Kennel Club Agility Council Liaison Meeting

These are the official minutes of the KC Agility Liaison Council held on 19 June 2008 at 1-5 Clarges Street, London W1. Read what happened and, if you have an opinion, let your area rep know what you think.

PRESENT: 

• Mr Dave Ray                                Midlands

• Mr Richard Jordan                        Midlands

• Mr Ian Mallabar                            North East

• Mrs Janet Nero                             North East

• Mrs Pauline Baltes                        North West

• Mr Mike Hallam                            North West

• Mr David Duncan                          Northern Ireland

• Mr Peter Elms                              Scotland

• Mr Terry Felstead                         South East and East Anglia

• Mr John Gilbert                            South East and East Anglia

• Mr Tony Griffin                            South and South West

• Miss Lesley Olden                         South and South West

• Mr Mike Shaw                               Wales

IN ATTENDANCE:

• Miss Debbie Deuchar                      Team Leader – WTOA
• Mrs Zoe Tharmasingam                  WTOA Specialist

IN THE CHAIR:                   MR D Ray

ITEM 1.          APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

1.         No apologies had been received.

ITEM 2.          APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

2.       The minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2008 were signed by the Chairman as an accurate record subject to the following amendment:

3.       Item 3, paragraph 11.  The second to last sentence was amended to include the words 'invited to represent England for 2009 at the selection day'.

ITEM 3.          MATTERS ARISING/RESULTS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Regulation Amendments

The Council noted all the Regulation amendments, which had been approved, with effect from 1 January 2009, with the exception of Regulation H(1)(A).9. The General Committee had requested the Activities Sub-Committee reword the Regulation to be more succinct. It was noted that the amended wording would be discussed at the General Committee's meeting in July.

Kennel Club International Agility Festival
The Council was informed of the progress of the International Agility Festival. It was noted that the camping area was fully booked, and that the office were holding a waiting list. It was believed that 17/18 agility rings may be required, due to the increased number of entries. More helpers would be needed as it was considered that there had been a drop in offers compared to last year.

It was also noted that the East of England Showground was not providing electricity, so generators would need to be hired. It had been agreed that the Kennel Club caterers would only cater for the stewards' lunches and dinners. The Showground would be providing food for the public and competitors from their mobile catering vans.

New venues had been investigated within a certain distance of the Dogs in Need Agility Show in Ipswich. It was noted a stately home in the Midlands was a possibility and was currently being investigated as to whether it was suitable. The Council was advised that Stoneleigh Park was not suitable due to the many buildings and road ways. However an information pack was available which included fees for societies and individuals to hire the various facilities.

The Council requested information on the 'Have a Go' agility that had been advertised to take place at the Festival. It was explained that a small fun agility set would be hired from Premier Agility for spectators' dogs to use with a small charge of £1. The ring would be organised by Barry Harvey who was a very experienced trainer and had previously arranged this type of activity at horse trials, which had been a great success.

The Council expressed its concerns as to the safety of the dogs. It was noted that the agility set was a fun set that was designed especially for dogs that had received no specific agility training. The ring would be fenced with secure netting and placed away from the agility rings, with dogs on leads at all times. All owners would be required to complete a spectator dog entry form which would allow their dogs into the licensed show. Assurances were given that only suitable dogs would be allowed into the ring.

European Open Agility Competition
John Gilbert informed the Council that the Qualifier had been a great success and a squad had been selected. The final microchip numbers had been pursued, which was a requirement of the host country, Germany. The travel arrangements had not yet been confirmed. The office was still researching a hotel closer to the venue at an acceptable price, however at this stage it was believed the whole trip would come in under budget. Heats were being organised throughout England during 2008 for the 2009 event. John Gilbert asked whether the representatives from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales would be prepared to arrange the teams again, to which they all agreed.

10.       It was noted Steve Croxford was arranging the FCI World Championship Team, with the Qualifier set to take place on 28 July. The Council was informed that Rugby Dog Training Club would be donating a training ring at their show in July which would be organised by the International Agility Fundraising Team, with all proceeds donated to the International Agility Fund. It was advised that the Fundraising Team would be launching the Supporters Club at the International Agility Festival by holding a number of fundraising events.

11.       It was suggested that ferry companies be approached inquiring whether they would be interested in sponsoring the International Agility Teams. The office agreed to investigate the suggestion.

Control of Dogs
John Gilbert produced a paper on the 'Control of Dogs in Agility' explaining his personal view on out of control dogs. He informed the Council that since he had been a member of the Activities Sub-Committee, it had considered a number of objections relating to aggressive dogs. It was understood that some dogs were involved in spats, but there had been a significant increase in the number of uncontrolled dogs competing in agility.

