The NSW Government wants to make it an offence to possess or use a prong collar, a specialist dog-training tool. Yet government working dogs have been publicly photographed wearing these same collars, and government dog handlers have protections when performing official duties.

So there is an obvious question:

If these tools are cruel, why are trained government dog handlers treated differently?

We support strong animal-welfare laws. But laws carrying serious penalties should also be fair, evidence-based, consistent and developed through genuine consultation.  We are asking the NSW Government to pause the proposed prohibition and consider proper regulation instead. 

• You don't have to like prong collars to sign this petition.
• You don't have to own one.
• You don't have to use one.
• You don't even have to agree with their use.

You simply need to believe that laws carrying serious penalties should be:

EVIDENCE-BASED • FAIR • CONSISTENT • TRANSPARENT

You can oppose a particular training tool and still believe the Government should make good law.

We want regulation — not open access

The Professional Dog Trainers of Australia (PDTA) is not asking for unrestricted access to specialist dog-training equipment.

We are asking for a regulated pathway for suitably qualified professionals and legitimate disability-related cases.

That could include verified competency, welfare standards, professional conduct requirements, record keeping, complaints processes and oversight.

People who don't meet those standards could lose their approval.

If trained government handlers can use specialist equipment under appropriate controls, why can't qualified civilian professionals be regulated to appropriate standards too?

Civilian trainers also help train government dog teams
Civilian professional dog trainers can be engaged to provide specialist expertise and training to government working-dog teams.

That creates another important question:

How can someone be qualified enough to help train a government dog team, but potentially unable to possess the same specialist equipment as a civilian professional?

The proposed legislation could also affect the ability of government agencies to access external specialist expertise.

The Government needs to explain how this will work before the law takes effect.

• This affects real people and real dogs.  This isn't just an argument about collars.
• It affects professional trainers working with serious behavioural problems.
• It can affect people with disability who need to safely manage large or powerful dogs.
• It affects families trying to rehabilitate a difficult dog rather than surrender it.
• And it may affect government working-dog teams that rely on external specialist trainers.

Removing a training option does not automatically create a better animal-welfare outcome.

Before creating criminal penalties, the Government should properly consider the possible effects on animal welfare, public safety, disability access, rehabilitation, dog surrender and euthanasia.

Were professional trainers properly consulted?

Earlier this year, 627 NSW residents signed an official NSW parliamentary petition asking the Government to consult professional dog trainers before changing these laws.

The Government later stated that it had consulted PDTA.

PDTA disputes that.

For more than six months, PDTA repeatedly asked to meet with the Government, offering evidence, professional expertise and practical demonstrations. Those requests did not result in meaningful consultation before the Government settled its position and introduced the legislation.

That disagreement has now been raised in the NSW Parliament.

The Government has also referred to more than 7,000 submissions received through broader animal-welfare consultation.

But how many specifically addressed these specialist dog-training tools?

Before possession itself becomes an offence, the public deserves to see the evidence behind that decision.

What are we asking the NSW Government to do?

We are asking the Government to:

1. PAUSE the proposed prohibition while these issues are properly considered.
2. PUBLISH the evidence specifically supporting the prohibition.
3. CONSULT professional trainers, disability stakeholders and others directly affected.
4. REGULATE legitimate professional use through clear competency, welfare and accountability standards.
5. PROVIDE an appropriate pathway for legitimate disability-related cases.
6. ASSESS the possible consequences for animal welfare, public safety, rehabilitation, surrender and euthanasia.
7. EXPLAIN how civilian professionals who train government dog teams will be affected.
8. PUBLISH a clear transition plan before criminal penalties begin.

 
You can oppose prong collars and still support fair law.

This petition is not asking you to agree with every dog-training method.

It is asking the NSW Government to publish its evidence, consult the people affected and properly consider responsible regulation before criminalising professional use.

If trained government handlers can use specialist equipment under appropriate controls, qualified civilian professionals deserve a fair and properly regulated pathway too.

Sign the petition and tell NSW: regulate responsibly, don't simply ban.

Protect dogs. Protect people. Make better law.