The Agenda for the meeting of the Kennel Club Agility Liaison Could to be held at 10.00am at Clarges Street, Piccadilly, London W1 are as follows.

ITEM 1.          APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

ITEM 2.          APPROVAL OF MINUTES

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 2007 (Copies previously distributed.)

ITEM 3.          MATTERS ARISING/RESULTS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

a.         Regulation Changes

The Council is invited to note that, at its meeting on 9 October 2007, the General Committee approved the amendments to the following Regulations with effect from 1 January 2008.

1. Regulation H(1).9.f – Splitting graded classes

2. Regulation H(1)(B).4.(3) – Second and third measurements

3. Regulation H(1)(B).4.(10) – Measuring identification

4. Regulation H(1)(B).4.(13) – Measuring appeal dates

b.         Championship Qualifiers

The Council is invited to note that the WTOA Sub-Committee confirmed that a reserve dog could not be taken forward if one of the top fifty percent withdrew from the final round of a Championship Agility Class.

c.         Kennel Club International Agility Festival

Mr Ray will give a verbal progress report on the work of the 2008 Kennel Club International Agility Festival.

d.         European Open Agility Competition

Mr Gilbert will give a verbal progress report on the European Open 2008, plus suggestions for 2009.

e.         Agility Measurers

The Council is requested to discuss the Measurer applications received for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

            (Annex A refers for representatives only)

f.          Wishing Well

Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).3.h.

            FROM:

Wishing Well or Lych Gate - Wishing Well or Lych Gate – This obstacle will have a roof of which the bottom will be not less than 1.524m (5ft) from the ground. It will have a displaceable top bar the height of which will be between 550mm (1ft 9.6ins) and 650mm (2ft 1.6ins). The minimum width should be 813mm (2ft 8ins)

TO:

Wishing Well – This obstacle will be of stable construction and will be able to be fixed to the ground. To ensure the safety of the dog, it will have no sharp edges. Should a design be utilised which involves a removable centre section then the resultant corners must be rounded or padded.  It will have a roof of which the bottom will be no less than Large Dogs - 1500mm, Medium Dogs - 1220mm, Small Dogs - 950mm from the ground. The roof must not project beyond the width or depth of the base. It will have a displaceable top bar the height of which will be between Large Dogs - 550mm & 650mm, Medium Dogs - 350mm & 450mm, Small Dogs, 250mm & 350mm.

The minimum space from the top of the bar to the top of the base will be 200mm or 150mm if the bar height is 250mm.

The minimum width of the top bar will be 800mm.

The overall width of the base will be between 1200mm & 1400mm. The depth of the base which the dog jumps will be a maximum of Large Dogs - 500mm, Medium Dogs - 350mm, Small Dogs - 250mm.  (Amendments underlined)

At the July 2007 Agility Liaison Council meeting, the above Regulation was recommended, following a unanimous vote. However, shortly after the meeting, an equipment manufacturer raised some concerns. Following on from their comments, amendments to the above recommended Regulation are proposed. The Council is invited to discuss which proposal it supports.

TO:

First paragraph as above.

The minimum space from the top of the bar to the top of the base will be 105mm for Small dogs, 150mm for Medium dogs and 160mm for Large dogs.

The overall width of the base will be between 1200mm & 1400mm. The depth of the base which the dog jumps will be a maximum of Large Dogs - 550mm, Medium Dogs - 400mm, Small Dogs - 300mm. (Amendment underlined)

g.         Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(A).9.b./Grade 2 Starters -John Gilbert

FROM:

For owners, handlers or dogs which have qualified out of Grade 1 but have not gained a first place in an Agility Class or three first places in Jumping Classes at Grade 2 at Kennel Club licensed Agility Shows, or elected to progress on points from Grade 1.  N.B. Owners, handlers or dogs previously qualified out of Grade 2 (Starters) are not eligible for this class.

