Ankc No Longer Recognising Flyball Titles

[Salukifan]

Gaging members wow thats a great way to go forward

Your views do not represent the ANKC/your state body, my views do not represent the AFA.

If members are going to abuse the organisation you're trying to negotiate than a request that people keep their negative opinions off social media DURING THE RENEGOTIATION is nothign more than good sense. Do you really want the AFA coming back to the negotiation table with the other side bristling with indignation at all the names they've been called??

OK this is where the wires have been crossed. There is no renegotiation happening!!

Why not? Has the AFA given up??

If there are no flyball reps on the Canine Controls and no CC Committees then that makes it difficult to engender any ANKC support for renegotiation. Is that the case? I don't think there's a flyball person on the Dogs ACT Committee??

[StarLapyz]

Gaging members wow thats a great way to go forward

Your views do not represent the ANKC/your state body, my views do not represent the AFA.

If members are going to abuse the organisation you're trying to negotiate than a request that people keep their negative opinions off social media DURING THE RENEGOTIATION is nothign more than good sense. Do you really want the AFA coming back to the negotiation table with the other side bristling with indignation at all the names they've been called??

StarLapz:

The ANKC should own up that is made a mistake, and renew the agreement. I highly doubt this will happen.

But hopefully, this little incident will open a few more eyes and eventually we might get some actual reform at the ANKC.

The AFA won't gain a one iota of reform at the ANKC WHILE IT'S NOT A MEMBER.

One step at a time folks. First get back in THEN create impetus for change.

I don't think the ANKC is perfect but I do think that you will definitely have a better chance at regaining affiliation AND achieving change by creating a network of supporters, not a network of antagonists.

The AFA isn't a member, however, the a large percentage of AFA members are also ANKC members.

At the moment the ANKC has no capability to run flyball competitions (they don;t have the equipment, they have no accredited judges etc.). By terminating the affiliation with the AFA, they have removed the ability for their members to do flyball in an ANKC sanctioned way and have removed the ability for ANYONE to get titles in Flyball.

If, as a follow on from the termination of the agreement with the AFA, the ANKC was going to purchase equipment, accredit judges etc so that its memebers could still do flyball and gain titles, then the decision would be somewhat defensible.

As it is the ANKC have essentially made Flyball a sport that members can no longer participate in or obtain titles in under the sanction of the ANKC.

So essentially the ANKC has taken something away from its members, with no intention (at least so far demonstrated) of providing an alternative. How this is in anyway serving its members is beyond me.

The ANKC should be seeking to provide MORE services and opportunities to its members (through its members bodies), not coming up with ridiculous reasons for denying its members services and then failing to enter into any kind of negotiations with parties to try and resolve the issue.

[Sheridan]

This is the structure of the ANKC

Flyballers have a Committee and a Rep. Seems to me Raelene Hedger is the "go to" person for information on this one.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding as to just who is a member of the ANKC. The state bodies are members of the ANKC not individuals hence the direction to go to a state body for information.

Yes, but the state bodies can't actually DO anything, so it's rather pointless going to them isn't it.

Just as pointless as bitching on DOL, I imagine.

Are you just complaining or do AFA people want some constructive suggestions from DOL members?

[Salukifan]

At the moment the ANKC has no capability to run flyball competitions (they don;t have the equipment, they have no accredited judges etc.). By terminating the affiliation with the AFA, they have removed the ability for their members to do flyball in an ANKC sanctioned way and have removed the ability for ANYONE to get titles in Flyball.

If, as a follow on from the termination of the agreement with the AFA, the ANKC was going to purchase equipment, accredit judges etc so that its memebers could still do flyball and gain titles, then the decision would be somewhat defensible.

As it is the ANKC have essentially made Flyball a sport that members can no longer participate in or obtain titles in under the sanction of the ANKC.

So essentially the ANKC has taken something away from its members, with no intention (at least so far demonstrated) of providing an alternative. How this is in anyway serving its members is beyond me.

The ANKC should be seeking to provide MORE services and opportunities to its members (through its members bodies), not coming up with ridiculous reasons for denying its members services and then failing to enter into any kind of negotiations with parties to try and resolve the issue.

