PRESENT:

• Richard Jordan - Midlands

• Ian Mallabar - North East

• Janet Nero - North East

• Pauline Baltes - North West

• Mike Hallam - North West

• David Duncan - Northern Ireland

• Peter Elms - Scotland

• John Gilbert - South East and East Anglia

• Lesley Olden - South and South West

• Mike Shaw - Wales

IN ATTENDANCE:

• Debbie Deuchar - Team Leader – WTOA

• Joanna Nosalik - WTOA Specialist

• Katherine Symns - Executive – Canine Activities

IN THE CHAIR: Ian Mallabar

ITEM 1.          APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

1.         Apologies had been received from Terry Felstead representing the South East and East Anglia, Tony Griffin representing the South and South West and Dave Ray representing the Midlands. Ian Mallabar, the Vice Chairman, acted as Chairman in Dave Ray's absence.

ITEM 2.          APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

2.         The minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2009 were signed by the Vice Chairman as an accurate record

ITEM 3.          MATTERS ARISING/RESULTS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Regulation Amendments

3.         The Council noted that the recommended Flyball Regulations H(2), to use the flat-fronted box with immediate effect, were approved on 21 April 2009 by the General Committee.

4.         The Council noted that Regulation H(1)(C).5.e (Match Meetings) will be deleted with effect from 1 January 2010 as approved by the General Committee. 

5.         The Council noted that the proposed amendment to Regulation H(1)(A).6 (Combined Classes) was approved by the General Committee and will take effect from 1 January 2010. 

6.         The Council noted that the proposed amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).3.k (Weaving Poles) was approved by the General Committee and will take effect from 1 January 2010.

7.         The Council noted that the proposed amendments to the Liaison Council Regions were not approved by the General Committee at this stage, and the matter had been referred back to the Shows Liaison Council for further discussion as it also affected its areas of operation.

International Agility Teams

8.         The Council noted that the European Open squad selection day was held on Saturday 18 April 2009 in Daventry as planned. The squad was informed that the Open would now be a self-funding event which resulted in one competitor withdrawing from the competition. However, the next placed person at the qualifier has taken that place. 

9.         The Kennel Club has agreed to sponsor the team manager's expenses as well as those of the team vet. The Kennel Club is still in talks with a possible sponsor, but no decisions have yet been made. The team manager, Graham Partridge, has asked Dave Jolly to assist on the trip. It is expected that two training sessions will be organised prior to the Championships.

10.       The schedule for the FCI World Championship has been issued, but unless additional sponsorship can be found, this trip will also be self-funded as it was in 2008. 

11.       The Council was advised to leave additional questions regarding International Agility Teams for the Question Time Panel. (See Item 10) 

Proposed amendment to Regulation H(1)(B)3.a

12.       John Gilbert proposed the above amendment regarding hurdle heights, seconded by Mike Hallam. The Council queried whether Special Classes required further definition but the Vice Chairman suggested it was unnecessary as long as the schedule specified what the particular class would entail.

 13.       Mike Hallam proposed a wording amendment which was seconded by Lesley Olden. The Council agreed that the wording for Special Classes should suggest a lower height of jump may be used. The majority also voted in favour of hurdles having a fixed height and that the measurement should be taken against the hurdle wings. Following a majority vote, the Council recommended the amendment:

FROM: Hurdle - Large dogs - to be between 550mm (1ft 9.6ins) and 650mm (2ft 1.6ins). Medium Dogs - to be between 350mm (1ft 1.75ins) and 450mm (1ft 5.7ins). Small Dogs - to be between 250mm (9.8ins) and 350mm (1ft1.75ins). Width: 1.219m (4ft) minimum. The top bar or plank must be easily displaced by the dog. A wall should have displaceable units on the top. (Delete underlined)

TO: Hurdle - The height of the hurdle must be 650mm (2ft 1.6ins) for Large Dogs, 450mm (1ft 5.7ins) for Medium Dogs and 350mm (1ft 1.75ins) for Small Dogs. Width: 1.219m (4ft) minimum. The top bar or plank must be easily displaced by the dog. A wall should have displaceable units on the top. The height of hurdles in special classes may be lower from those listed above but the height must be included in the schedule. (Amendment underlined)

Proposed amendment to Regulation H.9.c(22) Dave Ray's absence. David Duncan seconded the proposal. It was emphasised that the proposal's intention was that the Practice Ring should only be used by dogs entered for that competition in order to prevent young dogs and Not For Competition dogs from practicing.

