Get on your soap box...
This is a little
corner of Agilitynet where you can speak freely on any agility subject whatsoever as long as it
is honest, decent and respectful. So gather round, express your ideas on any agility-related
topic, listen to the arguments and give us your feedback. If you have a burning issue or want
to respond to someone's comments below, email Agilitynet at ellen.rocco@agilitynet.co.uk
As someone who gave
up the visit to the village hall meeting - usually miles away - with the loudest voices being
heard and the show of hands outcome, I long for sensibly framed internet-based polls /
suggestions to frame agility policy under the current representative basis. Surely this would
be better for a) the Area Representative and b) the agility decision making process .
In particular, I
refer to the minutes of 20-1-2011 and ITEM 7 - Proposal for a fourth jump height and the
council comments viz ' That there was lack of support ' and ' Competitors were unlikely to want
further changes at this time.'
A well publicised internet poll, run prior
to this proposal, resulted in an overwhelming 75% in favour of four jump heights. Even
respondents who did not have a dog affected had more than twice as many in favour. Now we can
all argue about sample size, framing of the question etc. but what is a fact is the rise of the
number of Independent organisations with a more sympathetic (to the dog ) jump height
structure. Almost every month it seems that competitors are being asked to vote with their feet
rather than their hands.
I will also refer to the comments of the KC
Agility Council Chairman - re: Olympia , and the question of ' new weave spacing ' and 'rubber
contacts.' He says that he is going along with ' The Majority ' and sticking with narrow old
style weaves and wooden contacts. Now as a competitor this year , I haven't been asked what I
would prefer , but am absolutely sure, that along with me, at least 75% of the G6/7 finalists
would prefer the new style, wider poles and rubber contacts, again largely because they are
more beneficial to their dogs - and most recent shows have had them anyway.
(18/10/11)
Reply
from Dave Ray...
Just to clarify, the decisions I made in my role as manager of the Olympia events have nothing
to do with the Agility Council or my role as Chairman of the Council.
The 'narrow old style weaves' are not old.
They are the current regulations until 1 January 2012. And yes, I understand that a higher
percentage of G6/7 handlers may want rubber contacts, but they are not the majority at
Olympia. I am not about to conduct a poll on rubber contacts for Olympia finalists. There is
no doubt that the sport will move completely on to rubber contacts but we are not there yet
and again its about what people can train on as well as compete on.
(19/10/11)
From Sharon Brewster
I agree that in this day and age we
should be able to vote without travelling miles to a meeting. More people would vote and
therefore views would be more representative.
I
have been disappointed in the past when having conducted a poll and submitting other supporting
data on a particular subject, I attended a meeting only to be told that the decision had all
but been made and that it was just a rubber stamping exercise! Hence, I do not dedicate the
time and money needed to attend meetings, but I would vote in an on-line poll.(27/12/11)
From Dawn Weaver...
I have just read what Paul Oldfield put
on the Speak section. I have also noted Dave Rays reply. I agree with Paul whole-heartedly.
What Dave Ray says is incorrect.
The old style weave spacing may well still just about be in force at that time, but the new
weave spacing is also already within the old rules and always has been. So it isn't 'new' but
already within the rules and, as such, should be at Olympia as it is so close to being
illegal to use the old ones!
How are we supposed to train our dogs to do the wider spacing on 1st January and yet they
still be able to do the old - at speed and huge distances at Olympia - a few days before? It
is totally unfair on our dogs to think they are running into one distance and then slam their
shoulders at the old distance and then think they are running safely onto rubber but oh no...
this time it is painted! Who is actually thinking of the dogs here? Because I know what they
would vote for!
(19/10/11)
From Jill Spurr...
The 'well publicised internet poll'
that Paul refers to had a couple of hundred respondents, less than the number of handlers who
turn up at most Midlands shows. As the majority of handlers had not responded to the poll,
can you really claim lack of support to be unrepresentative? Since, if people were
supportive, wouldn't they have voted?
