Meet Roger.

Roger is a former dog squad member and an experienced dog trainer who specialises in working with high-drive dogs and complex behavioural cases.

Roger does not like pain — including his own. He does not like hurting dogs. Roger loves dogs.

In this photo, a properly constructed and correctly fitted prong (often called “pinch”) collar is under visible tension. Roger is calm, relaxed and clearly not in distress.

This image is not suggesting that a pinch/prong collar is the only solution, or that it is suitable for all dogs. Like all training equipment, it is one tool among many, and training methods and equipment vary widely across dogs, disciplines, professional associations, trainers, and working-dog organisations. Some trainers and associations may choose to use it in limited contexts, while others may prefer different tools or approaches, depending on the dog, the behaviour being addressed, the handler’s skill, applicable regulations, and the training objective.

Different dogs require different approaches. Equipment choice depends on the dog, the behaviour being addressed, the handler’s skill, and the training objective.

The terms “prong collar” and “pinch collar” are misleading. They describe the appearance and construction of the collar — not that it pinches or injures dogs when used correctly.

The NSW Government is considering banning certain dog training equipment and introducing extreme penalties ($44,000 fines and up to 1 year in gaol), without ensuring a broad and balanced consultation with professional training associations, experienced dog trainers, and working-dog organisations that have direct experience in high-drive dogs and complex behavioural rehabilitation.

We support animal welfare. What we are asking for is better, more informed law-making.

Real-world context matters

A properly constructed and correctly used prong (pinch-style) collar is not designed to injure, harm or cause pain to a dog. As with any training or handling equipment, injury can occur as a result of:

• incorrect construction,
• poor fit, or
• misuse by untrained or inexperienced handlers.

These are education and competency issues, not evidence that the equipment itself is inherently cruel. 

The same principle applies to other dog training and handling equipment commonly used by members of the public:

• common collars such as the flat, choke check chains (small link) and fur savers (long link) can do significant damage to the trachea.
• misuse of head halters (e.g. Halti-type devices) can result in cervical strain, fractured vertebrae, facial injury or behavioural stress — particularly in strong or high-drive dogs.
• harnesses can affect gait and shoulders if fitted incorrectly,
• leads can cause injury through poor handling.

These items are not banned — because regulation rightly focuses on misuse and cruelty, not on banning tools outright.

Research and real-world experience must be considered together

University research is often cited both for and against certain training tools. The existing research base is limited and mixed. This small and inconsistent pool of research cannot reasonably outweigh decades of professional, experienced, and specialised on-the-ground practice by trainers, recognised professional training associations, and working-dog organisations that are accountable for real-world safety, welfare, and behavioural outcomes.

Research should inform education and best practice — not be used in isolation to justify blanket bans without meaningful consultation with those applying training responsibly in real-world conditions.

Existing cruelty laws already apply and NSW already has legislation that:

• prohibits cruelty,
• penalises abuse and neglect,
• allows enforcement action where harm occurs.

Government effort should focus on enforcing these laws and addressing serious welfare issues such as:

• illegal puppy farms,
• chronic neglect and abandonment,
• unregulated breeding practices,

rather than banning legitimate training aids used responsibly by experienced trainers, professional dog training associations and working dog organisations.

The consultation gap

Some advocacy-driven contributions in this policy area appear to be influenced by well-resourced and highly organised public campaigns. These perspectives are not grounded in practical experience working with:

• high-drive dogs
• working dogs
• complex behavioural rehabilitation cases

This creates a consultation gap between public advocacy and applied, real-world canine handling and training practice.

Meanwhile, experienced trainers (professional and non-commercial), professional training associations and working dog organisations are focused on training, safety, and welfare — rather than political advocacy — yet their expertise has not been adequately consulted.

What we are asking for

By signing this petition, you are calling on the NSW Government to:

• Pause any blanket ban on dog training equipment
• Consult properly with experienced dog trainers, professional dog training associations and working-dog organisations
• Regulate misuse and abuse, not tools
• Invest in education, competency and accountability
• Prioritise enforcement against genuine cruelty, not responsible practitioners

Animal welfare deserves expertise, balance and real-world understanding

Animal welfare legislation should be:

• balanced
• proportionate,
• informed by real-world expertise, and focused on outcomes — not optics.

Please sign to support fair, informed law-making in NSW.