Ankc No Longer Recognising Flyball Titles

[Jumabaar]

Just saw on the Dogs NSW website that the ANKC are no longer recognising Flyball titles.

Sooooooooo disappointed at this point!! My girl only just gained her next title and I don't get to add it to her pedigree

Anyone else who is disappointed- perhaps you should let the ANKC/your state body know that you want them to sort this out rather than just letting it slide!!!

Edited July 3, 2012 by Jumabaar

[dogsaremyworld]

Why have they done that?

[The Spotted Devil]

From the ANKC website:

The ANKC/AFA Flyball Agreement including the Rules was terminated from 1 July 2012.  Existing titles on the ANKC Ltd database will remain however no further AFA Flyball Titles will be accepted by ANKC Ltd.

[Weasels]

Why?

[The Spotted Devil]

Info I have from another list suggests that insurance issues could not be resolved between ANKC and AFA.

ETA: I'm not involved in flyball - just picking up info from the interwebz

Edited July 3, 2012 by The Spotted Devil

[Weasels]

[~*Shell*~]

Zero's FDCh is pending too It's not so much that I need to see the title - but I think he deserves the recognition for his achievements.

I'll be writing to Dogs NSW tomorrow to try and find out the specifics of the inconsistency in their insurance and what criteria they don't believe the AFA is meeting. After reading the AFA minutes from the 2011 general meeting, I believe they have the coverage they need, though neither party is forthcoming with public information. In the mean time, I encourage everyone to hit the dogs NSW facebook page to voice any complaints or concerns.

Look at what happened with the Gr Ch. title. Enough public pressure meant they had to change. I won't be going away quietly.

[Jumabaar]

I do wonder what it means about other sports that are started by interest groups that then want to gain ANKC recognition. I know the initial agreement took THREE YEARS before it was all sorted out which to me is just silly. If the ANKC was serious about its mission statement it should be proactively seeking these sports out to try and offer support- not stonewalling them.

I do personally believe that one of the problems is that the ANKC is a mythical entity that really only exists once a year when they have a meeting, and for the remaining 12mths of the year are....... well who knows what they are for the other 364 days of the year- I still haven't worked it out.

[StarLapyz]

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.

Edited July 3, 2012 by StarLapyz

[StarLapyz]

I do wonder what it means about other sports that are started by interest groups that then want to gain ANKC recognition. I know the initial agreement took THREE YEARS before it was all sorted out which to me is just silly. If the ANKC was serious about its mission statement it should be proactively seeking these sports out to try and offer support- not stonewalling them.

I do personally believe that one of the problems is that the ANKC is a mythical entity that really only exists once a year when they have a meeting, and for the remaining 12mths of the year are....... well who knows what they are for the other 364 days of the year- I still haven't worked it out.

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.

Edited July 3, 2012 by StarLapyz

[Missymoo]

So they add another rediculous Ch title and take away a performance title...really dumb....

[Airedaler]

Just a Question here, I lknow nothing about the situation other than reading the above. Is the AFA afilliated with the ANKC or any of it's member bodies?

If not then it is probable that the ANKC cannot recognise titles from this body. Have discussions between the two regarding afilliation ever been held and if not why not? Maybe this could be the solution. I can understand the ANKC not recognising titles from a unafilliated organisation but if that is the case why did they do so in the first place?

[Jumabaar]

Just a Question here, I lknow nothing about the situation other than reading the above. Is the AFA afilliated with the ANKC or any of it's member bodies?

If not then it is probable that the ANKC cannot recognise titles from this body. Have discussions between the two regarding afilliation ever been held and if not why not? Maybe this could be the solution. I can understand the ANKC not recognising titles from a unafilliated organisation but if that is the case why did they do so in the first place?

The AFA spent 3 years gaining ANKC recognition thus titles have been recognised and it has been an ANKC sanctioned sport- there was an agreement signed by both organisations. The ANKC could have run comps (and had AFA teams run in them) and could have had ANKC teams enter AFA comps etc. Our titles were recognised (My bitch was one of the first to have her titles processed).

The ANKC terminated this agreement due to issues that they thus far haven't publicised. They have only said it is based on insurance- the AFA and ANKC are insured by the same company and the AFA's insurance has not changed since the original agreement was put in place so not sure why this only became an issue when it was time for this agreement to be rolled over.......

[Salukifan]

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.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Salukifan]

Oops - double post

Edited July 3, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[~*Shell*~]

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?

Besides, I can't actually approach the ANKC and ask them - they point me to my state body, who has put forward an argument about a scenario that cannot happen in the current circumstances, with no foreseeable change in the future.

[StarLapyz]

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.

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.

[Salukifan]

Flyball is a recognised sport by the ANKC. They just have made, and continue to make NO attempt to promote it in anyway.

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:

I am yet to hear ANY argument put forward by the ANKC that cannot be satisfied by using simple logic.

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.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[StarLapyz]

Besides, I can't actually approach the ANKC and ask them - they point me to my state body, who has put forward an argument about a scenario that cannot happen in the current circumstances, with no foreseeable change in the future.

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.

Edited July 3, 2012 by StarLapyz

[DeltaCharlie]

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.

The AFA is a very hardworking, dedicated committee who have been falling over themselves trying to make this partnership work. Every time the ANKC has had questions the AFA have immediately provided them with the answers. I suspect that the ANKC never really cared enough to make it work in the first place, so they kept throwing issues at the AFA, who continually provided solutions in response, and now the ANKC have simply pulled the plug without actually approaching the AFA with their current concerns. The AFA would have once again had the answers (and therefore the ANKC would have been stuck with the agreement for another term) so it was easier to just pull the plug.

I don't understand why really... its not like the ANKC have ever bothered to actually host a competition in all this time. So all they have had to do is sit around and take money for people's title applications.