I didn't vote. Despite having up to three dogs who would be
affected (depending on the definition of the standard category, which wasn't stated, so how
could anyone actually offer an opinion on it?) there was not an option that represented my
opinion, even if I was crazy enough to assume that I knew the height range that would
potentially jump standard.
That said, I agree, there are potentially more and varied ways in
which our reps could be accessible, but equally, having had many a chat with reps for this area
at times, I have never felt my views not represented.
(22/10/11)
More from Paul Oldfield
Let's talk language again.
Dave Ray states that Grade 6/7 handlers are not the majority at Olympia. I can only presume he
is counting the spectators! This is the sort of misinformation from people in authority that my
post is aimed at.
And yes,
200 odd is MORE, not less, than they get at Regional meetings countrywide. And anybody who felt strongly enough could
vote for / against or don't know.
(25/10/11)
Boobs
From Janet Smith
Q.
What did one saggy boob say to the other saggy boob?
A. If we don't get some support soon, people are going to think we're nuts.
Now this could be down to boob envy. I
only have two pimples on my chest, but I never cease to be amazed at the lack of care some
women put into the choice of bra they are wearing for the 'sport' of dog agility. After
standing agog watching some women practically giving themselves a black eye at the last
competition, I entered the Bridge House show. Afterwards, I felt compelled to write to
Agilitynet, in the hope I might save at least one pair of boobs from damage.
Breasts are mostly composed of fatty
tissue and are supported mainly by skin and fragile ligaments called Coopers' ligaments.
Because these are not elastic, during repetitive or high impact sport the breasts bounce and
pull on the ligaments, forcing them to stretch. Once these ligaments have stretched they stay
this way. The result is every woman's nightmare - sagging breasts.
Going without the correct support can
also cause breast pain and upper back and shoulder problems and running without any bra at all
causes the average woman's breasts to move up and down by 8.5cm.
Come on ladies isn’t about time that
you add that vital bit of clothing - a sports bra - to your agility wardrobe? Maybe our
clothing suppliers advertising on Agility Net could add them to their handler clothing range.
Note: You can find
a selection good sports bras for the larger lady on
AgilityWarehouse. Just put sports bra into the search box.
All-Breed Agility
From Dawn Weaver
The picture above
shows one of the problems with the current height classifications. Puzzle (Papillon) can easily
stand underneath Chelsea (Poodle). Chelsea is 5.5kg whereas Puzzle is only 2.5kg, yet he is
running against some dogs that are 10kg! Just look at a jump wing and you will see two large
gaps between the cups - one at the bottom and a huge one between Medium and Large. Lots of
unfortunate dogs fall into the large category when they are only fractionally over the medium
height.
The reason,
apparently, for not changing things is that 'You shouldn't get a carthorse to do horse racing.'
However, in my experience handlers choose the breed/dogs they particularly like living with.
You might choose a sheltie - potentially a good breed for agility - which just happens to grow
too large for Small or even Medium and it would struggle on the next height up. You might have
a Spaniel or Staffie which grows to be slightly too tall for Medium. Of course, you have not
chosen the wrong dog. It shouldn’t be that you have the 'wrong' dog for agility, but
that the current agility heights are wrong for your dog. Agility should be for all dogs.
I believe that
handlers should be able to choose any breed or rescue any dog and there should be
a place for them in agility. When you get a papillon puppy you don’t know how tall it is going
to grow and, if he/she doesn’t grow tall enough to do the KC small height (350mm), then what
are handlers supposed to do? That dog is never going to be able to participate in our sport and
yet wouldn’t that dog have really enjoyed it given the chance? Even at UKA and BAA, although
having lower jumps for the tiny dogs, they still have to compete against all the same much
larger dogs as at Kennel Club shows. Puzzle is 9in tall and, although he does his best, the
height at Kennel Club is a real struggle for him. He has recently hit two jumps very badly
which knocks his confidence and means that he starts 'over-jumping' and taking off too far
away, which in turn is likely to make him hit another. This is a vicious cycle which many dogs
are in, and is caused because the jumps are too high for the unlucky ones.
