form of correction, as they have been using this type of correction for tens of thousands of years. Most carnivorous pack animals use this type of correction on subordinate pack members to maintain control and maintain its position within the pack.

These collars are one of the most humane and natural ways of establishing in the dogs mind that the human owner is higher in the pack, because of this natural instinct inherent in all canines.

If it wasn’t for me recommending the PP Collar to many of my clients, I know that many of these dogs would most probably not be alive today. Many had tried other training equipment such as correction chains, halter’s, etc, and other training methods such a food based totally positive methods, all to no avail.
I feel the number one reason the Victorian Government has decided to ban these collars, is due to emotive pressure placed on them by animal welfare groups that have no scientific basis for their claims. I am sure if anyone challenged these welfare groups in a court of law, as for example the case in the Melbourne Supreme Court, ’ Innotek vs RSPCA in regards to static pulse collars’, enough evidence would be produced to discredit all of the negative emotive information that has been put out by these groups in regard to these collars. But unfortunately as there is no individual or company in Australia that has a vested interest in the manufacture or supply of these collars, no challenge in a court of law will happen. The Victorian Government are being guided and advised by people/groups that have no professional experience in the use of these collars, nor a total understanding of the theory behind why these collars work and are so effective. If the RSPCA were so wrong in regards to static pulse collars as was proven in a court of law, isn’t it quite possible that they are wrong in regards to the PP Collar as well?
Can these collars be used in an abusive manner?

Yes, of course they can and so can an ordinary flat collar. Anything, no matter what its function or how safe it is, can be used in an abusive manner.

I have seen so many dog owners being inadvertently abusive to their dog using equipment that is recommended by the RSPCA and other animal welfare groups, and that are legal in Victoria. I have seen dogs wearing halter’s having their head whipped around by the owner causing pain. It has also been scientifically proven that skeletal and muscle damage to the neck area is highly likely when collars such as halters are used incorrectly due to their poor design.
I have seen dog owners walking their dogs down the street choking their dog and the dog virtually unable to breathe correctly due to incorrect use of correction chains. I have seen wounds from correction chains used incorrectly, dogs with red raw necks, and even bleeding from these wounds. It has also been scientifically proven that the incorrect use of correction chains can cause permanent damage to the tracheal and oesophageal. Yet this training equipment is legal and supported by the Victorian Government.

I for one would like to know what scientific study the Victorian Government used or referred to, to support their claim that the proper use of the PP Collar is cruel and will cause the collar to cut into the dogs neck when used correctly? And why these same rules for making these decisions were not also used in regards to other training equipment such as halter’s and correction chains?

Points to consider

PP Collars do not choke a dog or cause damage to the tracheal and oesophageal even if used incorrectly, as correction/choker chains have been proven to cause.

PP Collars cannot whip a dogs head to the side causing muscle and skeletal damage to the neck, even if used incorrectly, as halter’s have been proven to cause.

The amount of force required to puncture or cut into a dog’s neck (as suggested by the Honourable Mr Bob Cameron) with a PP Collar is immense. This same amount of force if used with a halter or correction chain would cause immense trauma and injury to the dog.

The PP Collar is designed to imitate a dogs natural instincts, and therefore if used correctly is a very humane and effective way to control a dog.

If the Victorian Government is basing their decision to ban PP Collars not on scientific research but on emotions, and due to that fact that they can be used abusively, then the Government really needs to look at every area of human society, and ban anything that can be used in an abusive manner. We don’t ban cars because they can be used abusively, yet look how many people are killed or maimed every year by this equipment.

The Victorian Government should be looking at how the equipment is designed to be used correctly, and not how it could be used incorrectly or abusively. I wholeheartedly agree that anyone found being abusive with any collar on a dog should be prosecuted. I have yet to hear of anyone being prosecuted for walking their dog down the street with their dog choking on a correction chain. Or the owner that whips their dogs head to the side using a halter. Isn’t this abuse? Why haven’t we heard of one RSPCA case of them prosecuting a dog owner for being abusive in such a way with their dog?

No professional dog trainer or behaviourist would promote or recommend any training equipment that was cruel to dogs. Why would this be in our own self interest? Our number one priority as professionals is to help educate and guide dog owners in responsible dog ownership. To help dog owners gain control of their beloved dog in the most humane way possible, and to ensure as many dogs as possible don’t end up in an animal shelter due to unwanted behaviour. The reason we as professional dog trainers and behaviourists chose this profession is due to our immense love for canines, and to promote responsible dog ownership and training. It saddens me that inexperienced people that don’t have the required knowledge in this area of expertise are making decisions for professionals in their field.

I believe a proper scientific study should be made on this collar before any emotive decision is made in regards to their use. Thousands of Australian dog owners have turned to the PP Collar as the only humane means they had available to control their dog. Are all these people so wrong, and lack bad judgement? Are the hundreds of dog trainers/behaviourists and Vets around Australia so out of step with society as to recommend a tool that was designed to be abusive?

I as a professional dog trainer and behaviourist sincerely and wholeheartedly support [name witheld] submission to the Government of Victoria to have this ban on the PP Collar lifted.

Mark Singer
February 3rd 2008