15.       A concern was raised as to what defined a responsible adult and what action should be taken in the unlikely event that the ring was outside the environment of the show. The Council agreed that both of these points required a common sense approach, but agreed further amendment was required with regards to which dogs may enter the ring. Lesley Olden proposed the amendment, seconded by Richard Jordan. The Council voted unanimously in favour of the following amendment:

FROM: A practice ring will be available if space allows.

TO: A practice ring may be available to dogs entered for competition at the show, if space allows. This ring must be supervised by a responsible adult with agility knowledge. (Amendment underlined)

Agility Liaison Council Strategy

16.       The Council was invited to discuss the formulation of its five year strategic plan but the Vice Chairman explained that since it was the Council's end of term in office, it should be deferred until January for the new Council to discuss. The Council requested the office provide the previous five year plan as a reminder and the Vice Chairman suggested some ideas be put forward prior to January's meeting.

17.       Mrs Symns offered a few suggestions, including; seeking a method to attract unknown clubs to register in order to promote education and consistency in agility training, to ensure members in a team event all train at the same club, developing proposals around how to improve the control of dogs at shows and reviewing the recently introduced grading structure. The Council welcomed these ideas.

18.       Lesley Olden suggested creating guidelines for judges to distinguish relative difficulty between grades in order to assist course design. The Council agreed this should be developed since there are often cases whereby a grade 3 handler is judging a grade 6 or 7 class without experience of running in these higher grades. It was further agreed that the number of Championship entries will be discussed. There was also a brief discussion as to whether the maximum number of grades in a combined class should be two in order to be fairer for the lower grades. This idea was welcomed, but it was noted that it would cause an issue for Small and Medium classes that already have a low entry.

ITEM 4.          PROPOSALS FROM SOCIETIES/PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS

Proposed new obstacle Regulation H(1)(B)3.p

19.       Lesley Olden, on behalf of Mr Palmer, a private individual, proposed the above Regulation regarding a new obstacle called the Spin Pole. There was no seconder for the proposal, therefore it was not discussed further

Proposed Amendment to Regulation H.18.b

20.       Lesley Olden proposed the above amendment in order to provide more detailed criteria for becoming a Championship judge to ensure only the most experienced persons are chosen for this level of responsibility. Peter Elms seconded the proposal.

21.       The Council had a lengthy discussion on what should be amended in the regulations and what should be inserted. The difficulty of finding Championship judges was questioned, but the remainder of the Council agreed it was relatively easy. The Council admitted, however, that there may sometimes be a problem between the quality of the course design and the quality of judging. Lesley Olden suggested that point (3) and (4) in the existing regulation (see overleaf) should be combined and it should include wording that the judge needs to have experience of judging at the highest levels in each height category.

22.       A discussion took place with regards to point (5), as to whether a potential Championship judge should have experience of competing in a Grade 7 class. The majority of the Council emphasised the need for a judge to have experience of competing in a Grade 7 class, including combined classes, in order to understand how to design and judge for that level. However, the Council was reminded that it was important not to confuse judging with competing as a competitor could borrow somebody else's dog in order to gain experience of running in a higher level than at which their own dogs have competed. The majority of the Council voted in favour of the amendment to point (5).

23.       Lesley Olden proposed a point (6) in order to expand a potential Championship judge's understanding of the scoring system on a Championship ring. It was stated by several members of the Council that it should be the show management's responsibility to ensure that all areas of stewarding the Championship ring were dependable.

24.       The Vice Chairman asked for everybody's opinion on the matter. It was stated that there was merit in Lesley Olden's proposal as it widened the judges' knowledge of the scoring process. Some of the Council queried the necessity of the proposal yet a few agreed it could be beneficial but to include it in judges' training and not as a compulsory regulation. The Council agreed this additional point would not be required.