13.       A lengthy discussion took place with various scenarios explored. It was agreed that judges should accept more responsibility when dogs were involved in incidents in or near their rings. Judges should watch the dogs in their rings at all times and if an incident occurred, where a dog left the ring in an aggressive manner, the judge should report it immediately.

14.       The Council was reminded that there was an objection procedure and that no payment was required for an alleged biting incident; if it was reported to the society, such reports would then be forwarded to the Kennel Club. The Council was advised that the press release on reporting incidents, requested previously, had been deferred as work was ongoing to provide societies with incident books. With previous complaints, vital information had been missing which resulted in delays. Once finalised, a press release would be issued detailing the correct procedure for reporting all incidents at shows.

15.       It was queried whether the incident procedure should be issued to societies when applying for show licences, or be made more clear in the Regulations.

[Afternote: The Code of Practice for Objections and Appeals pamphlet had previously been issued to all societies.]

The Council discussed whether Registered Clubs should only accept dogs in their agility classes that had achieved the Bronze Good Citizen Dog Scheme (GCDS) award. It was noted that some clubs assessed dogs on their stays and control before accepting them for agility. Many believed that fenced rings were not a solution as it encouraged owners to compete with dogs that were unreliable. The Council believed that fencing should only be used in exceptional circumstances.

It was noted that when assessing an alleged biting incident, the consequences ranged from a warning and a fine to a dog being banned from all future Kennel Club licensed events. It was queried whether a banned dog could prove it had changed by undergoing a training assessment, as it would encourage owners to solve the problem, and for their dog to be allowed back to shows.

It was discussed whether a toy or lead should be placed near the finishing line to encourage dogs to go for their toy, as a reward, rather than a nearby dog particularly if the dog had been taught to look for its toy. It was felt that it should be included within judges' seminars to educate judges to accept it as a reward and not considered as cheating.

Finally it was recommended to issue a list of guidelines for societies and dog owners, advising them on their responsibilities and how they should encourage their dogs to be suitably socialised. The subject headings would include the following:

• No fenced rings, except in exceptional circumstances.

• All incidents should be reported to the Kennel Club by the Society, Judges and/or Competitors.

• Trainers to discuss during Judges Training Seminars, how to deal with incidents at shows.

• Basic training/socialising and control of dogs to be organised by Societies.

• Ring layout – Ensure the start and finish line are away from each other and the queue does not cross the finish line.

• Safety at Shows – Undertake risk assessment.

• Removal of a dog from the showground.

• Muzzles and their uses.

• Owners' and handlers' responsibilities.

• Barking dogs.

• Dog versus dog incidents will not be tolerated.

 ITEM 4.          PROPOSALS FROM SOCIETIES/PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS

Proposed Deletion of Regulation H(1)(B).3.p. – Cross Over Obstacle
Lesley Olden, on behalf of Mr Glover, a private individual, proposed the deletion of the above Regulation. Mrs Baltes seconded the proposal.

21.       It was agreed that there was no reason to keep the Cross Over as it had not been used in competition for many years and could be dangerous if suddenly re-introduced as dogs and handlers would not know how it should be negotiated safely. Following a unanimous decision the Council recommended the deletion.

Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).5.a.(7)
John Gilbert, on behalf of Mrs Crew, a private individual, proposed the above Regulation amendment on how the weaving poles should be marked. Mr Felstead seconded the proposal.

Hilary Crew believed that the faults incurred at the weaving poles should be classified as a refusal which would clarify the marking of the obstacle.

The majority of the representatives considered there was no need for change to the Regulation. It was considered this could potentially cover up poor judging and recommended it should be addressed at the Judges Training Seminars on how judges should judge the weaving poles.

Terry Felstead proposed an amendment to the proposal to include that only failure to complete the weaving poles correctly would result in elimination.

Following a unanimous vote, the Council agreed not to support the original proposal. 

Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).2.
Dave Ray, on behalf of Fiona Hulse, a private individual, proposed the above Regulation amendment to introduce a new dog and jump height between Medium and Large, which would be referred to as the 'standard' height. There was no seconder for the proposal. Therefore, it was not discussed further.

ITEM 5.          DISCUSSION ITEMS

'Preferred' Height Agility Classes
Dave Ray, on behalf of a private individual, requested that the Council discuss whether a new 'Preferred' height in Agility should be introduced.

The Council did not support this suggestion as it was too complicated and therefore unsuitable. It was believed that it was only aimed at dogs that were not able to compete in full height agility. It was mentioned that 'All size' and 'Veteran' classes were already available.