Dogs are
individuals. They shouldn't be generalised by height at the shoulder. Measuring dogs by height
came from the breed ring. What has that got to do with our agility dogs or with their ability
to jump? There must be a calculation that would give the stride length of a dog (and therefore
their ability to jump). Something like height to elbow, length of back and maybe weight too.
There must be a better formula to determine jumping ability.
Would you like to
see shows where:-
-
ABC dogs are given a separate prize-giving from collies
and their crosses?
-
Jumping and Agility have different achievement levels with
their own finals? So if your dog doesn’t ‘do’ contacts he could still get to the top in the
Jumping category?
-
There are 5 different height categories so all dogs
can be accommodated and jump a height which is comfortable for them?
-
There are special R & R classes, (Retired and
Recovering!), where you can choose which height your dog jumps and every dog gets a little
treat on leaving the ring!
-
In all classes you have the choice between a rosette or a
pressie for your dog?
-
The Grade 6-7 dogs can practice on European-type courses
to make them more competitive abroad? Including more skilful weave entries and obstacle
discrimination at speed instead of constant pull-throughs and tight distances?
-
The weave obstacle doesn’t change for your dog, but
remains at a constant 12 poles? No odd numbers or 6s.
-
Our larger furry friends aren't unfairly marked on up
contacts?
-
Our larger dogs wouldn’t need to struggle on tight 4-yard
(3.6m) distances?
-
Weather conditions are always taken into account when
setting a course?
-
The dogs’ safety and enjoyment is paramount?
-
There is a maximum distance between obstacles for our
smaller dogs to prevent them becoming de-motivated or overfaced?
-
You can train in the ring if you wish?
-
Your older dogs can drop down a height/level when you feel
it is necessary?
-
Lower level classes are fenced and gated for everybody's
peace of mind?
I would like to make
things better for our dogs. I propose to introduce some quite different experiences for all
agility dogs.
Many people will
know by now that I have decided to retire Freeway. She is symptom-less of any problem at present
and I want it to stay that way. An MRI and CT scan showed a problem with one vertebra in her
spine. This could be operated on but I am simply unable to bring myself to send her in for
major spinal surgery when she is so well in herself. In honour of all she has done for me and
the enjoyment she has given me over the years, I am naming my new venture after her.
Freeways
Agility Break (aka FAB Shows)
Personally I believe
the Kennel Club, although great in many ways, has too many grades and not enough jump heights
so... with great trepidation I am embarking on some new shows of my own.
The four jump
heights will be:-
-
250mm (9.84in) -
Yorkies, Papillons, toy breeds etc all line up for this one!
-
350mm (1ft 1.75in)
- Normal Small height at KC
-
450mm (1ft 5.7in)
- Normal Medium height at KC
-
500mm (1ft 7.68in)
and 650mm (2ft 1.6in) - All large dogs can compete at either of these two heights.
These shows will be
based on what I believe to be the most important aspect of agility – the happiness and welfare
of our dogs. I’ve always believed that agility is all about dogs – all dogs!
Visit
www.dawnweaveragility.com for full details and entry forms.
Pipe Tunnel Fixings
From Bob and Wendy Ratcliffe
We have a St. Poodle who is 24 inches at the shoulder. He used to hurtle
through tunnels, but was injured on two consecutive days at Tunbridge Wells show.
On the first day, it happened at the centre of a tunnel which was in a straight line. We
thought it was odd but just one of those things and did not report it. On the next day, it was
at the entrance to a tunnel off a jump. The screams from the dog were terrifying. He sustained
an injury to his spine near to the centre of his back which, we hope, the chiropractor has
sorted out. Not surprisingly, now he will not go near a tunnels at a show - or even a course in
competition - although he do tunnels in training. Obviously, we would not even ask him to do a
tunnel fixed in the same way.
