|
|
|
Fetch! |
14 January 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Fetch! |
14 January 2010 |
|
 In this section:  On Agilitynet:                  
|
Minutes of the KC Agility Council Liaison MeetingThese are the official minutes of the KC Agility Liaison Council held on 14 January 2010 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:
IN ATTENDANCE:
ITEM 1. TO ELECT A CHAIRMAN FOR THE TERM OF THE COUNCIL1. Tony Griffin proposed Dave Ray as Chairman for the term of the Council, seconded by Mike Hallam and in the absence of any further nominations, Dave Ray was elected as Chairman. ITEM 2. TO ELECT A VICE CHAIRMAN FOR THE TERM OF THE COUNCIL2. Dave Ray proposed Ian Mallabar as Vice Chairman for the term of the Council, seconded by Mike Hallam. In the absence of any further nominations, Ian Mallabar was elected as Vice Chairman. ITEM 3. TO ELECT A REPRESENTATIVE ONTO THE ACTIVITIES SUB-COMMITTEE EFFECTIVE FROM JUNE 2010 – MAY 20133. Mike Hallam proposed Lesley Olden as the Agility Liaison Council representative onto the Activities Sub-Committee, seconded by John Gilbert. In the absence of any further nominations, Lesley Olden was elected as the representative. ITEM 4. PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL ON KENNEL CLUB STRUCTURES AND PROCEDURES4. The Council noted the presentation which explained Kennel Club and Liaison Council structure and procedures. The role of Council representatives was clarified and each representative was asked to sign a Council Agreement which outlined their responsibilities. ITEM 5. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE5. Apologies had been received from Morag Kelly, representing Scotland. ITEM 6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES6. The minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2009 were signed by the Chairman as an accurate record. ITEM 7. MATTERS ARISING/RESULTS OF RECOMMENDATIONSRegulation Amendments 7. The Council noted all the Regulation changes, which had been approved by the General Committee, took effect from 1 January 2010. 8. The Council noted that, its proposal regarding nominations for Championship Judges from existing Championship Judges, was deferred by the Activities Sub-Committee to the Judges Working Party. Upon the advice of the Judges Working Party, the Sub-Committee decided not to approve the proposal. No further action was taken. New Measurers 9. The Council noted the recently approved Midlands measurers. It was queried whether this appointment should have been discussed by the Council first. It was explained that there was a need to find new measurers quickly. Therefore the matter was only discussed by the Sub-Committee. International Agility Teams 10. The Council noted the reports on both the European Open Championships and the World Championships. The Chairman praised the teams' managers for all their hard work as well as the successes of both teams. As funding for the teams was no longer being wholly supplied by the Kennel Club, the agility community would be holding events in spring to help raise funds for the teams. 11. Ronnie McAleese requested the Council consider the possibility of sending a separate Northern Ireland team, with the support of the Kennel Club, to the international championships. He reasoned that, since Team GB did not fill all of its allocated places, he could help prepare a team and give the competitors in Northern Ireland a greater goal to strive towards. 12. Concerns were raised that this would influence the other home nations to segregate from Team GB and send their own teams. The Council was reminded that three years ago it had decided to send a Great Britain team rather than home nations in order to be fair to the majority of agility competitors. A Great Britain team was agreed to be more representative of the distribution of agility handlers across all the home nations. 13. It was stated that Northern Ireland was technically not part of Great Britain, but rather of the United Kingdom, therefore could create a separate team. However, Katherine Symns explained that 'Team GB' was a colloquial term created to represent all the home nations. 14. It was unanimously agreed that a Great Britain team should remain in place. Therefore, no further action was taken. Ronnie McAleese accepted the decision, but suggested that the International Agility Working Party consider filling all the allocated places. ITEM 8. AGILITY CUSTOM AND PRACTICE – PROPOSED REGULATION CHANGESToys 15. The Council was requested to discuss toys held in the hand within the ring. A discussion took place whether there should be a marking procedure stated in the regulations, even though it was custom and practice to penalise this already. It was noted that the main problem which arose from area meetings was how to define what 'under test' meant with regard to holding toys in the ring. There was also concern that by only issuing a press release to mention the exception for mobility aids, most competitors would not be aware of this and hence issues may arise. 16. There were mixed views from the Council, but it was generally agreed that competitors wished to keep this matter as custom and practice. Many stressed the importance of retaining a degree of judges’ discretion within the sport. 17. The majority voted against the wording of the proposal, yet the Council originally welcomed the possibility of deferring the matter back to the Judges Working Party for further amendment. However, after much deliberation, it was decided that it would be too difficult to create the correct wording without problematic implications arising from it. No further action was taken. Collars 18. The Council was requested to consider a new regulation to ensure judges could officially eliminate a dog for wearing an incorrect style of collar. There were mixed views whether it was necessary to insert a regulation when it was already custom and practice amongst judges to penalise this. However, nobody opposed the proposal. It was unanimously agreed to recommend the following regulation: Insert new sub-paragraph H(1)(B)5.a(20) Dog wearing incorrect style of collar – elimination. (Addition underlined) Double Handling 19. The Council was requested to discuss a proposal to insert a new regulation which would penalise double handling with an elimination. It was unanimously supported in principle because this practice is a form of cheating, but it was agreed that it would be difficult to enforce and define. It was noted that the regulation