I know that at my dog training club (an ANKC affiliate), the flyball equipment is club owned and that competitions and training occur on club grounds. I'm guessing that's a bit unuusual??

What's required for flyball to get up and running within the ANKC without AFA involvement? Is that a possiblity? You've got ANKC approved rule and titles etc??

Is it possible that because the AFA existed before its affiliation that there's been little motivation for further integration with the ANKC?? Has the existence of a separate structure inhibited further integration/interaction with other performance sports/dog clubs? Are those at the top of the AFA comfortable within their own turf and reluctant to relinguish "control". I have no idea but these things happen.

ETA: IF there are no ANKC accredited flyball judges then I have only one question.. why not?

Edited July 4, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[StarLapyz]

This is the structure of the ANKC

Flyballers have a Committee and a Rep. Seems to me Raelene Hedger is the "go to" person for information on this one.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding as to just who is a member of the ANKC. The state bodies are members of the ANKC not individuals hence the direction to go to a state body for information.

Yes, but the state bodies can't actually DO anything, so it's rather pointless going to them isn't it.

Just as pointless as bitching on DOL, I imagine.

Are you just complaining or do AFA people want some constructive suggestions from DOL members?

We would love some constructive suggestions from DOL members.

Going to a state body isn't particularly effective though.

• If I raise the issue with Dogs NSW there is NO requirement on them to then raise it with the ANKC.
  
• I can't make any direct submissions to the ANKC, everything goes through the filter of Dogs NSW (and who knows what their agenda is).
  
• If I do make a submission to Dogs NSW and they do decide to take it to the ANKC meeting, then nothing will happen till October when the ANKC get around to meeting.
  
• If there is no resolution at the ANKC meeting in October then I have to start again and wait a whole year for the matter to be dealt with.
  

If anyone has any ideas on how this matter can be raised and dealt with by the ANKC in a reasonable time frame then I am happy to accept suggestions.

It should be noted that the negotiations between the AFA and the ANKC have been on going since 30 June 2010, when the original agreement expired. In that time the AFA has generally had to wait between 6 and 10 months for responses to its letters.

[Salukifan]

If anyone has any ideas on how this matter can be raised and dealt with by the ANKC in a reasonable time frame then I am happy to accept suggestions.

It should be noted that the negotiations between the AFA and the ANKC have been on going since 30 June 2010, when the original agreement expired. In that time the AFA has generally had to wait between 6 and 10 months for responses to its letters.

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.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[FHRP]

At the moment the ANKC has no capability to run flyball competitions (they don;t have the equipment, they have no accredited judges etc.). By terminating the affiliation with the AFA, they have removed the ability for their members to do flyball in an ANKC sanctioned way and have removed the ability for ANYONE to get titles in Flyball.

The ANKC doesn't run any dog sport competitions. Training (or breed) clubs affiliated with their State ANKC Body run trials. I'm not sure how it's done in every other state, but here the club running the trial provides or hires the equipment. I don't think the ANKC owns any dog sport equipment? Our State Body certainly doesn't for the sports I'm involved in. Our training club that runs agility and obedience trials also has flyball trials and owns their own eqipment so if it became an ANKC sport rather than an AFA affiliated sport, the equipment is there.

When you say titles, I assume you're referring to ANKC recognised titles. If AFA is still running trials surely you can stil get titles recognised by the AFA? The dogs achievements are recognised by titles still, just not as ANKC titles and with all the ANKC bagging going on is that such a bad thing? There are Agility, Retrieving, Field, Lure Coursing and perhaps Herding and other?? organisations that run seperate to the ANKC and have their own titles. There is nothing stoppping people from promoting the fact their dogs have these titles is there?

I see two options if AFA affiliation with the ANKC is not going to happen. Carry on as before there was any ANKC affiliation, continue with the AFA and their competitions and titles OR get Flyball recognised as an ANKC sport just as agility, obedience, rally dwd etc. etc. are and not through an affiliation with another organisation. It is not up to the ANKC to provide equipment and run trials, they are done through clubs. Get the rules for the sport and rules for accrediting judges recognised, just like every other sport. Then it's up to the State Bodies to accredit judges, but again, the push has to come from the interested parties not the ANKC.