In the past, rigid tunnels have been fixed to the ground with some sort of metal frame and
elastic straps (bungies). If they worked their way off onto the plastic it didn’t matter too
much as they flexed with the force of the dog. Now tunnels are being secured by webbing which
does not have any stretch. Instead of being put over the reinforcing rings, they are being
pulled down tightly on the plastic in-between. This reduces the diameter and produces pinch
points, just inside the mouth of the tunnel, at the centre point and at the exit, forming a
hard obstruction as they do not give. Those tunnels measured are only 20 inches at these points
even though the KC regulation regarding pipe tunnels states that the minimum diameter should be
609mm or 24 inches. See photographs below.
     |
 |
 |
| Tunnel mouth |
Centre of tunnel |
How tight is that? |
We know there were several people willing to support us at the Tunbridge Wells
show, but we stupidly did not take their names and addresses. The attitude of the show
organisers was that as his was the only injury it must be the dogs fault.
Has anyone else had this problem? This would seem to be an accident waiting to
happen as clearly these tunnels fixed in this way do not comply with the KC regulation?
If you are willing to support us regarding this problem, whether you spoke to
us at Tunbridge or not, could you contact us at
acecliffe@vodafoneemail.co.uk
Reply from Tunbridge
Wells...
We are of course very sorry that your dog had a problem and hope that he has made
a full recovery and regains his confidence with tunnels. There were no other reports of any
problems with the tunnels at Tunbridge Wells and there were 8 full rings each day including
lots of larger breed dogs. All the details of this incident, including statements from
witnesses, were sent to the Kennel Club and the KC decided that there was no case to answer.
The equipment used was from a very well known and
well thought of supplier. We would agree that the tunnel fixings need to be as safe as
possible and were pleased to see at a show last month that the fixing straps are now made of
elastic rather than webbing. These straps and the ones in use at our show were fastened with
Velcro that can and does sometimes undo under pressure. Some of the other straps supplied by
other manufacturers do not have any give in them and are securely fastened and so cannot
self-release when necessary. We are pleased that people are being made aware of the potential
problems with straps like this.
Mandy Dumont - TWDCS Agility Section Chairman
(29
August 2011)
Judging Spouses & Close Relatives
From
Carol Hunkin
Having read the
information on Agilitynet stating The Kennel Club's position on judging of spouses
and family members I thought I would send my comments to you in case they are of
interest to other Agilitynet readers. As the partner of someone who has regularly
given up her precious time to volunteer as a judge at agility shows I actually find
this regulation quite offensive.
Whilst I am certainly no
expert on either agility or any other canine discipline that The Kennel Cub is tasked
with regulating, my understanding is that the judging of these different disciplines
is not the same. Breed shows have, by their very nature, a subjective element. The
impression a dog makes on an individual person is part of the assessment process and
in every instance judgements are made from close quarters that may not be immediately
obvious to onlookers.
In agility, on the other
hand, decisions are objective. In the vast majority of cases, they are immediately
apparent to all concerned. A dog knocks a fence or he/she doesn't. A dog gets a
contact or she/he does not. The fastest dog with the lowest number of faults wins
the class. Considerable time and money have been invested to provide timing systems
that are independent of human error.
Until there is enough
money in the sport to ensure that all events can operate effective video recording
and playback systems then, yes, I am sure that on extremely rare occasions genuine
mistakes can be made such as when a dog gets a contact by a nail. In these
circumstances one person's decision needs to be final, but, to imply that the chance
of bias - actual or perceived - amongst those taking on this responsibility is
greater than the negative effect of excluding competitors from classes within a
family sport is very, very sad. Who wants this?
My partner is one of many
who generously offers to forgo time with her family and her own chance to compete in
order to spend a day supporting an event for the good of the sport she loves. I am
very happy to say I have not met anyone in agility who, I believe, would offer to
take up a judging appointment for any other reason. As someone who appreciates the
opportunity this gives me to compete, I wish to applaud and defend this generosity
and integrity.
