Erny

Please STOP!!! This is not the thread to discuss why prongs are ok (or for those others who disapprove, "or not"). Take that discussion (if you want to do it all again) to another thread ..... please. It is enough that I am going to be trying to collate information for the submission. I don't need to wade through people's discussions (albeit that they may well hold merit) as well. If people want to post saying they don't like prongs, please ignore them, or take it up with them via a new thread. The rest already know and understand the virtues of a prong-collar. If the others want to find out more about them, they can use the search engines for old discussions or start another thread. But that is not the purpose of this one. Please respect that. Or I will too easily become confused with my information gathering efforts.

Can someone provide me the relevant section of the NSW Act that prescribes this? If I can suggest wording for the govt to use, it might make it even easier for them to agree to adjust the legislation as it presently stands here in Vic.

Thanks Arya - I have already included the "physics" of the prong-collar in my (incomplete) draft bulletted (sp?) page. I agree that photo's and even videos would be a good back-up to the contents of the submission. Good idea. I will most likely concentrate on that side of things once the submission is pretty much in place. But if anyone has anything like this they'd like to contribute in the meantime, I'd welcome your contact. Myszka .... thanks for your thoughts too. Although modified versions of the prong will not form a major point of the submission, it is possible these variations can be mentioned. But I don't really want to take the attention away from our request that the ban be lifted on the prong itself. All good ideas and these are appreciated. I need these, but what I also need - badly - are reports/submissions in relation to each or any of the above categories. So anything you can send through, please do.

Thanks for your responses. I have received the emails sent to me. Appreciated. I know people will have their thoughts and opinions regarding the prong collar - that's been well discussed in many other and numerous other threads. This thread is not for that purpose. If you don't like the thought of prong collars I'd ask that you start a new or resurrect an old thread to hash it around some more, if that's your inclination. As another poster has mentioned - if you don't like them, you have the perogerative to begin your own submission in that vein, although you'd need to back it up with sound, factual knowledge, experience and evidence for it to bear weight. And as I mention, my plans for the submission is not to highlight the ramifications of other pieces of equipment (that's not to say they won't be mentioned for discrete but comparative purposes) and nor is it the purpose of this thread - that's been done before in many other threads as well. I'll continue to look forward to responses and as they gather, to collate them to their appropriate categories as listed above (to which I have added one extra, as sensibly suggested by another). Cheers! Erny PS Denis - Akita's post was directed to me.

I am (ever so slowly) working on a submission to the Victorian Government to lift the "ban" on Pressure Point Collars (aka as "pinch" or "prong" collars) and bring them under permitted "restricted" use. Similar to that of e-collars, although without, I think, the necessity of Vet permission. To this end it is my plan to present a card indexed 'folder' style submission. Within that folder I visualise a number of different sections :- Covering letter - speaking in layman's terms and outlining in base summary the virtues a change in the legislation would provide. Bulletted page/s summarising contents of the material contained within and throughout the folder. Submissions/stories professing and pertaining to medical evidence of physical safety in the use of the prong collar on the dog. Professional (eg. Vet) submissions in this regard preferred but not to exclude the possibility of submission from the non-professional if it pertains. Submissions/papers on the physiological effect of the prong on the dog - how it works and why. Links to these papers will do - I can print them off from here. But reputable sources are prefered. Submissions/stories by the general pet-dog owner - stories of their own use, including failures before use and successes after use (of the prong). Submissions from those whose only safe and humane choice of appropriate and suitable equipment is that of the prong (ie. physical limitations of the dog). Submissions from any dog owner expressing their own physical limitations which make the use of other forms of equipment less desireable/effective. (eg. limited use of hands etc.) Submissions from trainers experienced in the use of the prong-collar, including their views (and giving where possible, examples of own experiences) in comparison to use of other equipment styles. Common myths/misconceptions. If anyone can think of another appropriate 'section' that can and should be included as a separate index within this folder and that would not be covered by the above, please let me know. I am inviting (ie asking ) for interested people to provide submissions (either made by themselves, or out-sourced - but they must be current and factual) to me for this purpose. My email address is [email protected] So that I can keep them all together would you please type the words "Prong submission" in the "re" section of the email header. In the body of your email it will help if you suggest which of the above categories you believe your attached contribution falls under. Please bear in mind that the submissions/stories are desired to highlight the real virtues of the appropriate and applicable use of the prong, not to highlight anyone's aversion to other equipment styles/types. When I have something in reasonable order, I plan to gather with other of esteemed and knowledgeable trainers for their input towards a finalisation of the order of the folder, before formal submission to Government. Well ...... that's my plan, anyway. So for now, seeking help to accumulate the information required (as above). Other suggestions are welcome but all help appreciated.

Careful Jeff ...... or I'll be telling Herr Rottweiler on you.

Oi !!! What you mean by that?!! Heh? :shakehead: Hhhhhmmm ?

Realitybites : How is that possible !!!!!!! Hey!!!! Just give me a call and we can set up an appointment !! Contact numbers are in my website via the link below. I loooooove challenges.