Edited July 4, 2012 by FHRP

[Jumabaar]

.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Jumabaar

[Sheridan]

This is the structure of the ANKC

Flyballers have a Committee and a Rep. Seems to me Raelene Hedger is the "go to" person for information on this one.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding as to just who is a member of the ANKC. The state bodies are members of the ANKC not individuals hence the direction to go to a state body for information.

Yes, but the state bodies can't actually DO anything, so it's rather pointless going to them isn't it.

Just as pointless as bitching on DOL, I imagine.

Are you just complaining or do AFA people want some constructive suggestions from DOL members?

We would love some constructive suggestions from DOL members.

Going to a state body isn't particularly effective though.

• If I raise the issue with Dogs NSW there is NO requirement on them to then raise it with the ANKC.
• I can't make any direct submissions to the ANKC, everything goes through the filter of Dogs NSW (and who knows what their agenda is).
• If I do make a submission to Dogs NSW and they do decide to take it to the ANKC meeting, then nothing will happen till October when the ANKC get around to meeting.
• If there is no resolution at the ANKC meeting in October then I have to start again and wait a whole year for the matter to be dealt with.

If anyone has any ideas on how this matter can be raised and dealt with by the ANKC in a reasonable time frame then I am happy to accept suggestions.

It should be noted that the negotiations between the AFA and the ANKC have been on going since 30 June 2010, when the original agreement expired. In that time the AFA has generally had to wait between 6 and 10 months for responses to its letters.

Well, for a start, you can recognise ANKC members are the state bodies not individuals as I've already stated. You should also recognise that you can stamp your feet as much as you like (and you are being stampy) but it's YOU who wants something from the ANKC not the other way around so following Haredown Whippets advice would be a pretty good start. If the ANKC wanted to come to your party, they'd have done so but acting like you're running this process and the ANKC should just fall in line clearly hasn't worked. Time for a new tactic, perhaps.

[StarLapyz]

I give up on this thread.

The ANKC are denying its members a service for NO GOOD REASON and people seem to be fine with it.

The ANKC should be striving to be the peak body for dogs and dog related activities in Australia, instead they consistently take actions that fragment the canine community.

If the ANKC, its member bodies and their members are okay with this then I don't see the trend of diminished memberships and entries reversing.

Maybe whatever comes after the ANKC kills itself will do a better job :)

Edited July 4, 2012 by StarLapyz

[Sheridan]

I give up on this thread.

The ANKC are denying its members a service for NO GOOD REASON and people seem to be fine with it.

The ANKC should be striving to be the peak body for dogs and dog related activities in Australia, instead they consistently take actions that fragment the canine community.

If the ANKC, its member bodies and their members are okay with this then I don't see the trend of diminished memberships and entries reversing.

Maybe whatever comes after the ANKC kills itself will do a better job :)

Stampy feet.

[BJean]

I give up on this thread.

The ANKC are denying its members a service for NO GOOD REASON and people seem to be fine with it.

The ANKC should be striving to be the peak body for dogs and dog related activities in Australia, instead they consistently take actions that fragment the canine community.

If the ANKC, its member bodies and their members are okay with this then I don't see the trend of diminished memberships and entries reversing.

Maybe whatever comes after the ANKC kills itself will do a better job :)

Stampy feet.

:laugh:

[StarLapyz]

I give up on this thread.

The ANKC are denying its members a service for NO GOOD REASON and people seem to be fine with it.

The ANKC should be striving to be the peak body for dogs and dog related activities in Australia, instead they consistently take actions that fragment the canine community.

If the ANKC, its member bodies and their members are okay with this then I don't see the trend of diminished memberships and entries reversing.

Maybe whatever comes after the ANKC kills itself will do a better job :)

Stampy feet.

Also the truth...

[TigerJack]

I am yet to hear ANY argument put forward by the ANKC that cannot be satisfied by using simple logic. And if the insurance hasn't changed since the original agreement and the insurance is the same as held by dogs nsw, how can there be a problem now?

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.

[Salukifan]

I give up on this thread.

The ANKC are denying its members a service for NO GOOD REASON and people seem to be fine with it.

The ANKC should be striving to be the peak body for dogs and dog related activities in Australia, instead they consistently take actions that fragment the canine community.

If the ANKC, its member bodies and their members are okay with this then I don't see the trend of diminished memberships and entries reversing.