Any personal feelings on
the subject are surely in addition to the extra work this will give event organisers
. I wonder how The Kennel Club proposes to prevent individuals from withdrawing from
judging appointments when, I believe, it is unlawful to compel someone to work under
a valid contract of employment, let alone someone who is in a voluntary position and
receiving no benefit.
Finally, unless The Kennel
Club has attributed a wider definition than is customary to the term 'spouse' - and I
couldn't find anything on their website to answer this question - it seems that I
will never fall foul of this ruling in the same way that other members of the agility
community will, which - beneficial to me or not - is offensive in itself.
From
Jill Spurr...
I'm beginning to feel a little lonely. I
am one of a seemingly small group of people who really isn't disturbed by the new rule about
judging immediate family. There are a couple of good reasons for this.
Firstly, people are acting like some random person in
the KC woke up one morning and decided to impose the immediate family rule on us. This rule
came from the Activities Committee, admittedly after an incident from obedience (spouse
judging partner to a win in C) but the collected representatives of all the canine activities
couldn't come up a good reason why it shouldn't refer to all canine activities. Agility is
represented on that committee, by people elected by the agility community to represent their
area! So lets stop talking like Agility was out of the room when all this happened. Oh, and
lets not forget that they passed another rule at that same meeting, giving judges the ability
to eliminate for double handling. No one is up in arms because that one slipped through the
net without consultation.
It has been mentioned that this rule is to bring us
into line with breed. Utter tosh. If you think this is rough, you need to see the 'Thou shalt
not judge.. ' rules for breed. You cannot judge a dog you have bred - ever. Does that sound
like we are coming into line with breed? Not to me.
And while we are on the subject of breed - why oh why
does the agility community always blame breed for anything it doesn't like? The post to which
I am answering - ironically after claiming not to be an expert! - mentions that breed is
subjective, agility is objective. That's kind of naive. There is always an element of judge's
choice in both (and every other discipline). That's why you have one judge in the middle of
the ring, and don't take a consensus of what has happened from those watching. A dog in breed
complies with the breed standard or it doesn't, it has the correct angulation, movement, coat
type etc. or it doesn't. The judge must then choose what they believe to be the dog most akin
to the breed standard, which is where the subjective element comes in. But surely my
interpretation of what constitutes a G3 course is no less subjective than a breed judge's
interpretation of the breed standard? We don't get told what to put into courses, and must
make a judgement call as to what is appropriate. And often - very often - faults are also a
judgement call. Is that a refusal? Did a part of that dog touch the contact as it flashed
past?
But perhaps the most compelling of reasons is simply
perspective. I don't feel that my integrity is being called into question. Why would this
rule do that, more so than the rule that bans dogs in my ownership - or part ownership - from
competing in other people's classes on the day I judge? If the immediate family rule is only
because judges cannot be trusted, what does not letting their dogs run under each other say?
Or, is it just to stop other competitors, commenting and possibly even believing that Mrs X
only won/qualified/gained points because Mr X was judging? While we would like to think that
everyone in agility is honest and true, we also cannot deny the various rumours about
wrong-doing, or even people confessing to pressuring decisions, like forcing course changes
or reruns, that should be reported and not dealt with on the day.
Equally, I am at a loss how I can moan about a
rule that will amount to losing a run or two at most. I have four dogs in three different
classes, including a different height category, and my partner has three dogs in two classes.
Yet in six years my partner and I have been together we have judged each other a handful of
times. And that's with us taking up to ten judging appointments EACH in some years. Don't get
me wrong, I would love to continue to compete with my partner as judge - he is a talented and
understanding course designer, and a hard-working and compassionate judge, as should all
judges be. But to put this in perspective, I lost nine runs last year because my bitch was in
season. More tellingly, I opted not to run several courses, because of weather conditions,
and/or poorly designed, grade inappropriate courses. And, I lost 17 weeks of competition when
my best dog was seriously injured by a lethal but perfectly legal light plastic pole. So in
the greater scheme of things, as indignant as some people are, this new rule is the least of
our problems. (20 June 2011)
From
Anne and Mike Neave....
