PRESENT:

Mr D Ray                                Midlands

Mr R Jordan                           Midlands

Mr I Mallabar                          North East

Mrs J Nero                             North East

Mrs P Baltes                          North West

Mr M Hallam                          North West

Mr D Duncan                         Northern Ireland

Mr P Elms                              Scotland

Mr T Felstead                        South East and East Anglia

Mr J Gilbert                            South East and East Anglia

Mr T Griffin                             South and South West

Miss L Olden                         South and South West

IN ATTENDANCE:

Miss D Deuchar                    Team Leader – WTOA

Mrs Z Tharmasingam           WTOA Specialist

 

MR D RAY IN THE CHAIR

 

ITEM 1.           APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

1.         Apologies had been received from Mr Shaw from Wales.

ITEM 2.           APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

2.         The minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 2007 were signed by the Chairman as an accurate record.

ITEM 3.           MATTERS ARISING/RESULTS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

3.         Regulation Amendments

            The Council noted all the Regulation amendments, which had become effective from 1 January 2008.

4.         Championship Qualifier

            The Council noted the confirmation 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.

5.         Kennel Club International Agility Festival

            Mr Ray informed the Council that the arrangements for the 2008 Agility Festival were going well and that the golf driving range would be closed and therefore could be used for extra camping and agility rings. The Council also noted that the layout of the rings would be different, but would still be close together.

6.         A draft schedule for the Kennel Club International Agility Festival was tabled for comment. The Council was requested to suggest names for Ring Managers as more would be required.

7.         Mr Ray informed the Council that there would be a score tent on every ring and a centralised results area, where all the results would be collated and posted on the Kennel Club website.

8.         European Open Agility Competition

            Mr Gilbert informed the Council of the progress regarding the European Open. The selection day had been scheduled for 14 April 2008 in Daventry. Mr Gilbert thanked Mr Elms, Mr Duncan and Mr Shaw for organising the dogs eligible for the other Home Nations. Mr Gilbert also thanked Mr Croxford, Mr Ray and the office for the help with the selection day and preparations for the European Open Championships in July.         

9.         The Council was advised that travel arrangements were being finalised with the coach company. Following Mr Van Dongens’s resignation as team vet, Mr K Englebrecht had been appointed to travel with the team as the official vet.

10.       The Council queried whether a team would be sent to the FCI World Championships in September. It was advised that this was not confirmed at present, and was dependent upon the cost of the European Open. It was noted that an International Supporters Club was in the process of being formed, which would be managed by Jill Spurr, Marie Douglas and Kate Howard. It would be created to raise funds for all future Kennel Club supported international agility events. Members would receive regular newsletters, discounted training days, merchandise and so on.

11.       Mr Gilbert explained the proposed qualifying process for the European Open Championships in 2009. It was suggested to hold European Open Ranking Events throughout 2008, for the 2009 selection day. There would be 15 events for large and 10 for small and medium for grade 6 & 7 combined classes across England at selected shows, where top ten places would count towards points. The dogs with the most points at the end of the year would be invited to represent England for 2009. The other Home Nations Team Captains would select their own criteria.

12.       Agility Measurers

            The Council was informed that an advertisement for new measurers in Scotland and Northern Ireland had been issued; no applications had been received for Northern Ireland. Two applications had been received for Scotland but only one measurer was required. The Council reviewed the applications, and recommended Mrs P Elms be appointed.

13.       Following the amendment of Regulation H(1)(B)4.(3), the Council was informed that Wales and the Isle of Man had both requested one more measurer. It was discussed whether it was necessary to appoint more measurers. It was decided that Wales was already adequately covered as the region had 5 measurers. The Isle of Man only had 2 measurers but this was a small area and it would not be viable to increase the number of measurers due to the cost of equipment and training. After a lengthy discussion it was recommended that one more measurer should be appointed for the Isle of Man at no cost to the Kennel Club as they would use the same equipment.

14.       Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).3.h. – Wishing Well

            Mr Ray explained to the Council that the above amendment had been referred back to Council for discussion, due to some concerns that had been raised by Mr R Amps, an agility equipment manufacturer.

15.       The Council discussed whether it was necessary for a revised Wishing Well Regulation as it was queried whether it would ever be used. After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that a revised Wishing Well Regulation was needed.

