StarLapyz

But you cannot expect a title gained under an unafilliated body to be recognised on the pedigree. That is the pitfall of participating in an activity that is not offically sanctioned. My Dobes had titles that they gained that were not ANKC recognised but were highly regarded within their breed. And advertising included these titles and no they were not on their ANKC pedigree but the results were easily found and verified via their national breed organisation. I am not sure why having the flyball title as a recognised ANKC title is so important when titles gained by passing temperment tests and achieving titles in at least three different areas to gain a ROM were not ANKC recognised titles but still very important for the breed and everyone coped just fine with that. By all means get the ANKC affiliation as it is great for the sport but I think using the line of it is important for the title to show up on ANKC pedigrees lacks any base. I hope it does get recognition but I also think more work needs to be done to gain that recognition. It is because the pedigree of a dog is the official record of that dogs achievements. Accordingly ALL titles it gains (na matter where they come from) should be recordable on the official pedigree that is maintained by ANKC. If it isn't on the pedigree, than in three or four generations is anyone going to remember that that dog ALSO had a bunch of other titles. The ANKC are a registry first. They need to stop being so bloody minded and difficult and do what a registry is SUPPOSED to do and register things. Affiliation or where the title comes from shouldn't matter at all.

I wasn't commenting with regard to flyball. I was commenting with regard to the ANKC and its state member bodies. The ANKC and the state bodies are important for the continued promotion of pure-bred dogs (and dogs generally) and dogs activities in Australia. They are also important for promoting dog welfare in Australia and providing a central point for the canine community to focus around so taht it stays a community. My disappointment is not just with the flyball issue, but in general. If you running a business and you lose half your annual sales over a period, you do something about it. the ANKC and its affiliates aren't doing anything, they seem happy to just fade away. They have almost zero public profile. This isn't good for the future of dogs in Australia. The flyball situation is just an example of a market the ANKC was given a golden ticket to enter and have a red hot go at taking over and they completely failed to even make the attempt. That is why I am disappointed with them. If they have issues with time etc, well there is a huge body of members out there who might be able to help. I am yet to see the Dogs NSW ever ask its members for any assistance with managing the organisation. if they have issues with money there are a million different ways to get more. I don't see any serious sponsorship income on the Dogs NSW financial reports. They hold a few shows a year and appear to make money out of them, so why not hold more. Why can't I upgrade my title certificates to printed aluminium or have them framed, up selling is always a good money spinner. I know DogsNSW have mechanise available, but they don't have an on-line store to buy it at (edit: they do, it's just hidden away and rather unfriendly). I assume Ozentires makes money, there is nothing stopping Dogs NSW providing the service, integrating it with current member services and making that money instead. Why cant I submit my title applications on-line and have them auto processed, saving on staffing costs etc. etc. etc. If your even a little bit creative you can find 100s of ways to improve service to members while also making more money so that you can do more things so you can get more members, so you can make more money, so you can do more things... The only thing that is guaranteed NOT to work is doing what you've always done...

To be fair it was also an opportunity for the state bodies to grow their membership in a new direction by activley promoting the sport. They didn't do that and essentially wasted the opportunity. The interest shouldn't be a factor. If your a board members of Dogs NSW you should be acting in the best interests of Dogs NSW. Promoting and actively growing new activities for dogs is part of that. Essentially, the boards of the state bodies were asleep at the wheel and missed and opportunity. State bodies barely do any promotion of pedigree dogs and of direct members and yet you expect them to fork out to promote something that is merely affiliated. Your expectations are rather high for something that barely crosses the radar for most dog people. How is the AFA promoting its own sport? I see nothing that promotes flyball at all. Edit: ping Haredown Whippets. Why is it okay that they 'barely do any promotion of pedigree dogs and of direct members'. Why does everyone see this as OKAY and is happy to accept it?