In view of the recent Kennel Clubs press release, please remove our names from the
Judges A-List. After much discussion, we have decided that neither of us will judge under the
new ruling coming into effect next year for these reasons:-
- The taking of arbitrary
decisions from remote executives without proper consultation with the elected
representatives of the sport.
- Far from endorsing a judge's
integrity, this decision has, in our opinion, the opposite effect implying lack of trust
from people who give of their time freely and willingly to put back something into the
sport we all love.
-
The next
logical step to this ruling could possibly be to apply it to Scrimers, Scorers or any
member of a ring party. Further steps could include members of the ring party and judge's
training club or any one they themselves train. And then there are the dogs you have bred,
people you camp with and become friends with through agility. The list could become
endless.
-
It has been
mentioned that this ruling will help in the admission of agility into the 2016 Olympic
games. If this is true, it seems a very poor reason to change the rules for the majority
for the sake of a very, very small number who would actually attain such status.
-
It has also
been mentioned that this ruling brings agility in line with professional umpires and
referees. When agility judges become paid professionals, that would be the time to put
restraints as to who they can judge.
-
As to the
future, the impact of this ruling may make the administration of and partaking in agility
much harder to cope with than currently.
We will watch
with interest who else feels as we do and hope that sense in the end will prevail. A sad day
for agility. (16 June 2011)
Aluminium / Rubber Coated Agility Contacts
From
Nigel Staines (Dark Destroyer Agility - Alston, Cumbria)
In one word - WOW!
Having competed for almost
20 years, the introduction of the rubber contacts in the UK has to be the most
significant change since electronic timing was introduced. They have been available
abroad for several years and like many things why has it taken so long to see this
kind of quality over here in the UK, but, wait no longer. First Contact had them at
the WAO but other UK agility equipment suppliers are looking into them as well.
As most people who know
me, my dogs fitness and safety are paramount. The rubber contacts take safety to a
new level, better grip, cushioning and no nasty slats to ''knock up' the dogs
toes/knuckles. More confident entry on to the contact can be achieved and no sliding
to a halt on unless well worn sandpaper type finish.
From a maintenance point
of view, just great, no annual painting, no rot, no splits along natural wood grain,
no rust on joints - just a fab looking piece of equipment that lasts.
I
just wish, wish, wish, this equipments was made standard ASAP as I am already seeing
dogs getting confused by the different surfaces, including my own on a couple of
occasions. The
sooner the rubber contact can be used at all agility tests the better.
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Winnie |
Whispa |
Snowy |
Pebbles |
Give an Old Breed A Chance!
From Donna Cawley
The
Mexican Hairless dog is not everyone's ideal agility dog. The breed is a very ancient one and
dates back to the Aztecs. Evidence of their existence has been found from Pre-Columbian times.
You may not be aware but this
traditional breed, known as
Xoloitzcuintle (pronounced show-low-it-squint-lee), has both hairless and coated varieties. The
breed comes in three sizes - Miniature (9 – 13in), Intermediate (13 – 18in) and Standard
(18 – 23in). They are a very intelligent breed that is quick to learn. They love to work
closely with their owner and are very fast and agile. In The States, they excel at agility with
at least one dog having many titles after his name. In the UK we currently have an
Intermediate Mexican Hairless that is taking the Flyball world by storm.
These are a breed that is very
limited in numbers. There are only 62 in England and around 4000- 5000 remaining worldwide.
After a 9 year wait, the first litter of Standard size Mexican Hairless have recently been born
in England. There are four adorable coated bitches available.
It is very important to promote
dogs in a positive manner so that people can gain an understanding of their abilities and
personalities. Wouldn't it be amazing an amazing advert for the sport if we could see a Mexican
Hairless compete at Agility or Obedience. Why not be that person who is willing to give an old
breed a chance.
For more information, ring Donna
Cawley on tel.– 01773 714320. See advert in Flea Market.