TO:

Open to dogs which are not eligible for Grades 1,3,4,5,6,7, and have not gained a first place in an Agility Class or three first places in Jumping Classes at Grade 2 at Kennel Club licensed Agility Shows, or elected to progress on points from Grade 1.  N.B. Owners, handlers or dogs previously qualified out of Grade 2 (Starters) are not eligible for this class. (Amendment underlined)

This proposal has been put forward to address the anomaly in the current regulations, which prevents a Grade 1 handler from running a Grade 2 dog (owned by someone else) in a Grade 2 class. At present a Grade 1 handler can run a Grade 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 dog in their appropriate Grade, but cannot run a Grade 2 dog in a Grade 2 class.

h.         Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(A).9.  John Gilbert

FROM:

Only first prizes and points gained in standard classes at Kennel Club licensed Agility Shows may be used for progression through the classes. (A dog is only eligible for one grade).

TO:

Only first prizes and points gained in standard classes at Kennel Club licensed Agility Shows may be used for progression through the classes. (A dog is only eligible for one grade).

For Grade 1 the three jumping wins and points progression referred to apply only to ONE dog and not an accumulation of dogs handled or owned.

FROM:

N.B. Owners, handlers or dogs previously qualified out of Grade 1 (Elementary) are not eligible for this class.

TO:

N.B. However, once an owner (with a single dog) or handler (with a single dog) or a dog, has achieved 3 jumping wins, or 1 agility win, or elected to progress on points, they are no longer eligible for Grade 1. (Amendment underlined)

This proposal has been put forward, as requested by the Agility Liaison Council, for clarification on multiple wins. It was not intended that handlers could progress by adding wins together from multiple dogs owned or handled. In previous Regulations, only one result was needed to progress from Elementary and Starters, so this anomaly has only surfaced now due to the requirement of 3 jumping wins.

i.          Worcester Agility Society  Dave Ray

Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).3.k

FROM:

Weaving Poles – The minimum number of poles should be five and the maximum number 12. They should be a minimum of 457mm (1ft 6ins) and a maximum of 609mm (2ft) apart between the poles. The poles must be of rigid construction and with a minimum height of 762mm (2ft 6ins) and a diameter of between 19mm (¾in) and 38mm (1½ ins).

TO:

Weaving Poles – The minimum number of poles should be five and the maximum number 12.  The distance from the centre of each pole socket to the centre of the next should be 540mm (1ft 9 1/4ins) subject to an allowable tolerance of +/-25mm (1in). The poles must be of rigid construction and with a minimum height of 762mm (2ft 6ins) and a diameter of between 19mm (¾ in) and 38mm (1½ ins). (Amendment underlined)

This proposal has been re-submitted as requested by the Council to split the original proposal into two parts. Worcester Agility Society believes there is a need to narrow down the range of the permissible gap between poles and proposes that it should be fixed at 540mm, with an allowable tolerance of +/-25mm rather than 1ft 6ins to 2ft. Dogs are now weaving much faster and with a more set rhythm and stride pattern than would have been the case, when the existing regulations were written. Most manufacturer's weaves are set at approximately 21 to 22 inches. Where a fast weaving dog encounters a set of weaves with a much smaller distance between poles, its stride pattern may cause it to start hitting the poles with its shoulders, with the possibility of injury.

j.          Worcester Agility Society  -Dave Ray

Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).3.k

FROM:

Weaving Poles – The minimum number of poles should be five and the maximum number 12. They should be a minimum of 457mm (1ft 6ins) and a maximum of 609mm (2ft) apart between the poles. The poles must be of rigid construction and with a minimum height of 762mm (2ft 6ins) and a diameter of between 19mm (¾in) and 38mm (1½ ins).

TO:

Weaving Poles – The minimum number of poles should be five and the maximum number 12. They should be a minimum of 457mm (1ft 6ins) and a maximum of 609mm (2ft) apart between the poles. The poles must be of rigid construction and with a minimum height of 762mm (2ft 6ins) and a diameter of between 19mm (¾in) and 38mm (1½ ins).

Where weave bases are held down with pegs, the pegs should be placed over the centre strip only and tucked away against the poles or the sockets. (Amendment underlined)

This proposal has been re-submitted as requested by the Council to split the original proposal into two parts. It is felt that when the weaves are pegged, there is presently no consistency as to where the pegs are placed. Often they are placed across the centre strip, but sometimes are placed over or through the ends of the stabiliser bars. Worcester Agility Society has had two of its members' dogs injured on their rear toes and pads, due to treading on the ends of the bars. Repeated hammering of pegs can cause the tops/edges to become very sharp. For the safety of dogs, Worcester Agility Society believes that pegging should be limited to the centre strip and that pegs should be tucked away against the pole sockets.