Maybe whatever comes after the ANKC kills itself will do a better job :)

That would be "no good reason" in the opinion of the AFA. I think the outcome of this process is not in the interests of the wider dog community but insurance issues aren't ones that can lightly brushed over. If there's another way to achieve the outcome of ANKC recognition of flyball then now is the time to pursue it IMO.

If the ANKC is the peak body for dogs and no fragmentation of the canine community is a goal than why should flyballers stay wedded to the AFA when another option is right in front of their faces?????

Seriously, if ANKC recognition of their sport is what flyballers want then why don't they seek direct recognition of it? There's more than one path to the same goal.

What's stopping direct recognition of the sport being progressed?

I don't see the ANKC "killing itself" any time soon. You have a solution to the issue of ANKC recognition of flyball titles - time to decide whether to go for direct recognition or go your own way.

And if going your own way is the decision reached then the "blame" for the outcome cannot be layed solely at the feet of the ANKC.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[StarLapyz]

I give up on this thread.

The ANKC are denying its members a service for NO GOOD REASON and people seem to be fine with it.

The ANKC should be striving to be the peak body for dogs and dog related activities in Australia, instead they consistently take actions that fragment the canine community.

If the ANKC, its member bodies and their members are okay with this then I don't see the trend of diminished memberships and entries reversing.

Maybe whatever comes after the ANKC kills itself will do a better job :)

That would be "no good reason" in the opinion of the AFA.

If the ANKC is the peak body for dogs and no fragmentation of the canine community is a goal than why should flyballers stay wedded to the AFA when another option is right in front of their faces?????

Seriously, if ANKC recognition of their sport is what flyballers want then why don't they simply pursue it directly. There's more than one path to the same goal.

What's stopping direct recognition of the sport being progressed?

I am looking into this option right now.

Will let you know how it goes.

[Salukifan]

I give up on this thread.

The ANKC are denying its members a service for NO GOOD REASON and people seem to be fine with it.

The ANKC should be striving to be the peak body for dogs and dog related activities in Australia, instead they consistently take actions that fragment the canine community.

If the ANKC, its member bodies and their members are okay with this then I don't see the trend of diminished memberships and entries reversing.

Maybe whatever comes after the ANKC kills itself will do a better job :)

That would be "no good reason" in the opinion of the AFA.

If the ANKC is the peak body for dogs and no fragmentation of the canine community is a goal than why should flyballers stay wedded to the AFA when another option is right in front of their faces?????

Seriously, if ANKC recognition of their sport is what flyballers want then why don't they simply pursue it directly. There's more than one path to the same goal.

What's stopping direct recognition of the sport being progressed?

I am looking into this option right now.

Will let you know how it goes.

Smart move. Talk to the RallyO people - they've been the most recent sport recognised.

ETC: RallyO not DWD is most recently recognised sport.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Janba]

StarLapyz I find you understanding of how the ANKC and its member bodies work woefully lacking.

As I asked before does Dogs NSW have a representatinve on the ANKC national flyball committee? Who represents flyball on Dogs NSW committees - the sporting committee doesn't though it covers herding, earthdog and sledding.

Has the ANKC a set of rules of its own for flyball or does it use AFAs? Has it an set of rules for eligability for judges and a judges training program in place for flyball judges?

You do need to work to get flyball recognised as a sport in its own right in the same way that sledding is being done and rally-o was done.

[Alkhe]

Can somebody please explain clearly a few things? It seems like I should be up in arms about something but I'm not really sure why..

- what is the impact of ANKC not recognising flyball titles? Is this different to recognising flyball as a sport?

- what does AFA do, and what exactly do they WANT from the ANKC?

If I've interpreted Haredown's posts correctly, there are two ways of going about the same thing, and a lot of anger at one way not working.

I can sense the anger but I'm lost as to exactly what hte problem is..

[TigerJack]

If anyone has any ideas on how this matter can be raised and dealt with by the ANKC in a reasonable time frame then I am happy to accept suggestions.

It should be noted that the negotiations between the AFA and the ANKC have been on going since 30 June 2010, when the original agreement expired. In that time the AFA has generally had to wait between 6 and 10 months for responses to its letters.

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.