The Council also noted that this item had been submitted anonymously and considered that the person/organisation submitting proposals or discussion items should be included on the meeting Agenda. It also noted that many major changes had taken place over the last few years and the agility community was still adapting to the new grading system.  

Graded Classes for Small and Medium Dogs
Dave Ray, on behalf of the Rough & Smooth Collie Training Association, requested that the Council discuss the apparent reduction of the number of grade/graded classes for Small and Medium dogs.

The Council did not consider there was a significant issue with the number of graded classes. It was considered there were sufficient classes for the volume of dogs, and that it was a matter for individual clubs and societies to decide on their show classification.

It was questioned whether combined classes should only be for three grades and should not have classes 1-7 or 4-7 etc. However, it was agreed that the grading system was introduced for societies so they could be flexible on the classes they wished to schedule. The Council understood everyone's concerns but believed the grading system would improve as time progressed, as societies would learn and then adjust their classes accordingly.

ITEM 6.          JUDGES WORKING PARTY (WTOA)

34.       The Council was informed that six new accredited trainers had undergone the assessment process and should be submitted for approval at the General Committee's meeting in July 2008.

35.       The Council was also advised that the Course Design and Judging Seminars were going well and several had already been held.

ITEM 7.          ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Championship Agility Equipment
Richard Jordan asked the Council to clarify Regulation H(1)(B).1.a.(2), which stated that a championship agility class should contain all the compulsory equipment, except in adverse weather conditions when the judge could alter the course with full agreement from the Competition Manager. Richard Jordan asked whether a judge could change the equipment, based on the forecast weather for the day of the show, rather than on the day. It was advised that the judge should make a decision before the start of the class on the understanding that a class could last approximately 2½ hours. However, judges should always have a contingency plan.    

37.       If on the day of the show, the judge considered the weather could become hazardous to the dogs, the judge should consult with the Competition Manager before altering the Championship agility equipment, which should then be reported to the Kennel Club.

 Undertaking of Guarantors
Richard Jordan asked the Council to review Regulation H7.d and H7.e as he considered they were duplicating each other. The Council agreed and asked Richard Jordan to submit a proposal at the next meeting to remove Regulation H7.d.

Proposals and Discussion Items
John Gilbert requested that the Council discuss whether proposals and discussion items should be vetted by their area representatives prior to submission to the Kennel Club. It was considered that some proposals should be submitted as discussion items as it allowed the area meetings and the Council to express its views prior to any formal proposal to change regulations. If a proposal was not approved then it could not be submitted again for two years.

It was agreed that individuals should continue to put forward discussion items, but it was agreed that they should receive guidance from their area representatives. The Council noted that the General Committee would likely encourage this idea as it was considered the Council should be more open to competitors and general discussion on wide ranging Agility concern.

Licences
Pauline Baltes had received an email asking the Council to discuss whether the Kennel Club should increase the licence fee to those societies who gave over their licences to unrecognised clubs. It was queried whether Field Officers should be appointed in such circumstances, but it was felt it was too impractical to enforce. The Council recognised that it was a difficult situation, but agreed there was little action that could be taken without evidence. It was considered that shows should be held under Kennel Club Regulations to ensure they were organised safely and fairly.

It was recognised that the Registered Society (licence holder) is accountable for the show along with the show's guarantors. It was suggested that detailed accounts should be submitted to the Kennel Club to audit the profit and loss/balance sheet; this would then allow all club members to view the expenditure.

Postal Votes
Dave Ray requested the Council discuss the apparent increase in postal votes on council proposals and whether they should be accepted within the area's decision. It was noted that on one occasion a representative held a paper vote at their training ground, as only club members were present. It was very successful with 50% of the papers completed.

44.       It was also noted that one area considered it had become too difficult to hold meetings in the summer due to poor attendance, so had decided to operate a postal vote. A professional and detailed form was designed which requested the individual's name and county and was then distributed at an agility show. Only papers from the designated area were counted and overall it was found to be very successful.

45.       The majority of the Council representatives preferred to hold area meetings and believed that votes should only be accepted from the individuals that attended the meeting. It was advised that many people could have their opinions changed after attending the meeting. Many representatives explained that they advised their meeting of the emails they had received and their views but did not count them in the final vote.

46.       It was finally decided that postal votes should only be accepted as advice and that area meetings should be held where votes would be counted.

ITEM 8.          DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The date of the next meeting would be confirmed in September 2008.

48.       The meeting concluded at 1.45pm

C

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!