ITEM 4.          PROPOSALS FROM SOCIETIES/PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS

a.         Paul Wood  - Dave Ray

            Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).3.k

            FROM:

The minimum number of poles should be five and the maximum number 12. They should be a minimum of 457mm (1ft 6ins) and a maximum of 609mm (2ft) apart, between the poles. The poles must be of rigid construction and with a minimum height of 762mm (2ft 6ins) and a diameter between 19mm (3/4 in) and 38mm (1 ½ ins).

TO:

The minimum number of poles should be five and the maximum number 12. They should be a minimum of 457mm (1ft 6ins) and a maximum of 609mm (2ft) apart, between the poles. The poles must be of rigid construction and with a minimum height of 762mm (2ft 6ins) and a diameter between 19mm (3/4 in) and 38mm (1 ½ ins). Supports for the weave base backbone are to be provided adjacent to every pole. Each support should be placed on the side of the pole that is not traversed by the dog. (Amendment underlined)

See attached sketch:

This proposal has been put forward to make the weaves safer and fairer to all dogs. It is felt that the majority of dogs tread on the metal weave supports as they traverse the weaves. Evidence for this can be seen at any show where weaves have been constantly used in the same spot especially in wet conditions.  It can be seen how dogs have slipped on the metal supports. This has lead many dogs to break rhythm and miss a weave. It may also cause injury, however there is no known evidence of this. There is no way to train a dog not to tread on the support and dogs rarely tread on the base backbone. There is no need for the support where the dog traverses the weaves, the offending support is only there to simplify manufacture of the weaves.

The additional sketches show how the weaves could be used and are not meant to be the only configurations.

Note: The use of an odd number of weave poles makes their use only viable in one direction. The use of an even number of weave poles makes the weaves useable in both directions.

b.         Proposed Amendment to Regulation H.10  -Tony Griffin

            Control of Dogs

            FROM:

The owner, competitor, handler or other person in charge of a dog at Kennel Club licensed events must at all times ensure that the dog is kept under proper control whilst at the licensed venue including its environs, car and caravan parks and approaches.

TO:

The owner, competitor, handler or other person in charge of a dog at Kennel Club licensed events must at all times ensure that the dog is kept under proper control whilst at the licensed venue including its environs, car and caravan parks and approaches.

Dogs must be on a lead except when in the marked exercise area, working in a ring, caged or confined behind an escape proof barrier. (Amendment underlined)

Most clubs have a rule in the schedule stating that dogs must be on a lead whilst at a show, but is ignored by a number of competitors. This proposal has been put forward to make a Regulation that is enforceable and enhances the previous Regulation regarding the control of dogs. Dogs not on a lead can cause serious problems to other controlled dogs, and on numerous occasions have run into a ring causing re-runs or putting dogs off their run completely.

c.         Ms K Pounds  - Mr T Griffin

            Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).(1)(B).3.d

            FROM:

Hoop-(Tyre) - Aperture diameter 457mm (1ft 6ins) minimum. Aperture centre from the ground: Large Dogs – 800mm (2ft 7.5ins). Medium Dogs – 550mm (1ft 9.6ins). Small Dogs – 490mm (1ft 7.3ins). The height of the hoop should not be lowered. The tyre/hoop must be directly mounted in a substantial frame structure which must be secured in such a way that dogs cannot knock the obstacle over from either direction; the frame shall not have a beam across the top.

