TigerJack

and there will be a flyball competition going all day!

I had it done about 6 years ago on my chihuahua boy who was getting constant abscesses on both sides. They were dreadfully painful and made him feel so lousy he wouldn't eat. He only weighed 3kg and he dropped to 2.5 and was skin and bone. An abscess would pop out overnight and I'd get him straight in to get it cleaned up and get him onto antibiotics. He was on double courses of antibiotics and would finish that and a week later would get another abscess and we'd spend another month with him on antibiotics again and visiting the vet for painful treatment. At the time, all the vets where I go were male and my dog actually started to get quite fearful of males. He was getting quite stressed by being ill and then got over the top stressed by visiting the vet as every time he went there he got hurt some more. Cleaning up the abscesses is a painful thing to do. Having a sore bottom like that also meant that it hurt a lot to go to the toilet so he got all stressy about that too. Got to the point where his quality of life was awful so I felt that the risk of incontinence was way less of a problem than the misery he was going through. He had had about 8 months with virtually no time without abscesses, either getting one or getting over one. He had the surgery and was a bit sore for a few days and then has never looked back. Got his appetite back. No incontinence and no follow up problems at all. He was a different dog after that. His surgery was via the rectal approach. I know someone else who's dog was operated on from a cut done externally on either side of the anus. It was an expensive surgery at the time but it was costing me a fortune in vet visits and drugs each month too. I am glad I got it done. Jo

I'm going. Was there in 2010 but missed last year. Camping in a tent with 10 dogs! Competing with 3.

my comment is that the solution might depend on whether the dog gets sick from an anxiety cause or from a physical response to motion bothering the inner ear / equilibrium. Different solutions! Plenty of responses here about the anxiety cause so I won't add to that. I do have a little malt X who regularly got carsick until I raised her up to be able to see out the window. Might have been the motion making her ill and she could not see out for a reference to regain her equilibrium. I had a sedan then and got her a booster seat. No problems once I got that. I now have a van and she is in a little crate up at window height. Also no more problems. I am fairy sure her issues were with motion as she would rarely get ill on a long trip on the highway (straight roads) but would often get ill on short trips with lots of corner turns. She was always quite keen to get into the car so not anxious about the vehicle. Good luck Jo

thankyou! I enjoy running her as much as the Kelpies

My little Yorkie Bella is 215mm at the shoulder and runs in the 200 height class. She loves it but sometimes struggles up the A Frame in windy or wet weather. I once caught her when she got blown off a dogwalk in a big wind. She is 3kg. She doesn't make time much anymore as she has made it into Masters but she doesn't know what the course time is and she has a great time. I have to run the course completely differently to how I run it for my Kelpie but having to do that has actually taught me a lot about handling and walking courses.

forgot to add that I chose the Vito over the VW and Sprinter and other vans as I wanted a car that had doors on both sides as where I park it I have better access on the driver side. Plus it is short enough height wise to get into any car park and I wanted to be able to keep using the work car park. Alot of vans are just a fraction too tall.

3rd pic of Vito - the new back gate

2nd pic of the Vito

I will second the vote for a Vito van. really good to drive and doesn't feel like you are driving a truck. I have the long wheel base model and it still has a nice turning circle. Mine came with no seats and just an empty back section so I had my brother (motor trimmer) build me a deck and line it all. I already had storage drawers and kitchen custom built for a box trailer from Drifta. We stuck those in the back of the van and built the deck around them. I ended up with a huge area above decks for the dogs (I travel with 10) and below decks is the Drifta stuff and another cargo bay in front of those, accessible from the side doors that holds a mountain of stuff. I have since sold the box trailer as everything fits in the van. I have just returned from camping last weekend with all ten dogs and crates and tent etc etc. I have a Engel fridge on a drop slide on top of the deck against the cargo barrier behind the driver seat and on the passenger side next to the fridge I have 2 small wire crates secured in there for small dogs to travel in (and the Kelpies sit on top of those.) The deck is about waist height to me (five foot 7) and the Kelpies have no problems leaping in and out. When I had this all done I had a 14 year old great dane who could not jump up so I got a collapsible table that I bought from Drifta (same as the kitchen and storage drawers.) I got my brother to make me a canvas and pyramid matting top for it that fits on it like a fitted sheet. The table legs fold flat but are also extendable to whatever height you want. I set it at about coffee table height and he could easily step up on that then step up onto the deck and vice versa. The table could hold 100kg and with the adjustable legs I could keep it perfectly flat even if the ground was not level. Much better than a ramp as he couldn't handle the slope. Just last week I had the handy brother install a gate across the back so the Kelpies can't go leaping out when I open the back door. I have also recently gotten Drifta to make me a second storgae drawer the same dimensions as the kitchen (narrower box on the right side in the pics) so I can either have the kitchen in for longer camping trips or have two storage boxes in the rest of the time. With so much storage I now find I rarely have to pack anything as it all lives in the car. Jumps, weave poles, a couple of cabanas and all the sides and floors etc. Chair, half a dozen crates and a portable stove. It is long enough for me to sleep in there if I need to as well. I like my Vito!!