To be fair it was also an opportunity for the state bodies to grow their membership in a new direction by activley promoting the sport. They didn't do that and essentially wasted the opportunity. The interest shouldn't be a factor. If your a board members of Dogs NSW you should be acting in the best interests of Dogs NSW. Promoting and actively growing new activities for dogs is part of that. Essentially, the boards of the state bodies were asleep at the wheel and missed and opportunity. With not a single flyballer it seems prepared to assist said Board members by getting invovled on the ANKC side of things, what did you genuinely expect to happen. The AFA is running comps that deprive the ANKC of potential revenue but with no assistance from flyball participants, the ANKC is expected to do what is does for no other sport and madly promote it? How is promoting a sport that doesn't pay dues in the interest of Dogs NSW? Flyball never paid for schedules to be advertised, no judges paid fees and no comps made money for the CC. A proportion of your participants aren't even ANKC members. But you want what no other dog sport ever gets? Go read the mission statements and goals in the founding documents for the ANKC and the various state bodies. They are not doing what they were founded to do. I don't expect them just to promote flyball, they should be doing it for all dog sports and activities. They should also be actively promoting pure-bred dogs and general dog ownership in the wider community in a very public way. Currently they do next to nothing. There is a reason that membership to ANKC affiliated bodies has halved in the last 20 years and that is because they are not proactive and generating member value. You increase membership when you make membership more valuable. membership has plummeted (and continues to) so there is clearly a perception in the community that the value of membership is reducing (sorry, but the market doesn't lie). In all that time, the ANKC and its state bodies really haven't done anything to reverse the trend (or even try and stem it). It boils down to one simple fact. What they have been doing hasn't worked for 20 years, maybe its time to be radical and try something new.

To be fair it was also an opportunity for the state bodies to grow their membership in a new direction by activley promoting the sport. They didn't do that and essentially wasted the opportunity. The interest shouldn't be a factor. If your a board members of Dogs NSW you should be acting in the best interests of Dogs NSW. Promoting and actively growing new activities for dogs is part of that. Essentially, the boards of the state bodies were asleep at the wheel and missed and opportunity.

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. Well I have made some approaches so it will be very interesting to see how hard this is to do and how long it takes and how helpful board members at the state and ANKC level are. As for rules, nearly ALL sports adopted here are actively competed in other countries. It can't be that hard to simply copy the rules over and adopt them. You can always amend them later if an issue comes up.

The key word there is 'promote'. Not organise. Promote. Whatever sports there are have to fall under their framework. It's up to dog sports to like it or lump it. I say this without judgement on the sports and I agree that as an organisation the ANKC isn't a friend winner but that goes to the people who are in the ANKC, who in turn are in the state bodies. If the state bodies are going 'Not our fault then it should be pointed out that a representative of the state body is on the ANKC committee. You can't go wrong in making friends but with some people and organisations it takes more effort. I get what you are saying, and that is how it is. But that isn't how it should be and I honestly don't know why so many members are willing to sit by and accept (and even defend) an ANKC (and state bodies) that really come nowhere near fulfilling their potential. Demand more of them and you might actually get it.

I think from reading everything that this would be the best course of action. I agree with HW that since AFA has been prominent, people have not seen the reason to get things up and running properly within the ANKC framework. I think my brain is just wired differently. I genuinely don't understand why an organisation with the mission statement that it currently has isn't actively trying to get all dog sports affiliated with them, and offering members the opportunity to try new sports. i.e. instead of Members having to push for DWD, why the ANKC/member bodies didnt come to its members and say 'there is a cool new sport that we could trial- do you want to have a go'. Or why the ANKC doesn't say to ADAA members that if they are also ANKC members that their titles will be recognised because for all intents and purposes its a dogs sport, dogs have earnt those titles so its our job to record that because we are first and foremost a registry, second to that a spokesperson and promotor of all things responsibly canine...... Weight pulling, Dock Dogs, Sledding are all examples of sports that should be being nurtured along, not striving against an organisation who is meant to represent them. I don't expect everything to be handed out on a sliver platter but I think they should be being encouraged as much as possible. Like i said- strange brain wiring on my part. Sledding/weight pull are in the process of finalising rules etc. 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. Actively adopting and promoting new sports, as well as offering an all inclusive registry for dogs in Australia, would be much more in line with their mission than what they currently do. Their Mission To promote excellence in breeding, showing, trialling, obedience and other canine related activities and the ownership of temperamentally and physically sound pure bred dogs by responsible individuals across Australia. To promote responsible dog ownership and encourage State Member Bodies to put in place programs to that effect. To act as spokesperson on all canine related activities on a National basis on behalf of State Member Bodies and to pledge assistance and support to the respective State Member Bodies.