Thanks Mel. That is a good part of the initial reason why I began this thread. I'm not a big believer in neutering being the "fix" that some Vets suggest it to be, but it is easier when dealing with behaviour problems to know how much of it is or might be influenced by testosterone flow. It can also help convince the general owners who are otherwise reluctant to desex their male dog, when they note a discernible and sometimes calmer difference in their dog's behaviour after implant. I think it serves as a 'buffer' and gets them used to the idea of their dog being de-sexed too. Wyhld - no probs. Can't say I agree with the "ball implants" either. Absolutely no good use for the dog - simply vanity on behalf of the owner, IMO. Thanks for the feedback, SM and SnT. SnT - Will have a read with interest of the link you've supplied regarding the implant for the bitches. Thank you.

Then that's not quite as difficult a problem. Work to reward with high value reward (eg food treat, assuming she's that way inclined) for the preferred/better gait (which by your account should come with the better tail carriage). Also be mindful of your own body language - do your best to appear as relaxed in the showring as you are elsewhere. Dogs are incredibly perceptive of very minute changes in our body language, as you'd be aware. These are the sorts of things they can pick up on that make a difference to their behaviours. Good luck.

I thought along these lines too, LP ..... but given tail carriage is generally the result of an involuntary emotional (rather than a voluntary conscious) state, I would be thinking the dog is more likely to simply pair the "reward" for the gaiting than for the tail carriage. Hardly any harm to try though, but I wouldn't pin my hopes on its success. Just my thoughts. ETA: Except I wonder that, if the tail was down, the gaiting might not be quite what is preferred - and the reward might be perceived by the dog for minimalised gaiting without any thought of tail carriage.

Seita - I'm sorry if I offended you by questioning. I assure you it was an innocent question and on reflection I would imagine that if the tail carriage was due to any physical fault a judge would pick it up anyway. I agree with ShellyBeggs. If the tail carriage is the result of over-excitement, then neutralising to that excitement is what will help in bringing the tail carriage to its normal, casual position.

When I had Kal, and in the early days, she had a tendancy to get up on my bed when I wasn't looking. Not only was it soft but it was warm. Toasty warm. Problem being it is a water bed - with a mattress not to match the strength of her otherwise innocent talons!! Apart from the initial "prevention" and training for it to be understood as a behaviour I did not want, I ended up "setting-up" the situation for her to self-correct. For me it was easy - she absolutely hated the sound of squeaky toys ..... so I got hold of quite a number of the "squeak" mechanisms and placed them, ready to "squeak" under the doona. End of problem.

LL : In fairness, I don't think Denis was 'name-calling' .... I read his post as simply a response to (invited?) thoughts on Karen Overall's work in relation to 'scientific' studies. There are some people I haven't met, but don't think much of them through what I have heard and of their writings I have read. This is not to say they are not nice or good people in general nor that they don't have something to contribute to the dog-world. I have enjoyed some of Karen's written work in relation to the behaviour of dogs but admittedly have not investigated/researched/critiqued as to how they stack up 'scientifically'. I appreciate the finer points Denis has highlighted in the comparison of the two e-collar research papers mentioned. Kind of like sharpening a pencil ..... although in this case, my eyes - to not merely be daunted by the fact they are documented research papers but to look more closely at the fine print .......................... and perhaps the print that isn't even there.

On last checking (admittedly, some 6 months or so ago) there are e-collars that are considerably less than $500.00 and certainly not so unaffordable that the wanten problematic-dog owner might not consider it an option, if it were a widely known and used training tool. The person un-educated to e-collars is less likely to chose a collar on the 'finer attributes' many of the better collars sport. They are more likely to be influenced on price only. I agree that if someone WANTS to abuse their dog, there are many other and cheaper ways of going about it. But I can see where it is far too easy to abuse a dog - not through intent but as a result of the uneducated use of an e-collar. More than it would by any same physical level of applied correction - simply because with the e-collar there is no more effort on the part of the dog's owner in the application of what might otherwise be an excessive correction than there is of a lower stim. Physical corrections require physical administration by the handler. They cannot help but be aware of the increase of the latter form of correction. In Victoria, restricted use of the e-collar is already legislated. ETA: In my opinion extra care is also required so the dog is not likely to pair the e-stim with the wrong behaviour or element within the proximate environment. This is something the novice handler often has not given thought to, until having it explained by someone with some degree of knowledge of the collar and its possible affects.

Isn't that 'cheating' ? Don't (some) people buy because they want pups that have all likelihood of meeting breed standard? I'm not suggesting the OP's dog has this "incorrect croup set".

I'm not sure what you mean by this . Just curious - and upfront apologies if it is saying something more obvious than what I can see. But do you mind explaining what you mean by "do not use the word "Tail" ??