 TO:

Hoop-(Tyre) - Aperture diameter 533mm (1ft 9ins) minimum. Aperture centre from the ground: Large Dogs – 800mm (2ft 7.5ins). Medium Dogs – 550mm (1ft 9.6ins). Small Dogs – 490mm (1ft 7.3ins). The hoop to be of a consistent shape, constructed of an impact-absorbing material. The height of the hoop should not be lowered. The tyre/hoop must be directly mounted in a substantial frame structure which must be secured in such a way that dogs cannot knock the obstacle over from either direction; the frame shall not have a beam across the top. (Amendment underlined)

This proposal has been put forward because the 'lifebuoy' type tyre has been the subject of much comment in recent years, due to the number of dogs that have misjudged the obstacle, at times causing injury. This has caused some judges not to use the obstacle when designing their courses. This amendment has been submitted due to the different tyres currently in use, causing possible confusion to the dog. Today's newer tyres are made of a softer material than the old 'lifebuoy' type, with a larger aperture for the dog to pass through. It is suggested that the new amendments will make the tyre safer for all dogs, and in particular the large dogs.

d.         Proposed Amendment to Regulation H.8.c.(14)   Terry Felstead

            FROM:

A statement that in estimating the number of awards won, all wins up to and including 7 days before the date of closing of entries shall be counted when entering for any class (Agility Shows only).

TO:

A statement that in estimating the number of awards won, all wins up to and including 25 days before the start of the competition shall be counted when entering for any class. For these purposes a competition shall be defined as all classes covered within the same schedule.

In the event that a dog becomes eligible for the next grade at a particular show after the entry has been sent for that show it is the competitor's responsibility to notify the show secretary as soon as possible after the win to allow the show organisers time before the show to move the dog into the next grade. Notification should not be left until the date of the show. In the event that a dog needs to move up a grade the dog should be moved into the appropriate class(es) for the next grade. The dog may be moved into the same number of classes as were entered for the lower grade unless there are less or no classes available for the next grade, where they will be offered a refund at the discretion of the organising club. (Amendment underlined)

This proposal has been submitted due to the current regulation being based on the closing date of the show; as this is at the discretion of the organising club it can vary immensely. This results in dogs that have won into the next grade, spending many weeks competing at the lower grade being unable to progress further, whilst often preventing other dogs from winning out of that grade.

This regulation would allow dogs that have won out of a grade to compete at the next grade more quickly, speeding up the progression process. It will also allow a dog to move into a particular grade from a specific date. Under the current system, dogs can move up a grade at one show only to be back at the lower grade at the next, due to the different closing dates for those shows. It may also allow dogs remaining in the lower grade more opportunity to progress as dogs winning out will move out of that grade faster.

In proposing this change to the regulation, 25 days has been selected as it is felt that this should give show committees enough time before the show to make the changes necessary. Many of these are likely to be in time for the changes to be made before running orders are processed. In addition, '25 days before the start of the competition' has been selected, as most shows are held at the weekend and hence this will mean that a dog will become eligible for the next grade mid-week, meaning that most dogs will move to the new grade for the weekend following the 25 days.

It is appreciated that some shows run for a week, so '25 days before the start of the competition' was selected so that dogs do not have to move grades during a show running on multiple days. This was felt to make things more straightforward, both for competitors and show organisers. For these purposes a competition has been defined to include all classes contained within the one schedule, to make it clear what constitutes a competition. This is because many clubs obtain separate licences when running agility shows over more than one day, but the vast majority of clubs produce one schedule for the whole event (competition).

e.         Mrs P Southouse  - Terry Felstead

Proposed Addition to Regulation H(1)(B).d.

TO:

Before the test begins, competitors will be allowed a minimum of 20 minutes to walk a course unless it is a second part or new height, where a minimum of 10 minutes will be allowed. (Amendment underlined)

This proposal has been put forward for the following reasons:

1. At some agility shows, 5 or 10 minutes have been allowed for walking courses, However, with parking, camping and many of the rings being so far apart, there is often not enough time to reach the course. A competitor could be in another ring that is close to finishing which means they would miss their run or miss walking the course. Someone could also be working on a ring where they are unable to leave immediately as this could cause disruption to the running of that class.

2. An agility show is a test, where a competitor pays for a course with a fixed time that is equal to all. It is believed that you should have a fixed time to walk the course (test) you have been given. Tests have standard rules so surely the time should be uniform. At one show recently, two courses were ready to walk at the same time, with one starting after lunch allowing one and a half hours to walk and the other allowing barely 10 minutes, then taking just 20 dogs before having lunch.