25.       The Office explained that anyone who wished to become an agility judge must now undertake and pass both the Regulations and Judging Procedure examination and the Course Design and Judging assessment. For this reason the Council decided it would be necessary to include the Practical seminar as a compulsory requirement of the criteria. The majority of the Council recommended approval of the new amendments and the proposed wording as follows:

            FROM:
        b. On a person's first appointment to judge the Championship Agility Class the minimum conditions which apply are:-
            Criteria

On application a person must have:-

(1)       a minimum of 5 years experience of competing at Kennel Club licensed Agility Shows and
(2)       a minimum of 5 years experience of judging at Kennel Club licensed Agility Shows and
(3)       to have judged at a minimum of 10 licensed Agility Shows over the previous 3 years and
(4)       to have judged at Kennel Club licensed events at Grade 5 or above, class size and geographical distribution of judging appointments will be a consideration and
(5)       to have handled a dog competitively at Grade 5 level or above and
(6)       been assessed before their first Championship appointment
(7)       otherwise approved by the General Committee.
(8)       at the time of judging a first Championship appointment the Judge must have attended a Kennel Club Agility Regulations and Judging Procedure Seminar and passed the Regulations and Judging Procedure examination.

            TO:
            b.  On a person's first appointment to judge the Championship Agility Class the minimum conditions which apply are:-
            Criteria

On application a person must have:-

(1)       a minimum of 5 years' experience of competing at Kennel Club licensed Agility Shows and
(2)       a minimum of 5 years' experience of judging at Kennel Club licensed Agility Shows and
(3)       to have judged at a minimum of 10 licensed Agility Shows over the previous 3 years, including standard classes in each height category which must include Grade 7, class size and geographical distribution of judging appointments will be a consideration and,
(4)       to have handled a dog competitively at Grade 6 or 7 in the previous five years.
(5)       been assessed before their first Championship appointment
(6)       (at the time of judging a first Championship appointment the Judge must have) attended a Kennel Club Agility Regulations and Judging Procedure Seminar and passed the Regulations and Judging Procedure examination.
(7)       attended a Kennel Club Agility Course Design and Judging Seminar and passed the assessment.
(8)       otherwise been approved by the General Committee. (Deletions in italics. Amendments underlined)

Proposal to insert new Regulation H.18.c

26.       Lesley Olden proposed the above amendment to specify that a Championship judge could only award Agility Certificates once every six months. John Gilbert seconded the proposal.

27.       It was stated that the regulation should also mention that a Championship judge may not award any Certificates 12 months prior to a Crufts appointment. This would prevent the difficult scenario arising of a competitor qualifying for Crufts under one judge only to be judged again by the same judge at Crufts that year, which could prevent a dog from achieving Championship status. Mrs Symns suggested that this matter should remain as a recommendation to put forward to the Crufts Sub-Committee. The Council agreed that it would not be fair to impose such a rule upon a society therefore it should be written within a judge's contract rather than as a regulation.

Lesley Olden further suggested that her proposal be extended to one Championship appointment every twelve months instead of six. The Council considered this, but in light of the fact that agility is a seasonal activity, it was agreed it should remain as a minimum of six months between appointments. The majority of the Council recommended approval of this new regulation: 

A person approved to judge a Championship Agility Certificate may not judge another Championship Agility Certificate at the same height within a period of six calendar months. (Insert underlined)

Proposal to insert new Regulation H.18.d.

29.       Lesley Olden proposed the above amendment regarding Championship judges who have awarded Agility Certificates regularly in the previous five years to be able to nominate a person to be considered for Championship judge approval. It was explained that this may promote new people to become Championship judges instead of relying on the current Championship judges list. John Gilbert seconded the proposal.

30.       Various points were raised such as whether a person could put themselves forward through this method and whether this could create a worse standard of judges because proposals could be made for personal reasons rather than for the good of the sport. The Office reminded the Council that every potential Championship judge must be assessed and the Activities Sub-Committee will make the final approval to ensure that the person is of a high standard to award Agility Certificates.

31.       After some discussion, the Vice Chairman concluded that this would be a positive regulation because the existing Championship judge who would nominate another potential Championship judge could mentor them through the process. The majority of the Council recommended approval of this new regulation.

A judge who has been awarding Championship Agility Certificates regularly for the previous five years may nominate for approval a person to be considered to be a Championship Agility judge. (Insert underlined)

ITEM 5.          DISCUSSION ITEMS

Championship Classes

32.       Lesley Olden requested the Council discuss whether Championship classes were becoming too large. Lesley Olden stressed that this was brought to her attention by others, but that she personally believes the Council should review the Grading system for another two years before making decisions on the matter.