And the responsiblity for all of that lies within the flyball community. Who do you think does it for all the other dog sports?? Based on what's been posted here, the reason is because the AFA has given up?? It was suggested that you start from scratch because the information posted was that the situation was at an impasse. If that's the case where else do you suggest you start? If you want an attitude to be shared within an organisation then you have to get involved and engage within the organisation. How many flyballers nominated for council, attended AGM's or wrote for the journals? Why ARE there no reps on Councils for your sport? Flyball is a very small frog in the ANKC pond and it's up to the little frogs to promote their sport within the ANKC like every other sport did or does. Why do flyballers expect everyone else to do the running for them? If it doesn't matter, then why all the angst? Clearly ANKC recognition matters to quite a few flyballers. I think the missed opportunity if this is not resolved is for flyballers. The sooner that the flyball community recognise that your future lies within your hands and stop looking to the ANKC to make it happen, the sooner you can get those titles recognised on an ANKC issued pedigree as they should and could be. What do you think the Earth Dog and DWD and RallyO enthusiasts have done? No one did the hard yards for them. Why do you want special treatment when the facts as far as I can understand them are that flyball has, by it's AFA structure, held itself apart from the wider ANKC community Time for a few flyballers to step up and take the lead IMO. Get the sport recognised directly. You've got all the bones of a good case already. Some of the issue here and why there is so much angst is because we DID DO THE HARD YARDS. We had an agreement, it was working great and then it just got killed despite our (the AFAs) best efforts to try and accommodate the ANKC.

To answer your questions:- The AFA is a national organisation. You cannot compete in flyball and gain an ANKC title any more. You can be an AFA members without being a member of the ANKC and (prior to the termination of the agreement) could be a memebr of the ANKC without being a members of the AFA and do flyball.

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.

Stampy feet. Also the truth...

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 :)

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.

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 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.

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.

If it did, I'd hope I'd stay calm enough not to assume a cloak of martrydom, engage in a campaign of publically belittling the ANKC here and on FB and to focus on the issues, not blame the people. :) Seriously, if the AFA wants back in then it needs to engender support from the wider ANKC, not piss them off. And you'd be amazed who reads what's out there on the web. Time for cool heads and a careful re-examination of the ANKC's concerns. In the meantime, it might be wise to lay off the abuse. The issue with the AFA is FAR FROM the only example of ANKC incompetence and a stubborn reluctance to be in any way flexible. Yep, that's the way to get recognition back again... The organisation is far from perfect... but this really isn't helping the AFA at all. If I were the AFA, I'd be attempting to gag my members because this is hardly constructive. As I said before, if this is how the AFA views the ANKC, one wonders WHY affilition is desired at all. Cause that is how you improve and organisation, you sweep all of the failings and f*** ups and mistakes under a rug and never talk about them and make no attempt to fix them or improve anything. That is what has been happening with the ANKC for a vary long time. I make no apologies for calling a spade and spade and also see no reason why the AFA should suck up to an organisation that has thus far failed to act with any kind of professionalism or integrity. 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.

If it did, I'd hope I'd stay calm enough not to assume a cloak of martrydom, engage in a campaign of publically belittling the ANKC here and on FB and to focus on the issues, not blame the people. :) Seriously, if the AFA wants back in then it needs to engender support from the wider ANKC, not piss them off. And you'd be amazed who reads what's out there on the web. Time for cool heads and a careful re-examination of the ANKC's concerns. In the meantime, it might be wise to lay off the abuse. The issue with the AFA is FAR FROM the only example of ANKC incompetence and a stubborn reluctance to be in any way flexible.