What link, I seem to be missing something? I should have said recommendation not link. I googled it and found this: http://www.dogbootsactive.com/ hmm, sorry. I did try to link but something went awry. My Kelpie can gallop around in these boots and they dont come off or twist around.

AOme years ago I had a Dane who had a toe removed and needed boots while he recovered. These guys Pro Active custom made them and sent them to me inside a week and a half from Ireland. They made me a 'pair' of one bigger boot to accommodate his dressing and a smaller one with a shaped bit to accommodate his missing toe. All I had to do was measure it all up. At the same time I got a standard pair for my whippet cross who did Delta dog visits to a nursing home. She tended to put a paw up on their arm or knee to say hello and I was worried it might tear old skin. They are a fairly tough but soft kind of canvas but really smooth and have a leather toe cap that prevents wear from the dog that drags it toes. Mine served, my Dane really well, never came off and did not wear out. The other boots for my whippet I have used to cover stitches on my Kelpie girl's leg and she couldn't get them off either. They come part way up the forearm / leg and are easy to keep on. I have tried the ruffpaws ones on my kelpie and she didn't like them much but walked fine in the pro active ones. Good luck edited to add that they made the boots for the Dane with the seams to the outside so nothing rubbed the wound. Nice little detail.

my experience with a smaller breed with constant nausea in the car is opposite to what others have posted. When she could not see out the window she constantly got ill. When I raised her up in a booster seat so she could see, no more vomitting. Guess each dog is different.

you're lucky! Someone I know did similar to you and applied to dogs nsw, got knocked back and had to get the AFA title then send that to dogs nsw. she only wanted the dogs nsw one!

so while the agreement has been in place no one has had to join an ANKC state body and even if they did they didn't have to apply to the state body for their title? they just had to join and apply to the AFA? definitely not! If you only want the AFA title, just be a member of the AFA. If you want the ANKC title you had to join the ANKC and sign up your dog on whatever register was relevant and you also had to actually be a member at the time you were acquiring the points. I only joined the ANKC when I started doing agility. I could not go back and claim all the flyball titles my dogs had gotten prior to that date. so are the titles different then? no, the names are the same. FD, FDX etc but AFA ones come on an AFA cert and cannot be listed on the ANKC pedigree (unless you also apply to the ANKC.) You then apply to the ANKC and pay another fee and that one will come on the ANKC certificate and also be listed on your pedigree/rego cert. Don't know about other states but in NSW I am told that people had to apply and pay for the AFA one in order to then apply for the ANKC one. I guess so they had a cert to prove they had the points. (I guess kind of like submitting your agility qualies.) Bit rough as you don't seem able to choose to apply either to the AFA or the ANKC but had to pay for both if you wanted the ANKC recognition and cert.

The AFA just wanted more people to be able to access the sport and more comps for everyone..... So exactly what/how did the AFA act to assist the ANKC to accredit and train judges and run comps under the ANKC banner. After all, they were the affiliate with the knowledge, judges, members and equipment that could make it happen. Did they do anything in that context? That was outlined in TJ's post. Also I will point out that the ANKC didnt have a problem with the affiliation agreement- just the insurance so not sure why anyone else would have a problem with it...... yup, anyone who wanted to be a judge was welcome to apply to the existing AFA judge training programme and come learn under AFA auspices and they would go through the programme and get qualified. Nobody applied. Doesn't look like ANKC ever communicated this to any ANKC clubs to put people forward.

