As a judge, I have to say that I wholeheartedly now advocate for the complete opposite of inclusion of prongs. The reason I have for this is that when covered prongs with a quick release were allowed in the new rules I had an idea in my head that we could accept any version of a prong that did not appear to be bare wire and had a quick release mechanism. That in fact included the plastic prongs with quick release in my interpretation. With Robin’s response, now I question what definition we go with and thus when and how to describe that I am in fact NQing someone and why I’m doing that. “Well X has a prong and didn’t get NQ!”, my response would have to be “but theirs is covered” or “that’s not a prong collar as defined by the BHA”.
Plus we need a place to point to that definition. It definitely has now opened up a can of worms from a judging perspective and leaves gaping holes in definition and applicability.
BHAJ-248A Niagara Falls, NY