16.       Mr Jordan proposed the revised amendment to the second and third paragraphs. Mr Gilbert seconded the proposal. It was also discussed whether the minimum measurement for the overall width of the base should be amended from 1200mm to 900mm, which was then proposed by Mr Ray and seconded by Mr Jordan.

17.       Following a majority vote, the Council recommended approval of the following proposal and amendment.

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 beLarge Dogs – 160mm, Medium Dogs – 150mm, Small Dogs – 105mm.

The overall width of the base will be between 900mm & 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)     

18.       Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(A).9.b./Grade 2 Starters

            Mr Gilbert proposed an amendment to the above Regulation with regard to the anomaly in the current regulations as had been requested by the Council. Mr Mallabar seconded the proposal.

19.       Mr Gilbert explained that the proposed amendment clarified that a Grade 2 dog could be handled by a Grade 1 handler.

20.       Following a unanimous vote, the Council recommended the amendment.

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)

21.       Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(A).9.  

            Mr Gilbert proposed an amendment to the above Regulation, as had been requested by the Council with regard to the anomaly in the current regulations. Mr Mallabar seconded the proposal.

22.       Mr Gilbert explained that dogs in Grade 1 would need to win a combination for 3 jumping wins or 1 agility win to progress to the next grade.

23.       Following a unanimous vote, the Council recommended the amendment.

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 in the definition to apply only to ONE dog and not an accumulation of dogs handled or owned.

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)

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

Mr Ray, on behalf of Worcester Agility Society, proposed an amendment to the above Regulation in regard to the distance between the weaving poles. Mr Hallam seconded the proposal.

25.       It was noted that Worcester Agility Society had reworded the proposal to include a fixed measurement with a small tolerance, as had been requested by the Council. It was discussed whether the Regulation should be changed as some representatives preferred the current Regulation and felt that there was no need for change.

26.       The Regulation for the minimum distance was compared to the FCI measurement of 600mm, if the Regulation was approved then the FCI weaving poles would not conform to the Kennel Club Regulations and therefore could not be used at any Kennel Club licensed event. The Council also discussed whether distance should be from the centre of the poles or between the poles. Following a vote, the Council agreed not to support the proposal.

27.       Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).3.k – Weaving Poles

            Mr Ray, on behalf of Worcester Agility Society, proposed an amendment to the above Regulation in relation to where the securing of the pegs should be placed. Mrs Nero seconded the proposal.

28.       Worcester Agility Society proposed that the pegs should be placed over the centre strip and tucked away against the poles or the sockets. Some representatives agreed with the principle, as it would ensure the dog’s safety, however others found the Regulation impractical. It was noted that a Regulation should not be enforced to explain where the pegs should be placed, as it was felt that this was a matter of common sense and at the judges’ discretion.

29.       It was also observed that the pegging of the weaving poles was dependent on the ground conditions. If the ground was uneven, the pegs would need to be placed in a different position, to ensure the dogs’ safety; however the proposed regulation would make it too restrictive.

30.       The Council voted not to support the proposal. However, it was agreed that guidance would be issued at the Kennel Club Agility Regulations and Judging Procedure Seminars, to encourage judges to place the pegs on the central strip of the base, where possible.

ITEM 4.           PROPOSALS FROM SOCIETIES/PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS

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

            Mr Ray, on behalf of Mr Wood, a private individual, proposed a new Regulation to add supports for the weave base backbone, which would be adjacent to every pole. There was no seconder for this proposal, therefore it was not discussed or supported.        

32.       Proposed Amendment to Regulation H.10

            Mr Griffin proposed an amendment to the above proposal in relation to the control of dogs at agility shows. Mr Hallam seconded the proposal.

33.       Mr Griffin explained to the Council that there had been an increased number of incidents, where dogs were off lead and out of control, in and out of the ring. Mr Griffin proposed that a Regulation should be introduced to ensure all dogs were kept on lead except when in a marked exercise area, working in a ring, caged or confined behind an escape proof barrier.

34.       The Council agreed that there was a problem and that the number of incidents involving uncontrolled dogs in agility had increased over the past few years. It was noted that agility had increased in popularity, which had also increased the number of dogs competing. Although the majority of dogs were of good temperament and owned by responsible owners, a lot more dogs had been seen wearing muzzles at shows, which could be the result of handlers owning more dogs than they were capable of training. In one case, a handler had 18 dogs at a show. It was felt that some confrontational dogs were owned by experienced handlers, with some feeling too uncomfortable and unwilling to confront them.