I was thinking about this more while out to lunch. I wonder if the ANKC ever told all its ANKC clubs that flyball was now under a shared agreement and so would they please now change their old practices and sanction comps via the ANKC. I don't believe they told them anything.

so while the agreement has been in place no one has had to join an ANKC state body and even if they did they didn't have to apply to the state body for their title? they just had to join and apply to the AFA? definitely not! If you only want the AFA title, just be a member of the AFA. If you want the ANKC title you had to join the ANKC and sign up your dog on whatever register was relevant and you also had to actually be a member at the time you were acquiring the points. I only joined the ANKC when I started doing agility. I could not go back and claim all the flyball titles my dogs had gotten prior to that date.

Because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. A lot of the clubs are ANKC state body affiliated (for example, sutherland is affiliated with dogs NSW) but because flyball is no longer recognised, they can't hold an ANKC sanctioned flyball comp. They were never able to in the first place because of the way it was set up - was that a problem? No, because the AFA was there and as I said, it was working. I think a lot of people are forgetting that the ANKC allowed the affiliation of the AFA in the first place. If they wanted to control the organisation of flyball, they didn't have to allow that affiliation. For them to allow it, have nothing change in terms of the insurance and then blame that insurance for ending the affiliation makes no sense. It took 3 years of fighting for the AFA to become affiliated - surely that was enough time for the ANKC to see any potential problems? And if not, then that's a massive problem in itself. The agreement has been in place for years too. The great thing about flyball though is that we're already organised and if it took us 3 years to fight for affiliation, we will happily spend another 3 fighting for our sport to become re-recognised. Our sport is very different in that it requires a lot of post-event organisation. We don't get a certificate at the end of the day with the number of points our dogs received - it takes a lot of organisation to get the points sorted out. At our last comp, we ran 58 races.... 58 races, each with 8 dogs running. It's a lot of work to organise who got what. What other sport requires teams like that? Most dog sports are individual events, with the exception of agility's strategic pairs. But that's what makes our sport so great. Have you ever been to the royal and watched people watching the showring, obedience or agility? They might get into it a little bit. Now go to the flyball ring and watch people get revved up over dogs they don't even know. It doesn't even compare. The sad thing is that it would be a great branding exercise for the state's controlling body to put a logo somewhere on the field while so many people watch but they haven't done it - and now, they can't. They might not have a publicity team, but simple things like that to make people more brand aware might sway someone into looking them up and seeing what they do. Since Sutherland is affiliated with DogsNSW, why were they not able to set up a comp under ANKC? How was the way it was set up a problem? Kavic, there is some error in the prior post. Sutherland could certainly have held ANKC comps without getting affiliated with the AFA, there was no problem with the setup. some history. I am a member of St George Flyball. Some years ago the Sutherland Dog Training Club (who at that time did not do Flyball) approached us and asked if several of their members could come join our club and learn Flyball with the view to returning to their own club and starting it there. We agreed as it was a great way to increase flyball access to everyone by helping set up additional clubs. They came to us and ran with us for a couple of years and they then went back and started up for themselves. They were racing under their own banner shortly thereafter. They soon started running competitions and they chose to go via the AFA sanction route. They could have chosen to go via ANKC but did not. It may have something to do with how far in advance ANKC requires notice of comps perhaps. (I was part of helping them host their first comp and at no time did they ever discuss going via ANKC.) I think some people are missing the (subtle perhaps) point that the agreement didn't really change the practices of any club already doing flyball. The agreement was to hopefull get other ANKC clubs who were not already doing flyball to start entering teams without needing to bother with AFA affiliation. It was expected by the AFA committee at the time (I was on there) that we continued to promote as we had always done and that the ANKC would also promote to its ANKC clubs. I think that all they did was post the rules on the website and that was about it. To host a flyball comp under the agreement an AFA club can apply for a comp sanction to the AFA. (Approval of sanction means AFA insurance covers the comp.) then teams from either the AFA affiliated clubs or ANKC ones, enter via an entry form. The entry form asks if you are AFA team or ANKC team. An ANKC club could also apply to the ANKC for sanction using exactly the same form, then both AFA and ANKC teams could enter in the same manner. The shared agreement meant we all used the same rules, recognised each others judges, recognised titles, dog point accrual (for titles) was then held on the AFA database for all dogs including the non AFA member dogs. Achieve a title, apply for AFA and / or ANKC title. Up to the individual. (Sorry, all this isn't really in answer to Kavic but I'm no good at putting multiple quotes in replies to answer other people.)

