Salukifan

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.

They won't appear on a dog's pedigree papers and on the dog's name and titles in catalogues etc. One for AFA members. The problem is that the organisation that currently administers and conducts flyball trials has lost its ANKC affiliation. The issue now becomes what do do about it.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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??

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps the ANKC is wondering why it should have to pay for additional insurance for its members volunteering at AFA events when they don't have to for any other performance sport. I certainly am.

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. And again I ask, who is "they". If you think the ANKC is so "stupid" and "ridiculous" one wonders why folk are getting their knickers in a twist about affiliation? The ANKC isn't going to change overnight to accommodate the views of one affiliate... as I see it it's either amend your proposal to accommodate the ANKC's concerns or forget about affiliation. Or, as every other performance sport has done, move away from the AFA and get the sport recognised directly.

Yes. Don't. It's a F1 cross of two breeds with widely unpredictable results and the cross is largely produced by puppy farmers. If you want poodle attributes in a large dog then get a Standard Poodle.

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 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.

So which sports do "they" promote? And while we're at it, who are "they"? Seems to me if a few chips were shed from a few shoulders there might be a way forward. Clearly the people best placed to advise flyballers on why this has happened are the AFA. Once you have the facts you can examine methods of resolving the outstanding issues. In the mean time, publically blaming the ANKC for what's happened is hardly going to endear flyballers to the body is seems they wish to affiliate with is it? Shell: The people seeking affilition are the AFA... don't you think that working on a strategy to solve the conflict would be more constructive than abusing the body that gets to say "yes" or "no'? The arguments that need to be put forward are those of the AFA.

Oops - double post

Why is it the ANKC that's automatically assumed to be in the wrong here? Seems to me it takes two parties to make a conflict. The issue here is the terms of the affiliation - I expect it has nothing to do with it being a performance sport. Nothing's stopping Flyballers from getting the sport recognised directly by the ANKC without the AFA being involved. That's how every other performance sport has done it. Focus on the issue folks - don't hang the ANKC out to dry when clearly there's two parties involved.

My first piece of advice is to take her to the vet to make sure it's not a health issue causing the problem. Has anything changed in your house? New pet, new diet, new routine?

Fence off the line. I sincerely doubt his timing is about you turning your back. If he has you to amuse him he doesn't need the washing. Left alone, he seeks to entertain himself. Are you training him? What toys does he have?

This is the law relevant to where I live: It is the Domestic Animal Act 2000 and Section 44 is the relevant section: Don't think Fuzzy would get a lot of joy from the law here.

You think that's the law? Feel free to find it, factoring in that you have variations in domestic animal law between 8 states and territories and that local government law also differs. I suggest you factor in also the presence of the owner. Speculation is fine - but all the "what ifs" in the world don't change the fact that this has happened twice and the dog has yet to leave the property. I don't think what this owner is doing is smart or responsible, but the facts as I see them is unless and until the dog leaves the property, Fuzzy doesn't have a lot to report. Seriously, what's a ranger going to do when the phone call comes in that "a dog barked and ran around in circles in its front yard on the other side of the street when dogs approached"? It's hard enough to get a response to a report of a dog attack.

I am. I'm simply unable to identify in this case how a dog barking and running around in circles on its own property is in breach of the law - fence or not. Running around in circles is hardly "rushing" is it? It's not getting any closer to the OP or her dogs. You can quote the law till the sun don't shine but the reality is that you can't force other dog owners to be responsible, let alone law abiding. And in this case, I think reporting the incidents are a total waste of time. That leaves it up to those of us who have to deal with them to have practical strategies to deal with these situations. I've tried to provide one.

I am. I'm simply unable to identify in this case how a dog barking and running around in circles on its own property is in breach of the law - fence or not. Running around in circles is hardly "rushing" is it? It's not getting any closer to the OP or her dogs. You can quote the law till the sun don't shine but the reality is that you can't force other dog owners to be responsible, let alone law abiding. And in this case, I think reporting the incidents are a total waste of time. That leaves it up to those of us who have to deal with them to have practical strategies to deal with these situations. I've tried to provide one.

I am. I'm simply unable to identify in this case how a dog barking and running around in circles on its own property is in breach of the law - fence or not. Running around in circles is hardly "rushing" is it? It's not getting any closer to the OP or her dogs. You can quote the law till the sun don't shine but the reality is that you can't force other dog owners to be responsible, let alone law abiding. That leaves it up to those of us who have to deal with them to have practical strategies to deal with these situations. I've tried to provide one.