|
|
|
|
|
Dear Guest, Over the last few months we have received many, many messages. Below are most of them. Due to a computer problem and an inability of a new machine to read back up disks from the old one, we may have lost a few messages. If you sent a message to us and do not see yours under any of the topic headings, kindly resend and it will be added. Items are organized according to topic. We have included messages containing several items under the heading “Multi Topics”. Topics: (please click on underlined link to 'jump' to that section, or scroll down through all the sections in the following order)
REDUCED JUMP HEIGHT FOR VETERANS From AB-M-1 “Please consider the following rule changes: The handlers of veterans dogs (7 years +) have the option of reducing the jump heights to 75% of the official height requirement for that dog. Optional height must be indicated as “Jump Height” on an official CKC entry form at time of entry. Rationale: The physical reality of aging reduces the athleticism of most dogs, especially the larger breeds and compounds the effects of poor conformation or previous injuries. An obedience trial is a test of obedience, not of stamina or physical prowess. Reducing jump heights may encourage the handlers of veteran dogs to continue competing by making the physical aspects of the text easier for them.”
From AB-P-1 Re: Lowering jumps to 3/4 height for dogs 7+ years of age “I was talking to handler’s name removed in mid-December about coming up with a Veteran's height for jumps in CKC obedience, and when I was talking to her again today, she told me that she discussed the matter with you. There were a couple of things that really started me thinking about it. One of these was watching handler’s name removed try so hard this year to get her utility title on dog’s name removed It has been a bit heartbreaking to watch him give such a good performance for all the exercises, right up until the bar jump in particular. So many times that would blow the whole trial for both of them, and for a 7 year old dog of his size and build to be jumping his heart out was so sad. The other thing that made the shoe drop for me is the amount of agility I have been doing with my dogs over the last few years. This year it really hits home for me, since dog’s name removed will be 7 in March. Now, I am planning on trialing him in utility this year as well, hoping to get his title. Fortunately for me, he doesn't have a hang-up over the jumps at this point, but he will be jumping 27" on concrete floors (with a thin rubber mat on top), and that is not the best of situations. In agility, on the other hand, which is generally conducted on grass or in something like a riding arena which has a surface with much more shock absorption, he will only be required to jump 22" after March, and if I wanted to, I could actually reduce his height to 16". Interestingly enough, the only agility association in Canada that does not have a special height category for veterans is the CKC. As a result, a lot of people who continue to do agility in AAC or NADAC with dogs (large or small) that are 8 to 12 years old, don't bother with CKC. I suspect that after this year dog’s name removed will probably be pulled from most CKC agility events as well, since I would hate to see him hurt himself. When you think about those people trialing in obedience with large dogs, there is a big disadvantage we have over people with small or medium size dogs. When I was trialing dog’s name removed he had his agility title by the time he was 2 1/2 years old, and the last time I trialed him, he had just past his 9th birthday. If it hadn't been for the lung cancer he came down with, he was structurally sound enough that I had expected to continue trialing him until he was 10 or 11. With the (breed removed – the dogs the author is speaking about are a very large breed) well, I didn't even attempt to have my young bitch jump full height until after her second birthday. She will be 3 in April, and is ready to trial in Open, and hopefully by next year she will be ready for utility (if I keep my nose to the grindstone), but even so, that only leaves her about 3 years of trialing. It is all fine and well to say that there is a Veteran's obedience class that this dogs can go into after the age of 7, but for a dog like (mine) who really love the challenge of the higher level classes, it seems a shame to lose a chance to show what they can do so soon. I would NOT like to see (my breed) added to the list of dogs who are incapable of jumping their own height--for a well-structured breed name removed it should not be a problem during their prime. I also do not think that if a veteran height is offered that it should be mandatory--I think each handler should be able to decide what his/her own dog should be doing. UKC, for example, offers a lower jump height to dogs in the Novice class (the recall is over the high jump), but it is the handler's decision. I don't know if they offer lower heights (probably not) in open or utility. Anyway, I don't know whether or not the idea is feasible or how many people would be in favour, but if you think it is worth passing on, please do so."