3. If a competitor pays to enter a show, surely part of the contract is to be given a reasonable chance to prepare for the test, which should be standard. Some experienced handlers do not find it a problem to walk a course once or not at all, but it is not the same for everyone. It may be a competitor's first show, who may be less experienced and may find the courses more challenging. There are many people with arthritis, on crutches or even in electric chairs that are competing. We should not expect them to rush from the distance of the camping and car parking to the ring, to walk a course in 5 or 10 minutes.
4. It is suggested that a minimum of 20 minutes should be allowed for a competitor to walk a course, as this would overcome some of the problems e.g. distance from rings, helping, disabilities, experience and other runs clashing. It is understood that some shows receive very large entries, so may be deemed as impractical as this could hold up the day. However it is felt that as competitors pay for their time, then they should be given fair opportunity to walk the course which is part of what they are paying for when entering a competition. A competitor pays for a service and the time restraints should not change these rights. If entries or the time is a problem then shows' committees would need to discuss these problems.
5. This proposal would relate to all Kennel Club Licensed Agility Shows/Events (Crufts, Olympia etc).

ITEM 5.          DISCUSSION ITEMS

a.         Agility Licences -David Duncan

Mr Duncan has requested the Council discuss the arrangements for the issue of agility licences to clubs, societies and other organisations that have no expertise in agility or agility show management.

Mr Duncan has some concerns within the agility community in Northern Ireland about the way in which a particular show was run. On this occasion the licence holder does not run an agility club, however a local dog training club with agility experience had made a written offer to run the show on behalf of the licence holder, but received no response. Mr Duncan requests the Council to discuss what requirements are placed on clubs and societies, particularly those with no direct involvement in agility, to show what they have, or can put in place the expertise to run an agility show.

b.         Large Dogs at Limited Shows - Dave Ray

Mr Ray, on behalf of Mr White, has requested the Council to discuss whether wins at limited shows should be counted towards progression and gaining agility warrant points. A dog at an 'Open' show could gain a clear round with a top ten placing in a class of 90 dogs, or a win which would enable the dog to progress to the next grade and provide warrant points. However, another dog in a similar class at a 'Limited' show, which is just as successful in a class of 160 dogs, would be barred from progression and gaining warrant points.

Mr White has requested the Council to consider the following:

'Where a dog at a show, which is limited to numbers, runs in a standard class with a minimum of 100 entries (or another number the Council feels appropriate), and has a successful clear run resulting in a  top ten placing or a clear round, the normal rules on progression or the acquisition of warrant points shall apply'.

It is appreciated that the change would mainly benefit large dogs in grades 1-3. However, small and medium dogs would not suffer as their chances of progression are already much higher due to the significantly lower numbers in their classes. Shows which are limited on any other basis e.g. breed, geographical area etc would be excluded, as would all 'special' classes.

c.         Special Classes  - Mr D Ray

Mr Ray, on behalf of Mr White, has requested the Council to discuss whether Helter Skelter and Circular Jumping classes should be classified as standard classes. At present, helter skelter and circular classes are scheduled as 'special' classes, even though the format is very similar to standard jumping classes as both include tunnels, weaves and jumps, and there are no special jumping rules.

d.         Half day agility show licence - Mr I Mallabar

Mr Dave Robinson has requested the council discuss the prospect of the Kennel Club issuing agility show licences for a half day as an alternative to the normal full day. The intention is that a one-day show could be covered by 2 half day licences instead of a full day licence. It is thought to be increasingly difficult to find judges especially for one day shows. It is believed that this would help ease the problem of finding judges as they would be able to work their dogs in the half of the day on which they were not judging. However it is felt that the cost of 2 half day licences would need to be proportionate so as not to put an increased burden on clubs finances.

ITEM 6.          JUDGES WORKING PARTY (WTOA)

Mr Griffin will give a verbal report on the progress of the Judges Working Party.

ITEM 7.          DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The date of the next meeting will be Thursday 19 June 2008. Items for the agenda should reach the office by Tuesday 25 March 2008.

ITEM 8.          ANY OTHER BUSINESS

To contact Agilitynet click here for full contact details.
Please do get in touch - we love hearing from you, even if it's only to tell us that one of the pages has gone wrong!