Jump to content

Import Ban On E-collar Lifted


 Share

Recommended Posts

I have been told from a supplier in the USA that the ban on e-coller's being imported to Australia has been lifted is this correct. If so this is great news as the Aussie dollar is good at the moment I we can buy at a resonable price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been told from a supplier in the USA that the ban on e-coller's being imported to Australia has been lifted is this correct. If so this is great news as the Aussie dollar is good at the moment I we can buy at a resonable price.

Yes it's correct, there have been threads about this here before. Remember tho' that even tho' the import ban may have been lifted, some state and territory law still bans them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the reply I recieved from Australian Customs a few months ago when I was trying to find the answer to this question:

Amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 - Repeal of the import control on electric dog collars.

On 1 December 2008 the import control on dog collars incorporating apparatus designed to cause an electric shock (including collars which emit a static pulse and are part of underground fence systems) was repealed. Consequently, a permit to import this type of collar is no longer required.

The change relates only to the importation of these goods. Some State and Territory authorities have their own requirements relating to the possession and use of this type of dog collar. It is the importer’s responsibility to make whatever enquiries are necessary to determine what, if any, requirements may apply in this regard.

The importation of dog collars that incorporate protrusions designed to bruise or puncture an animal’s skin is still restricted under a permit-based arrangement.

Further enquiries concerning these arrangements can be made by contacting Customs and Border Protection by email to [email protected], by telephone (02) 6275 6952 or by fax to (02) 6229 3840.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The c tick compliance is this difficult to get. How can it be restricted but allowed thats confusing who says we can or can't use them

K9: C tick have nothing to do with importation laws, so they just haven't changed. When the ban was in place some people were able to sneak a collar or two through, many just lost their money.

The problem now is that people in the US will sell them to you but if you get caught with a non compliant collar, they will not be responsible & cant be made responsible.

Buying from a genuine Australian dealer is more expensive, but being genuine means it will come with all taxes & duties paid & with C tick compliance and Australian warranty.

If it didn't & you have an issue, the problem would be on the supplier & if they are in Australia, the problem would be theirs not the end users.

We do sell them at the best price we can, but with all legitimate paperwork & compliance & we provide an Australian warranty, they are cheaper overseas of course but we cant of course supply people with illegal items as we offer lifetime support on our products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem at odds with the lifting of the import restrictions doesn't it?

But the way I see/understand it (and please, Steve, correct me if I'm wrong) is that under one legislation we can now import but under another legislation the e-collar is not deemed to have met use requirements unless it has a "C-tick".

Is that correct?

What legislation has it that a "C-tick" is required? In my readings of the various Acts I've not come across reference to a "C-tick" but I'd like to look it up to better understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem at odds with the lifting of the import restrictions doesn't it?

But the way I see/understand it (and please, Steve, correct me if I'm wrong) is that under one legislation we can now import but under another legislation the e-collar is not deemed to have met use requirements unless it has a "C-tick".

Is that correct?

What legislation has it that a "C-tick" is required? In my readings of the various Acts I've not come across reference to a "C-tick" but I'd like to look it up to better understand it.

The "C" tick is a radiocommunications compliance label administered by the Australian Communications & Media Authority. To get the C tick an electronic item needs to comply with a particular Australian Standard (the number of which I can't remember) which is supposed to guarrantee that it won't interfere with other radio communications services. You can find more details at ACMA.

In the USA the regulatory authority is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

The rules for short range devices such as e-collar transmitters only require the importer/ seller to certify that the equipment complies. No Australian laboratory testing is required.

Given that the major e-collar manufacturers, (Dogtra, Tritronics, Innotek) export to many countries, you will probably find the US manufacturer will ensure that equipment complies and will affix the C tick or whatever regulatory label applies to the country they are sending to the equipment before dispatch. It wouldn't be done by the local dealer.

So you may be able to buy equipment direct from a US manufacturer that is compliant but as has been mentioned earlier the advantage of buying from a local dealer is the ability to easily phone the dealer and berate him and get warranty service if the item breaks down, which might prove difficult if bought overseas.

In practice, remote control e-collar transmitters are only used in short bursts so it would be difficult for them to cause interference or be detected causing interference. On the other hand, signals from ínvisible fence' systems obtained from a local dealer and supposedly compliant come through loud and clear on my AM radio. Hopefully now that digital radio broadcasting has commenced since last week we will soon be able to ditch AM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "C" tick is a radiocommunications compliance label administered by the Australian Communications & Media Authority. To get the C tick an electronic item needs to comply with a particular Australian Standard (the number of which I can't remember) which is supposed to guarrantee that it won't interfere with other radio communications services. You can find more details at ACMA.

In the USA the regulatory authority is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

K9: Yes I believe the above all to be correct.

The rules for short range devices such as e-collar transmitters only require the importer/ seller to certify that the equipment complies. No Australian laboratory testing is required.

Given that the major e-collar manufacturers, (Dogtra, Tritronics, Innotek) export to many countries, you will probably find the US manufacturer will ensure that equipment complies and will affix the C tick or whatever regulatory label applies to the country they are sending to the equipment before dispatch. It wouldn't be done by the local dealer.

K9: No this is incorrect, as in Aust we have needed a permit to import previously, from my understanding, Tri Tronics for one have not ensured their products comply.

Also, Dogtra wont sell to Aust residents as they have dealer here, the collars that would be sent here from the US would be intended for sale elsewhere so dont come with the label affixed.

So you may be able to buy equipment direct from a US manufacturer that is compliant but as has been mentioned earlier the advantage of buying from a local dealer is the ability to easily phone the dealer and berate him and get warranty service if the item breaks down, which might prove difficult if bought overseas.

K9: Items that comply are affixed with an approval label which certifies the item is C Tick compliant, in the Dogtra brand for example, I have never seen one imported come with this lable affixed as they were not inteded for sale in Australia.

ie the only C Tick compliant units are the ones sold here by approved dealers.

In practice, remote control e-collar transmitters are only used in short bursts so it would be difficult for them to cause interference or be detected causing interference.

K9: It is a chance I guess one may take but radio signals can certainly travel a lot further than the manufacturer intends, some peple have reported signal skip on water up to 1000km.

A company here definately could not take the risk of interfearing with radio waves such as transmitters that deploy explosives for example.

As mentioned previously, it would be cheaper for us to import these units without the add on costs of legal importation, but if we cant sell them legally, perhaps people should not use them illegally?

I will shoot a email to the ACMA & see what they say these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A company here definately could not take the risk of interfearing with radio waves such as transmitters that deploy explosives for example.

Wow! What a correction THAT would be :laugh:. Puts a different meaning to "Double Trouble".

I didn't ever think about interference to explosive devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...