could reinforce custom and practice since it would still allow judges’ discretion. However, there was slight concern over what the definition was of double handling. As a result, the Council deferred the matter back to the Judges Working Party to define double handling. Knocking an Obstacle 20. The Council was requested to discuss a proposed new regulation that would eliminate the dog, should the handler or dog disturb an obstacle in a way that it could no longer be negotiated correctly. It was disputed that there could be situations where this would not apply, such as knocking an obstacle that had already been used. It would also be unclear what the marking procedure would be in the event that an obstacle was disturbed, but was to be negotiated at another stage in the course. Therefore, it was unanimously agreed not to recommend the proposal. Re-Runs 21. The Council was requested to discuss a proposed new regulation that would create a consistent course of action in the event a re-run was required. It was mentioned that re-runs for time only were generally more popular at shows further north, whereas the southern shows tended to offer a re-run from scratch. The Council had mixed views on the matter and agreed it would never satisfy all the competitors if one style of re-run was formed into a regulation. It was reminded that it was the competitors who asked for clarity, but it was stressed that it should remain as the judge’s discretion so long as it was consistent for that particular class. The Council voted against the current wording, but stated it was willing to accept proposals from individuals if they felt they could clarify the issue further. ITEM 9. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE ACTIVITIES SUB-COMMITTEEAgility Council Representation onto the Judges Working Party 22. The Council was requested to elect a representative onto the Judges Working Party for the term of Council in order to liaise between meetings more productively. Tony Griffin and Simon Chandler both volunteered for the role, thus a vote commenced. Tony Griffin volunteered to stand down in order to allow a new representative to undertake the role. Simon Chandler gratefully accepted his new role and understood he would be key to communicating effectively between the two bodies. Agility Control Test 23. The Council was requested to discuss the introduction of an Agility Control Test. It was agreed that each representative of the Council had never witnessed such strong opposition from the agility community to any proposal before. Many were frustrated that due to a small number of incidents, the majority would be penalised by having to undergo such a test. Furthermore, concerns were raised for dogs which had been re-homed and may be under control, but may have some difficulty with elements of the test. Some stated that it would be impossible to create a show environment during a training class. Additionally, others stressed that the Good Citizen Dog Scheme was not a reflection of a dog in an agility environment. It was stressed that these tests were undertaken in a calm environment with dogs acquainted with one another, whereas an agility environment would be a lot more excitable and dogs were usually surrounded by unacquainted dogs. 24. It was noted, however, that the introduction of the control test had positively shaken the agility community to become more aware of dog control related incidents. It was emphasised that there was a lack of knowledge of incidents taking place. The Office stated details of owners who had been fined for a breach of Regulations were published in the Kennel Gazette. It was noted that the majority of the agility community did not read this publication. Therefore it was suggested that editors of other magazines or websites publish these details, to demonstrate that such incidents would not be tolerated. 25. There was a view that many incidents took place due to poor show organisation and suggested guidelines be issued to clubs/societies to alleviate concerns such as, exercise areas, queuing procedures and briefing ring parties. Furthermore, it was emphasised that a lot of incidents were never reported. The Office urged competitors to report incidents as it maintained a central record to refer to should the dog commit the offence again, so creating a more accurate picture of the dog’s behaviour. It was agreed that show management could be improved and through raising awareness, competitors would be more forthcoming about incidents in the future. 26. There were some positive contributions from the area meetings which included the suggestion of moving the control test to an agility show, as a means of creating a realistic environment. It was proposed that it could be a special class, without contact equipment, for dogs that were 18 months of age. It would take place at the beginning of the day, for a set amount of time, by an experienced judge. Owners/handlers would be able to enter their dog normally for the show and should their dog pass the control test, they would be able to compete in the rest of the classes entered. It was agreed that this would be a good incentive for competitors to attend a show for the test and it would prevent additional workload by holding it within an agility competition. It was reinforced that this concept would ensure that the test was carried out by agility people, for the benefit of the agility community. 27. The Council unanimously voted against the proposed Control Test as it currently appeared. After a lengthy discussion, the Council concluded that measures could be taken to lessen such incidents from occurring which would include advice to clubs/societies on better show management. Additionally, those who were fined would be named in agility media and could be required to pass a control test before being allowed to compete again. The Council agreed to recommend a new concept for the control test, which will be written and presented by Mr Gilbert, to the Activities Sub-Committee in March. The Council also agreed to recommend a paper titled ‘Code of Conduct’ for all competitors, for the Sub-Committee, to be written by Mr Chandler. ‘Fun Agility’ Guidelines 28. The Council was requested to discuss whether the wording in the ‘Fun Agility’ Guidelines required amendment. There were many views from area meetings which were opposed to even having ‘Fun Agility’ at shows and many competitors were against attracting the public. It was reiterated that it would not be fair to penalise agility competitors by having to undertake the control test, when members of the public could bring potentially untrained dogs into the show environment. 