33.       A discussion took place around the issues of increasing numbers in this class. It was expressed that it was too easy to progress to this level and that it should become a greater challenge. However, it was explained that a lot of Grade 6 courses did not test the dog and handler enough which meant early progression and possible unsuitability for the higher level. Some of the Council stated there would be a decrease in Championship class entries if other standard Grade 7 classes were held on the same day at a show. It was suggested that many handlers simply enter the Championship class because they have no other options for their Grade 7 dog.

34.       Lesley Olden suggested that this discussion item should be included in the five year plan to which the Council unanimously agreed. It was expressed that although it is too soon to impose changes, a consideration for the future may be that dogs would need to gain an award in Grade 7 in order to be eligible for the Championship class. It was also suggested that the class size should be restricted to 150 dogs.

35.       It was explained to council that in some cases handlers in Grade 7 classes trained in standard classes and would only really compete in the Championship classes. It was suggested that two wins, one being an agility win, could be introduced in a few years in order to be eligible for the Championship class. The Office reminded the Council that any new rules would need to apply to all the height categories which could result in very small entry numbers for the Small and Medium height classes.

36.       It was suggested that societies perhaps should not host Championship classes if the entry for Small and Medium heights were low. The rest of the Council argued that this would appear to be punishing those competitors who wished to enter, by omitting their category due to a lack of competition. This was not the intention.

37.       The Council agreed to defer this item for the five year plan discussion in January 2010.

Existing Championship Judging List

38.       Lesley Olden requested the Council discuss a routine review of the existing Championship judging list. Lesley Olden explained that this would ensure only the highest standard of judges are allowed to award Agility Certificates and would be consistent with standard custom and practice. The Office reminded the Council that when a judge is asked to fulfil a Championship appointment after five years of not awarding Agility Certificates, they are asked for their level of participation in the sport in the interviewing period and are reviewed again.

39.       The Council expressed concern that it would be unfair to impose a regulation that Championship judges should always be competing in Grades 5 to 7. Lesley Olden explained that the item as listed on the agenda had not appeared as she had intended and that she meant the judges in question should be regularly gaining top ten placings in any Grade. The Council did not agree that any additional review was required other than what the Office already conducts but should such a requirement arise, then it should be to just check the person in question is actively competing.

The practice of locking gates to camping/caravan sites

40.       John Gilbert, on behalf of Sue White, a private individual, requested the Council discuss the practice of locking gates to camping venues overnight as a safety requirement. This included discussion on security measures such as gates being locked at night to keep the public out, the possibility of distributing a code to the competitors for a padlock on the gates, having security guards or emergency contact details of somebody able to open the gates. The Council unanimously agreed that this matter was not relevant to the meeting but rather an issue for a society's risk assessment and management for a show. The Council expressed that they understood this person's concern but that the society holding the show is responsible for the safety of the competitors. The Office stated that they will include this matter in the Agility Show Guide to be produced for inclusion in the Registered Societies Manual.

            Dog Walk Accidents

41.       Richard Jordan, on behalf of Ms Stevens, a private individual, requested the Council discuss the perceived increase in dogs falling off dog walks and the possibility of altering its dimensions. A brief discussion followed which concluded that it was not a dangerous obstacle, but rather dangerous course designs.

42.       The Council discussed that dogs had also increased their speed over the planks in recent years, but that dogs were often approaching the dog walk at a dangerous angle. It was informed that the dog walk planks were widened many years ago and an increase would not make a significant difference. The Council concluded that it was a course design problem but, the newly introduced practical seminar would help educate judges on safety matters when designing a course.

ITEM 6.          INTERNATIONAL AGILITY FESTIVAL

43.       The Office informed the Council of the progress of the International Agility Festival thus far. The Council noted that the figures were positive with 720 caravans attending and approximately 11,000 entries as well as 25 trade stands.

44.       The Council noted that the International Agility Festival would be hosting a Companion Dog Show on the Sunday, across the river on a separate field, but with access to the main fields.

45.       The Council was also advised that there would again be the ‘Have a go agility' ring for all three days to encourage members of the public to get involved in the sport.

46.       Finally, the Council noted that no caravans would be allowed to use generators, and that trade stands would be able to use diesel generators only.

ITEM 7.          JUDGES WORKING PARTY (WTOA) 

47.       The Office gave a report on the Judges Working Party. The Council noted that the Annual Seminar held in February 2009 was a success and that the Judges Working Party had appointed several trainers to undertake the Rules and Judging Procedure seminar as well as the practical seminars in their disciplines.