Apart from training (ie praising for NOT being on couch; correction - appropriate style & intensity for your dog - when it GOES to get on couch) you need to include preventative measures for when you are not around (until they are in the habit of not getting up there at all). This might be as simple as denying access to that room unless you are around to control their activities. Take into account how long it's been OK for the dogs to use the couch and factor that in when you are calculating a reasonable period of time for them to unlearn (so to speak) it. Your dogs might get the idea in the few weeks you have, but unless your Dad follows through with the training and also denies them access to the couch, you will probably find their new-found training is not reliable enough to not be tempted by the time he comes home. Giving the dogs their own 'place to be/rest' would make it a whole lot easier for them to learn. In otherwords, show them what TO do (ie where to lay down) in place of their old behaviour is much clearer for them than simply telling them what NOT TO DO - especially given they've been allowed to do it in the past. If they do have a place you could also tether them so that they can lay on their beds but not reach to the couch. This method sets them up to 'win' and is a way of starting out to tell them what TO do before you apply the NOT TO element of the re-training. ETA: If your wife doesn't want mats in the lounge room am I assuming correctly that she doesn't want them to lay in the loungeroom? If this is the case, deny them access to the lounge room altogether until they get used to retiring to their comfy mats elsewhere in the house.

Is tail carriage part of "breed standard"? If so, wouldn't training her (if this is possible) to keep it low be misrepresenting her 'norm'? Is the manner in which she carries her tail the norm? Or is it only when she is in the presence of (eg) other dogs? Tail carriage when viewed against the individual dog's usual carriage normally depicts emotional status.

Is she butting you with her nose AFTER she has completed the recall and the sit in front? Or is she butting you with her nose because she's come in so fast and so close from the recall, and then sitting?

Denis - although your question was directed to NW, and I'm sure he'll return here and respond .... I am compelled to confess that I'm not inclined to appreciate e-collars being completely and freely available to the general dog-owning layperson. Well, I guess moreover, for the e-collar not to be promoted as a general fix-all training tool. The head-collar is similarly promoted. It too comes with DVD's and instructions, and yet time and time again I see them being incorrectly fitted and used. Admittedly, I don't think the head-collar instructions set out the "dangers" of incorrect handling or fitting clearly enough - so some must be said for the thoroughness of instruction. But I believe many people either don't read the information or if they do, don't follow it. I too often hear of dog-owners, who, having some training/behaviour issue or other, saying they've managed their dog's issue in a certain way because they know of someone else who has done similarly. Many people, for example, jump straight to the suggestion of electronic (or other type) anti-bark collars because their dog barks. They don't have the knowledge enough to stop and ask why the dog is barking nor whether the anti-bark collar would be appropriate in their dog's situation. If RT e-collars are promoted as freely as anti-bark collars have been, then yes .... I can identify where issues can develop. Some behaviours are born from anxiety based causes - there are many people who would not know to realise this and innocently (or using your word, perhaps "thickly") seek to address symptom rather than cause. One might suggest that a layperson who is so inclined to merely "correct" a dog's behaviour in the ignorance of understanding what they are doing or whether it is appropriate, could do the same with any training tool. However, I can see it more easily being used incorrectly, as increasing the e-stimulation generally only requires the turn of a dial. Increasing the intensity of a physical correction via a chain or prong requires direct 'muscle' and I think this brings people to being more mindful of what they are doing and to what intensity. ETA: Although I wish they'd get instruction on the correct use of these too, before they start using them incorrectly on their dogs. I would also be concerned that the general lay-person dog owner could become impatient with the dog's training and deliver e-stims at higher levels than they should when their reasons for doing so might translate to poor training on the handler's part in the first place. I admit I err on the side of caution. I am also aware that given the cost of the e-collars it is not likely to be a general household training tool (although anti-bark collars are not exactly few and far between). I think "restricted" use helps to create an opportunity where the dog and the dog's behaviour can first be assessed by someone more "knowing" to determine suitability for e-collar use and to help the owner understand and find the dog's working level stim.

Will do. Oh .... just worked out what the "TIA" means at the bottom of your last couple of posts. "Thanks in Advance". I initially was thinking "Transient Ischemic Attack".

Ewwwwwww ..................... me thinks some, ummmm, personal body protection would be the go there, if one was game. So - if these dogs, who've been put through some harsh training, were the "types" used in the Schilder study, how does one draw a confident conclusion that the use of the e-collar during the course of the study was the cause for their signs of stress?

Interestingly, the research material given by LL in other thread "Training dogs with help of the shock collar" by Matthijs B.H. Schilder and Joanne A.M. van der Borg purports to suggest training with e-collar produces more stress in the dog. Whereas the research material given by Denis "Clinical signs caused by the use of the electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations" by E. Schalke, J. Stichnoth, S. Ott and R. Jones-Baade concludes that animals did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators with the e-collar as the learning tool, provided they were able to clearly associate the e-stimulus with their action. (And without intending bias pre-reading the material, isn't this akin with the natural "Laws of Learning" of any animal anyway?) Noteably, both pieces of research material have been produced by "ScienceDirect (Animal Behaviour Science)" and both make references to many of the same reference materials. I am yet to thoroughly read each but I expect that the comparisons will prove interesting and enlightening. At least, I hope so. It will also be interesting to see if the differences in approach to the experiments conducted to achieve their respective conclusions will be like comparing apples with apples, or apples with oranges. Thanks for the information. Always look forward to a bit of open-minded learning.

No it isn't, at this stage, to my knowledge, WS. Although I will be checking out further shortly.