29. The Council was reminded that their role for this subject was to clarify the wording of the guidelines rather than the views on the actual activity. Additionally, it was stated that this activity has been around for years without issues and was very popular at horse trials. There was also concern over the proposed 'barrel' obstacle, but the Chairman explained that 'Fun Agility' was not competitive agility which was the reason why it was allowed to have different obstacles. It was agreed to recommend the wording as detailed on the Agenda. ITEM 11. FIVE YEAR STRATEGY30. The Council was invited to discuss the setting of a five year strategy. It was requested that the Council prioritise two topics for a given time, in order to maintain focus and thus achieve more productivity. The most significant area for consideration was establishing and maintaining the highest standards in judging. Many were concerned that there was inconsistency within each grade with regard to the difficulty of courses being set. It was also suggested that first time judges may not be judging the appropriate level of classes for their first few appointments. 31. Another discussion took place as to whether there was enough incentive for clubs/societies to become registered with the Kennel Club. It was noted that there was a rise in private clubs and it was queried how the Kennel Club could attract their attention. The Council agreed to discuss these two topics at its next meeting. 32. It was noted that the grading structure has been in force for a couple of years and a review of the system could be warranted. The Council agreed this matter would be quite complex and agreed that it be reviewed in January 2011, following the 2010 season. 33. The Council was asked whether it wanted to suggest any additional matters to be considered at a later date. The following points would be added to the five year strategy in addition to those already listed on the agenda:
ITEM 11. PROPOSALS FROM SOCIETIES/PRIVATE INDIVIDUALSProposed amendments to Regulation H(1)(B)5.a 34. Dave Ray, on behalf of the Office, proposed amendments to the above Regulation to reflect actual marking used in judging agility. Since the Office requested the proposed amendments, no seconder was required. The Council unanimously recommended the approval of the new amendments and the proposed wording as follows: FROM:
TO:
Proposed Amendment to Regulation H.10.g – Changes to Grades (Ian Mallabar declared an interest as a show processor.) 35. John Gilbert, on behalf of North Downs Dog Training Club, proposed the amendment to increase the 14 day notice period to secretaries to 21 days and the 25 day rule to 31 days respectively. It also highlighted that competitors should give written notice to show secretaries rather than telephone notifications. However, this was not supported by some. Mike Hallam seconded the proposal. 36. It was noted that extending the time limits would slow the process of dogs progressing through the grades which was the opposite effect intended by this rule originally. Others were willing to support the idea if it meant assisting show organisers and entry processors with their workload. The representatives also expressed support for the clarification that a competitor may enter the Championship class upon their dog's progression to Grade 7. However, it was emphasised that the majority of show organisers did not have an issue with the time limits as they were. Therefore, it was queried whether an amendment was necessary. With little support for the change in dates, the whole proposal was not supported and no further action was taken. ITEM 12. DISCUSSION ITEMSABC Classes 37. The Council discussed the eligibility of ABC classes on behalf of Wirral Alsatian Training Society. The Council unanimously agreed that since ABC classes were special classes, with specific definitions in the schedules, then the matter would not require further action. Grade 1 Eligibility 38. The Council agreed to defer this matter for discussion within the Agility Grading Structure review. Progression from Grades 2, 4 and 5 39. The Council agreed to defer this matter for discussion within the Agility Grading Structure review. Grade 6 Eligibility Criteria 40. The Council agreed to defer this matter for discussion within the Agility Grading Structure review. ITEM 13. INTERNATIONAL AGILITY FESTIVAL41. The Council noted that due to adverse weather conditions, the last International Agility Festival Meeting had to be cancelled. As a result, Dave Ray gave a brief verbal report on arrangements for the Festival to be held at Kelmarsh Hall on 13-15 August 2010. 42. The Chairman requested all Council members attend and help at the show as part of their Council responsibilities. ITEM 14. JUDGES WORKING PARTY (WTOA)43. The Office gave a brief report on the Judges Working Party. The Council noted that a practical assessment was held on 6 December 2009 for the remaining agility accredited trainers, who had not previously been assessed to hold Course Design and Practical Judging seminars. It was also noted that the next Annual Seminar would be held on 18 February 2010, at the Kennel Club Building in Stoneleigh. 44. The Council noted that Simon Chandler would prepare the Judges Working Party report for the next Liaison Council meeting. ITEM 15. ANY OTHER BUSINESSMeasuring Queries 45. The Council was requested to discuss measuring. The agility community had raised many concerns in recent months, claiming that there were too few measurers to meet demand. The Council requested the matter be deferred to the Activities Sub-Committee for a complete review of the number of measurers for each area. Agility Liaison Council Meeting Dates 46. Richard Jordan requested the Council discuss the possibility of altering the current meeting dates of January and June to April and October. He suggested that area meetings would be more productive if they were held during the busier months of the agility season. The Council was reminded that it would not be possible to implement any urgent matters from an October meeting in time for the New Year. It was agreed to leave the dates as they are. ITEM 16. DATE OF NEXT MEETING47. The date of the next meeting will be on Wednesday, 10 June 2010. Items for the agenda should reach the office by Friday, 19 March 2010. Dave Ray, Chairman |
|
|