35.       It was, suggested that a barrier/garden could not be classed as ‘escape proof’ and therefore could not be used if the Regulation was approved. It was also noted that the Regulation would not affect dogs that lunged at dogs and handlers from behind a secure garden fence or those dogs that had been tied in the back of a car, with the boot open.

36.       Some representatives felt that the Regulation did not need amending as they felt the existing Regulation was sufficient. If there was a dog out of control at a show, the society could ask for it to be removed from the showground and the Regulation should be enforced more often.

37.       It was mentioned that obedience handlers only took 2-3 dogs to a show compared to 6-8 dogs on average, for agility handlers. It was also noted that there were fewer dogs wearing muzzles at obedience shows. The Council noted that the percentage of agility dogs entered for competition was fewer than expected, out of 8 dogs, 4 could be entered as ‘Not for Competition’ (NFC), due to age, injury etc. It was not an option for the majority of owners to leave their ‘NFC’ dogs at home, due to the distance and length of the show, with many travelling as a family. The Council was advised that the Scottish Kennel Club charged a fee for all NFC dogs at its shows to limit the number of non competing dogs present.

38.       The Council agreed that more consequences should be put in place and that competitors should be made more aware that a dog could be banned from Kennel Club licensed events if involved in a biting incident. It was finally agreed that a press release should be issued, advising people to keep their dogs under proper control while at a Kennel Club licensed events. It would also stated that no objection fee was required for an alleged breach of the “Control of Dogs” Regulation. This must be reported to the secretary, who would include all the details in the incident book and refer the matter to the Kennel Club for investigation. The Society should consider whether the dogs involved should remain at the showground, Regulation H.11 refers.

39.       Following a vote, with the majority against, the Council did not support the proposal as it was felt it was too impractical to enforce.

40.       The Council agreed that there was a problem regarding aggressive dogs at agility shows and thanked Mr Griffin for raising the matter. Mr Gilbert agreed to prepare a paper for the July Liaison Council Agenda, to explore the situation further and devise how to better educate owners on how to train their dogs.

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

            Mr Griffin, on behalf of Ms Pounds, a private individual, proposed the above Regulation amendment with regard to the material used for the hoop (tyre) and to increase the minimum diameter of the aperture. Mrs Baltes seconded the proposal.

42.       Ms Pounds believed that the hoop should be of consistent shape and should be constructed of an impact-absorbing material. She believed that the hard and rigid ‘lifebuoy’ tyre was too dangerous and had caused injury to dogs where they had misjudged the obstacle.

43.       The majority of representatives agreed with the proposed amendment, as they believed that the soft tyre was more widely preferred. It was queried whether it should include a maximum diameter, as it was felt a fixed diameter was preferred.

44.       There was a view that the ‘lifebuoy’ tyre was rarely used so amendment was not necessary. It was also suggested that, as manufacturers had made new versions of the tyre, Regulations were being created to accommodate the new tyre. There was some discussion as to whether the word ‘circular’ should be included in the Regulation to define a consistent shape, however after much discussion it was agreed that the word, ‘hoop’ meant circular.

45.       The Council noted that all tyres should be pegged where possible to prevent accidents occurring, as on one occasion a tyre had fallen on top of a dog, which had caused serious injuries.

46.       Following a vote, with the majority in favour, the Council recommended the amendment.

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)

47.       Proposed Amendment to Regulation H.8.c.(14)

            Mr Felstead proposed an amendment to the above Regulation with regard to dogs progressing to the next level. Mr Hallam seconded the proposal.

48.       Mr Felstead explained to the Council that the amendment was submitted to change the required number of wins from 7 days before the closing date of entries to 25 days before the start of the competition. It would therefore mean that dogs would be able to progress to the higher grade more quickly, which would speed up the progression process.

49.       The Council agreed the amendment was a good idea but there were differing views on the wording of the amendment. It was suggested that societies should offer a refund for all dogs where no classes were available for that higher grade. Representatives were concerned that Societies would profit at the handlers’ expense. The Council proposed to delete the last line of the amendment, which stated ‘at the discretion of the organising club’.

50.       There was also discussion regarding the wording of the notification needed to the secretary prior to the date of the show. It was suggested that the competitor should notify the show secretary 14 days prior to the date of the show. The secretary could then refuse to allow a dog to compete if confirmation was received less than 14 days before the date of the show.