The ANKC don't host ANY competitions - affiliates and CC's do. I don't call what's outlined below a particularly sensible approach to the insurance issue, do you? And when held on ANKC affiliated club grounds, and members of the club have to turn up to provide access and staff the canteen, exactly how would that work?? And more importantly how does that engender enhanced cooperation between the sport and the wider ANKC membership??? This is an issue with the TYPE OF COVERAGE. ANYONE attending an AFA event is covered by public liability insurance. This is the normal insurance that everyone is required to have and covers anyone at an AFA event if they suffer loss or injury due to negligence. The AFA also has ADDITIONAL cover for its members if they are accidentally injured while volunteering at an AFA sanctioned event. This insurance is not required, it is an additional benefit that the AFA provides to its members. The ANKC suggesting that this cover should be extended to their members is ridiculous. The volunteer cover is one of the benefits of being an AFA member. If they ANKC want's to they are perfectly capable of taking out similar insurance to cover their own members.

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 am aware of the structure and the way it is set-up and run is stupid. They are near impossible to contact, slow to disseminate information and useless at communication. The fact that there is a body in existence, that has the final say over all of the rules and regulations that affect our sports that ACTIVELY does not engage with it's members is ridiculous. The ANKC effectively directly refusing to directly deal with it's stakeholders, for no reason other than they are all too lazy (or too stuck in their ways) to hold a few extra meetings and write some emails. Edit: It's also nice of them to publish that list of names with NO CONTACT details so you can't actually call anyone and have a chat!!!

This is part of the problem. There is no reason in a world with email, video conferencing etc, that the ANKC can't meet monthly and respond to correspondence etc in its own right, rather than hiding behind state bodies they have no power to make decisions.

Exactly, the issue is the terms, and the ANKC has seen fit to terminate the agreement on grounds that are frankly stupid. Flyball is a recognised sport by the ANKC. They just have made, and continue to make NO attempt to promote it in anyway.

The ANKC are incredibly hard to contact and insanely slow to respond to correspondence. I have no idea why this is the case when the AFA, a vastly smaller organisation with much less resources, is able to hold a national meeting monthly and thus deal with issues in a reasonable time frame. I don't see why the ANKC can't also hold monthly meeting to deal with things.

Please also write to the AFA to make sure that the AFA committee is also aware of how seriously its members care about this issue. Briefly set out below is my understanding of the issue:- Firstly, the AFA has adequate, industry standard insurance in place, being public liability that covers anyone attending a AFA Flyball competition and a Members Voluntary Accident policy that covers members that are volunteering at an AFA event (i.e. to assist to run the event). As I understand it the ANKC raised two issues at separate times:- First a concern that ANKC members would not be covered if they volunteered at an AFA event. Second that AFA members would not be covered if they competed at an ANKC event. With regard to the first issue, it was proposed by the AFA that the ANKC and AFA simply instruct their members that they are not to volunteer at competitions hosted by the other organisation. This would resolve the issue and have no impact on members competing etc. It also means neither organisation would need to take out any further insurance or incur any further cost. With regard to the second issue, the AFA requested advice as to the cover the ANKC held, as the public liability insurance held by the AFA covers ANYONE who attends an AFA event. This kind of policy is an industry standard and I assume the ANKC would have exactly the same policy and that they query made by the ANKC is pointless as the ANKC's insurance would cover it. (I note that if they don't have this level of insurance they are under insured and should probably get themselves sorted out asap). I also note that the ANKC has, to date, shown no interest in hosting any flyball competitions and has no affiliated flyball clubs, so this entire complaint was purely academic. The ANKC provided no comment and entered into no discussions with the AFA regarding the above proposals and they simply terminated the agreement without any further consultation. No offers to hold a meeting to try and resolve the issue, or counter proposals or anything.