The rules also have to comply with ANKC regulations. I hope you are successful and put your money where your mouth and do the hard work to get flyball up and running under the ANKC. Janba we did all the hard work. We did modify our existing rules over and over until ANKC was happy with everything in it. It was no easy task I assure you. AFA committee spent literally years in negotiations. Then all states had to sign off on it before it was put into place.

Her point still stands. The ANKC should be actively chasing new sports and being the primary properter of them. Not forcing new sports to jump through umpteen hoops to get recognised. Why are they jumping through hoops? Each member state has to agree on the rules and that takes time. I would much rather the rules I compete under are decided by people involved in the sport rather than an individual who has no interest in it. ETA A lot goes on during the year at state levels to do with the ANKC committees that unless you are on a committee you don't usually hear about. Flyball already jumped all those hoops. A big part of why the shared agreement took so long was getting approval from every single state body.

That's simply not true. The ACT Companion Dog club trains and hosts comps in 5 ANKC recognised sports including flyball. It has hosted many flyball comps.. and allowed their equipment to be used at flyball comps in two states. It is not, nor has it ever been a flyball specific club and frankly I think its a model that should have been more widely followed. Membership in flyball grew for the most part from club members who joined for pet dog training and looked beyond to the ANKC dog sports. IMO the AFA structure of affiliation within the ANKC has encouraged many flyballers to remain apart from the broader dog training clubs.. the sport did not "grow" from obedience here in Australia as most of the others did and there isn't a lot of overlap between flyball folk and the other sports to the extent that obedience overlaps with most. Well, not at my club anyway. In fact I'd describe the attitude of some flyballers at my club towards other dog sports followers as "hostile". Stickers belittling agility on their cars are evidence of that. Haredown Whippets - you are not correct. Yes CDC does flyball. Yes CDC is ANKC affiliated. However, they have never held an ANKC flyball comp. Every comp they have ever run has been run via AFA sanction under AFA affiliation. I have been AFA rep for some of them. The shared agreement for rules etc would never really have affected a club like CDC who was already doing flyball via AFA when the agreement came into force. The hope was that other ANKC affiliated clubs might also choose to take on flyball without the need to actually affiliate with the AFA. Maybe your club does have multiple disciplines within it but not all do. My own flyball club is solely flyball, many Flyball clubs are. Your comments on attitude are really not very constructive and could also be construed as hostile. Flyballers take alot of crap from people in other disciplines too and I don't think any of it is particularly warranted or helpful. Many flyballers I know also do agility and obedience so I am not sure why you think there is little overlap. Maybe just that's your club. The AFA IMO does not have anything to do with encouraging flyballers to remain apart from broader dog clubs. Nor should they be required to encourage people to go join bigger multidisciplinary dog clubs. (The agreement was to encourage existing ANKC non-flyball clubs to perhaps include it in their club's activities.) Withr espect to what club you choose, you go to clubs that exist in your area and some of us are quite restricted in what we have access to. In the ACT you are extraordinarily lucky to have so many dog clubs in such close proximity all with multiple disciplines. It isn't the same elswhere. There are certainly clubs like your own that eventually include flyball or rally O or other things but there are also clubs that started out simply to do flyball, set up by a small group of enthusiasts. My own club did that. Most of these clubs pre-date the shared agreement. I still don't know why the agreement has been ceased but really, it was already recognised by the ANKC. They agreed on rules etc, judge training, everything. Sadly it appears that the only use made of the agreement was for people to apply for titles. It was never up to the AFA to promote ANKC clubs to start doing flyball or running their own comps but the facility was there for ANKC clubs to do that if they chose as it had been recognised. The ANKC might not have publicised it was available. Not sure. I know people are disappointed about titles but the dogs don't give a toss. If people are so concerned tabout the continued ability to access titles then there is no real need to reinvent the wheel surely. An agreement was already in place, no need to start over. instead try to extend the agreement.