48.       The Council further noted that a practical assessment will be organised in September/October 2009 for the remaining accredited trainers who could not yet hold practical seminars. This would consist of one weekend to save costs.

 ITEM 9.          ANY OTHER BUSINESS

 Eligibility for Classes – Estimating number of Awards

49.       The Council noted that Mrs Croxford, a private individual, requested the Council discuss the 25 day rule. The Council agreed that since this was a recent proposal, it did not wish to re-visit the matter. However, the Council did agree to discuss the 14 day rule as it has been causing some confusion for show societies. The Council confirmed that it is the competitors' responsibility to inform the Show Secretary 14 days in advance of the show of any change in Grade, and no discretion could be exercised after this time.

 50.       Lesley Olden requested the Council discuss whether dogs progressing from Grade 6 to Grade 7 should also be able to enter the Championship class under the new 14 day rule. It was clarified that all Grade 7 dogs are eligible for Championship classes. At present, this ruling has not applied for Championship classes, which has caused some competitors to lose out on potential runs due to a lack of Grade 7 standard classes at Championship shows. The Council agreed there was no reason why the Championship class should be regarded as an exception. Therefore, it was agreed that with immediate effect notification to the show secretary of a dog changing to Grade 7, at least 14 days prior to the show, was sufficient enough time to make the necessary changes to the Championship class.

 Measuring Queries

51.       Richard Jordan requested the office clarify whether measurers were appointed randomly across the country and whether appointing couples as measurers may be a solution to the scarcity of measurers. It was explained to the Council that it is preferable to have independent measurers to maintain impartiality.

52.       The office reported a number of complaints regarding the difficulty in finding or organising measuring sessions. Richard Jordan requested the Council consider additional measurers in the Midlands. The office agreed to submit the suggestion for further discussion to the Activities Sub-Committee.

53.       The office reported that Dr Val Marrian wished to resign from her position as a measurer and had suggested another person as a replacement. However, it was reported Miss Smith who already is a Kennel Club measurer is currently relocating to Edinburgh and could be a suitable replacement. The Council noted that this would result in only six remaining measurers in the South East, yet it was concluded that this would be a sufficient number to cover the area.

Minimum number of items of contact equipment in an agility class

54.       Peter Elms requested the Office clarify how many pieces of contact equipment were required for a standard agility class since there is no regulation regarding the matter. The Council believed that there had been a regulation for it at one time. John Gilbert explained that he has made several attempts in previous years to include such a regulation, but it was never approved. It was noted that the Young Kennel Club have a specification that its agility designs must include at least two pieces of contact equipment. However, the Council questioned the necessity of this regulation because it is already agility custom and practice. 

Quality of Show Venues

55.       Mike Hallam requested the Council discuss the safety of show venues, especially where a Championship class is concerned. Mrs Symns informed the Council that Field Officers assess every venue and at the time of each visit a further inspection is conducted should complaints arise. The Council noted and agreed that the Kennel Club is reliant on competitor feedback, therefore can only assist in matters when brought to its attention.

Championship Class Running Order Draws

56.       David Duncan suggested the possibility of the office managing the Championship agility draws on behalf of societies as they do for obedience. The Council was advised that Field Trials Societies undertook their own draws, therefore it was not deemed necessary to alter the agility process.

ITEM 10.        QUESTION TIME PANEL

57.       The panel consisted of Ronnie Irving – Kennel Club Chairman, Bill Hardaway – Kennel Club Vice Chairman, Stan Ford – Activities Sub-Committee Chairman and Mrs Kathryn Symns – Executive - Canine Activities.

58.       Ronnie Irving gave a presentation to the Council on the Kennel Club and its financial situation and commitment to Agility. The Council was then invited by the panel to ask questions and raise any issues relating to the world of dogs.

59.       The following topics were discussed:

•             FCI Worlds and European Open Agility Championships

•             The departure of Eukanuba sponsorship

•             DFS as the new sponsor of Crufts

•             Continued funding for Agility Events - Olympia, Discover Dogs, Crufts and Kennel Club International Agility Festival

•             Control of dogs at agility shows

•             Supporting Kennel Club registered societies through hosting Crufts team qualifiers

ITEM 11.        DATE OF NEXT MEETING

60.       The date of the next meeting will be in early January 2010 and will be confirmed in September 2009.

61.       The meeting concluded at 4pm.

D Ray Chairman

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!