51.       The Council also considered whether notification to the show secretary should be in writing, either by letter or email, as it was classed an amendment to the entry form. The Council agreed it would be too impractical to enforce and should be left to the discretion of the secretary.

52.       Mr Griffin proposed the amendment to the proposal. Mr Elms seconded the amendment.

53.       Following a unanimous vote the Council recommended the proposal and the proposed amendments.

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 at least 14 days before 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 of the relevant entry fees.

(Amendment underlined)

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

            Mr Felstead, on behalf of Mrs Southhouse, a private individual, proposed an additional Regulation with regard to allowing a competitor a minimum of 20 minutes to walk a course prior to the start. There was no seconder for this proposal, therefore it was not discussed or supported.

ITEM 5.           DISCUSSION ITEMS

55.       Agility Licences

            Mr Duncan requested that the Council discuss the arrangements for the issue of agility licences to clubs, societies and other organisations, that did not have agility show management experience. Mr Duncan explained that he had received numerous complaints regarding the management of a particular agility show.

56.       The office informed the Council that if a competitor believed there were significant issues surrounding the show management, the Kennel Club office should be informed.

57.       Large Dogs at Limited Shows

            Mr Ray, on behalf of Mr White, requested that the Council discuss whether wins at Limited shows should be counted towards progression and gaining agility warrant points.

58.       The Council did not support this suggestion as it was believed that Societies could become selective in distributing schedules, if the show was limited to numbers. It was felt that more shows could be put in place in order to make money, which the Council felt was unacceptable.

59.       Special Classes

            Mr Ray, on behalf of Mr White, requested the Council discuss whether Helter Skelter and Circular Jumping classes should be classed as standard classes.

60.       It was queried whether a class could be called ‘Grade 4 Jumping (Helter Skelter Style)’ to enable a helter skelter style course to be classified as a standard class. The Council was informed that the class would still be classified as a ‘special’ class, due to the words ‘helter skelter’, as it was telling the judge how to set his course. Therefore the Council did not support the recommendation.

61.       Half day Agility Show licence

            Mr Mallabar, on behalf of Mr Robinson, requested the Council discuss whether the Kennel Club should issue half day agility licences, to enable judges to compete with their dog on the half day that they were not judging.      

62.       The Council agreed it was a good suggestion, but felt it was not realistic due to the impracticalities of a half day licence. It was queried when the morning licence would end and when the afternoon licence would start. Therefore the Council did not support the recommendation.

ITEM 6.           JUDGES WORKING PARTY (WTOA)

63.       Mr Griffin informed the Council that he had recently resigned from the Judges Working Party and that Graham Partridge would be continuing as the agility representative.

64.       Mr Griffin explained that all Championship Judges would be assessed prior to their first Championship appointment. On application the judge would be requested to include the dates of all their next judging appointments. The Working Trials, Obedience and Agility Sub-Committee (WTOA) would then appoint either an Accredited Trainer or a Championship Agility Judge from amongst its numbers to assess the judge at one of his/her future appointments.

65.       The Council queried whether the WTOA Sub-Committee had received many complaints regarding unsuitable judges. Mr Griffin explained that some complaints had been received regarding judges not performing at their best. It was noted that if thought appropriate they would be officially assessed by a WTOA Sub-Committee member.

ITEM 7.           DATE OF NEXT MEETING

66.       It was confirmed that the date of the next meeting was Thursday 19 June 2008 and all items for inclusion on the agenda should reach the office by Tuesday 25 March 2008.

ITEM 8.           ANY OTHER BUSINESS

67.       Agility Schedules

Mr Jordan asked the Council for clarification on what should be included in the agility schedule regarding ‘dogs in hot cars’. The office advised the Council that the ‘dogs in hot cars’ notice was not required in the schedule in full and that a small paragraph was suggested to warn competitors of the consequences.

68.       Review of Grading

Miss Olden asked the Council to review the grading structure.  The Council agreed that they had all received very good feedback regarding the grading, but felt the full effect would not be known until the end of the year. It was noted that for large dogs grade 3 classes had the largest entries, whilst grade 4 had the least.

69.       Agility Obstacles

The office had received a letter asking the Council to consider whether there should be a minimum distance of 5 metres between obstacles. The Council believed it would not make a difference and therefore did not support the suggestion.

70.       The meeting concluded at 2.00pm

 

Dave Ray

Chairman

Date:

Last updated on:

Categories:

Agility 

This article has been read 2326 times.