Here's one to consider: Get flyball recognised as a ANKC dog sport like any other. It can co-exist with the AFA recognised flyball in the same manner that ANKC agility co-exists with ADAA agility. Flyball and the AFA don't have to be conjoined. HW - we already did that! I won't claim to be up to date with current AFA committee negotiations but I was on the AFA committee when the reciprocal agreement was negotiated and put in place some years back. The purpose of the agreement was so that flyball could be hosted by either AFA clubs OR ANKC affiliated clubs and increase access to flyball for everyone, get it recognised and allow title recognition from both bodies. ie: the agreement did result in the ANKC recognising flyball. You could be in an AFA club and run with an AFA team at an AFA sanctioned comp. ANKC teams (ie not members of any AFA affiliated club) could also enter the AFA comps. All could gain recognition and titles. (If you wanted the ANKC title as well as the AFA one you also had to be a member of the ANKC which is fair enough.) The reverse was also true. An ANKC affiliated club could host a flyball comp and use the rules of the shared agreement. AFA affiliated teams could enter an ANKC (affiliate) hosted comp without being members of the ANKC and therefore more flyball for everyone. We spent a great deal of time going over how to implement it, how ANKC people could become flyball judges, how we dealt with aggressive dog policies, titles, etc etc. It took years to agree on the fine print in the rules. In the time since it was implemented and renewed several times, no ANKC affiliate has ever hosted a comp, no non-AFA person has become a judge and no ANKC affiliated team (ie not an AFA club team) has ever entered a competition. It seems the only usetaken up by ANKC members for what was a considerable effort at the time appears to be so that people can get flyball titles issued. The hoped for increase in flyball competitions never came about. Considering how much time and effort went into it, I find that dissappointing. (I'm not overly interested in titles so never bothered applying for the ANKC ones, happy with the AFA ones.) Seeing that there has been virtually no use of the shared policy apart from people claiming titles, I am not surprised that the agreement has fizzled out and seems to have failed to be renewed for another term. I have not been party to recent negotiations but am surprised if insurance cover is used as a reason. Part of the rules of flyball covers what we call 'honorary members.' This is in the shared rules so already recognized by both parties. If we have someone come along to our AFA comps who is not a member of the AFA but who is going to help out in some way then they simply sign the register for honorary members. This is also co-signed by the AFA rep for the day and that satisfies all insurance requirements. (Usually this is used by partners of members or new flyball club members who have not yet joined the AFA as they aren't quite ready to race.) As stated, this rule is already in place and so similarly, any non-ANKC member who was going to help out at an ANKC affiliate hosted comp (who was not already an AFA member and therefore covered under the reciprocal agreement) could sign an honorary member form on the day too. ANKC agreed to this in the initial rules so not sure why it is an issue now. So, interested to hear what the final reasons really are. Will have to do some checking. I suspect that seeing as no ANKC affiliated club ever decided to host a flyball comp then really there is no reason to continue the agreement. Title issue being the down side of ceasing it but that never bothered me anyway. I suspect that most ANKC members who took up ANKC titles were already members of AFA clubs who continued to host flyball comps via the AFA side of things. There does not ever seem to have been any publicising of the fact that ANKC affiliated could take up flyball without being part of the AFA so I guess there was no motivation. Anyone in an ANKC affiliated club who wanted to do flyball as well went and joined a flyball specific club. Those ANKC affiliates who do also do flyball all appear to choose to run their flyball comps via the AFA pathway.

Dogs NSW has always said that flyball competitions won't be held at Erskine Park grounds mainly I was told because of insurance issues. Flyball demo's have been held at Erskine Park. As far as I know, no one has ever asked to host a comp there. I can remember only one Flyball competition being held at Erskine Park on the GSD grounds. It was 'Halloween Howling' hosted by PICSI and it was in 2004 if I recollect correctly.

lol, can't really blame her!