Dog Walkers at Risk if England's Forests are Sold
From The
Kennel Club
The
Kennel Club has warned that dog walkers will face increasing restrictions in the countryside if
England’s forests are sold to private buyers.
The warning comes as
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs today launched a public consultation to
consider the future of Forestry Commission land, a large proportion of which has been
identified as a target for sale by the Government.
The Kennel Club’s KC
Dog group campaigns for dogs and their owners to enjoy maximum access to the UK’s open spaces.
Forestry Commission land is currently one of the few places to promote off-lead exercise for
dogs wherever possible and is not subject to dog control orders under the Clean Neighbourhoods
and Environment Act 2005. Under a concordat signed in 2005, the Forestry Commission and the
Kennel Club pledged to work together to improve human health and well-being through dog
ownership, whilst respecting the forest environment and the needs of other users.
The Kennel Club is,
therefore, highly concerned that private landowners with commercial interests may not show the
same regard as the Forestry Commission for dog walkers. It warns that the privatisation of
Forestry Commission sites could limit areas for off-lead exercise, push dog walkers onto
farmland and wildlife hotspots, alter or revoke additional access permissions, such as those
for sled dogs, and introduce unregulated parking charging.
Commenting on the
Government’s plans, Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Communications Director, said: 'The
privatisation of England's forests poses a real threat to dog owners across the country. The
ability to freely exercise your dog in a safe open space is an essential part of promoting a
dog’s health and welfare. The implementation of these proposals will put this at risk and
therefore have a devastating impact upon the nation's dog walkers and their dogs.'
The Kennel Club is
calling upon all dog owners to respond to Defra’s consultation as a matter of urgency. A copy
of the consultation document is available through both the Defra website (www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/index.htm)
and the Forestry
Commission website (www.forestry.gov.uk/england-pfe-consultation)
and closes on 21st April 2011. All consultation submissions should be sent to: Public Forest
Estate Consultation Co-ordinator, Forestry Commission England, 620 Bristol Business Park,
Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1EJ. (30/01/11)
From Leanne Alder...
I noticed your article about saving
our woodland and this is the campaign that is being advertised at woodland areas in Nottingham.
Apparently they are campaigning on behalf off the country so would be the best way for everyone
to help out.
www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forests
(31/01/11)
Green Belt Issues
From Andrea
Gough
I am being told by
the Enforcement Officer at Cheshire West that I can only use my paddock for 28 days a year for
training my dogs. Also, that I cannot store the agility equipment on the land and have to have
a trailer to carry it on and off the field.
We are, of course,
seeking the advise of a Planning Consultant to see if we can overturn this ruling. I wondered
if anyone has previous knowledge of this. The issue is, I feel a national one, and I believe
also affects, and is now affecting, people who have horse jumps in a field.
If this is allowed
to go through, then it will affect anyone in the Cheshire West area – not only individuals but
some clubs that are using the land in a far more proactive way than I was looking to do. It
only takes one complaint from a member of the public to instigate action by the Planning
Office.
Please email your
experiences to me at andreacgough@btinternet.com
Height of the A-frame
From
Christine Brown
Following
an incident at the Suffolk Five Rivers Show this year, I would like to propose a change to
rule Kennel Club rule H(10(b3.A . As I understand it, we've all been breaking the rules if we
use a lowered a-frame in a Veterans or Allsorts class. For some years this has been common
practice to minimise the impact on the dog's front lets on ascending and descending the
obstacle.
I would
like to propose this amendment which I believe will allow us so we can continue to run these
very popular classes. This
wording, I feel, covers the possibility of using lowered dog walk as well as A-frame. It should
allow all dogs - not only oldies but newbies as well - to have a proper go at agility in
competitive environment without too much pressure to do full height equipment.
Change to: When setting a Special class,
societies can specify in schedule dog's eligibility and also the specifications for all
equipment to be used which must not exceed maximum dimensions as laid out in rules.
We can only
get things changed if there is enough support so please help me! If you want to express your
support for this proposal please email either your agility rep or
Joanna Nosalik
at Kennel Club direct (31/10/10)