From AB-P-1 Re: Lowering jumps to 3/4 height for dogs 7+ years of age “I was talking to (person’s name deleted) in mid-December about coming up with a Veteran's height for jumps in CKC obedience, and when I was talking to her again today, she told me that she discussed the matter with you. There were a couple of things that really started me thinking about it. One of these was watching (breed deleted) try so hard this year to get her utility title on (deleted) It has been a bit heartbreaking to watch him give such a good performance for all the exercises, right up until the bar jump in particular. So many times that would blow the whole trial for both of them, and for a 7 year old dog of his size and build to be jumping his heart out was so sad. The other thing that made the shoe drop for me is the amount of agility I have been doing with my dogs over the last few years. This year it really hits home for me, since (deleted) will be 7 in March. Now, I am planning on trialing him in utility this year as well, hoping to get his title. Fortunately for me, he doesn't have a hang-up over the jumps at this point, but he will be jumping 27" on concrete floors (with a thin rubber mat on top), and that is not the best of situations. In agility, on the other hand, which is generally conducted on grass or in something like a riding arena which has a surface with much more shock absorption, he will only be required to jump 22" after March, and if I wanted to, I could actually reduce his height to 16". Interestingly enough, the only agility association in Canada that does not have a special height category for veterans is the CKC. As a result, a lot of people who continue to do agility in AAC or NADAC with dogs (large or small) that are 8 to 12 years old, don't bother with CKC. I suspect that after this year (deleted) will probably be pulled from most CKC agility events as well, since I would hate to see him hurt himself. When you think about those people trialing in obedience with large dogs, there is a big disadvantage we have over people with small or medium size dogs. When I was trialing (deleted) he had his agility title by the time he was 2 1/2 years old, and the last time I trialed him, he had just past his 9th birthday. If it hadn't been for the lung cancer he came down with, he was structurally sound enough that I had expected to continue trialing him until he was 10 or 11. With the (bigger dogs) well, I didn't even attempt to have my young bitch jump full height until after her second birthday. She will be 3 in April, and is ready to trial in Open, and hopefully by next year she will be ready for utility (if I keep my nose to the grindstone), but even so, that only leaves her about 3 years of trialing. It is all fine and well to say that there is a Veteran's obedience class that this dogs can go into after the age of 7, but for a dog like (mine) who really love the challenge of the higher level classes, it seems a shame to lose a chance to show what they can do so soon. I would NOT like to see (my breed) added to the list of dogs who are incapable of jumping their own height--for a well-structured (delete) it should not be a problem during their prime. I also do not think that if a veteran height is offered that it should be mandatory--I think each handler should be able to decide what his/her own dog should be doing. UKC, for example, offers a lower jump height to dogs in the Novice class (the recall is over the high jump), but it is the handler's decision. I don't know if they offer lower heights (probably not) in open or utility. Anyway, I don't know whether or not the idea is feasible or how many people would be in favour, but if you think it is worth passing on, please do so.”
VARYING ORDER OF EXERCISES IN OPEN B CLASS From CN-1 The thought is that Open A class would remain as is. Open B exercises would be mixed up at the judge’s discretion. Utility A & B would be created. Utility A would follow the traditional order of exercises. Utility B would have a varying order of exercises. *IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE that unless we change CKC regulations relative to “A” and “B” class requirements, dogs competing for their titles in the “B” classes would be competing with varying orders of exercises.
From AB-C-3 “With regards to Wendy Wallace’s column in the March 2005 issue of Dogs in Canada ‘Should the Stays Stay’, I would like to respond by saying ‘well done in expressing what many people are feeling about the current state of group stays!’ I believe that many people who claim the old adage of ‘train, don’t complain’ are off target. The people want CHANGE! No one is trying to get rid of doing stays entirely, however, what is wanted is to have a new format put in place. The driving force behind this has been and always will be SAFETY FIRST! This has allowed everyone to put on their creative thinking caps and try to come up with a way to incorporate a stay situation for dogs in obedience trials, but NOT in the context of dogs being in a lineup as they are currently being done. It is time that a change was implemented. A single incident of dog aggression while doing group stays is one too many!!!!!! People who participate in the sport of obedience, do it because they enjoy it, and they and their canine companions have fun doing it. It is a hobby for some, a serious hobby for others and for some people, it goes beyond that. The one thing it should NEVER be, is a dog owner’s worst nightmare come true as one’s dog is attacked doing group stays. I agree with Ms Wallace’s opinion entirely – the obedience ring is NOT always a safe place, and it’s time to quit burying out heads in the sand and look at ways to MAKE it safe. It is my assumption that CKC wants to promote dog sports and encourage J.Q. Public to come and watch and see how much fun dog/handler teams have together. But, if J.Q. Public is witness to a dog attack in the ring, I would hardly think that this is doing anything positive to promote the sport! For those of us who train dogs, and understand the seriousness of the nature of these incidents, we also recognize that a good dog who is attacked in the ring, might be ruined (mentally and/or physically) thereby ending its career. I don’t know of anyone who is comfortable leaving his dog with a group of other dogs that we don’t know anything about, but this is currently how the game is played. Yes, we could all just stop entering our dogs in trials, but that isn’t solving the problem. As long as even a few individuals have little concern about entering dogs with questionable temperaments and putting other competitors, their dogs, the ring stewards, the public, the judges et al, at risk, it would seem that a very viable solution is to (a) format stays in a new way that will keep everyone (human and canine) SAFE, and (b) stop putting all the dogs in a very vulnerable position by leaving stays as they are currently being done.”
From AB-K-2 “OBEDIENCE - OPEN STAYS I would like to see the Open Stays deleted. My reason is that the first dog I trained approximately 25 years ago, was attacked by another dog during the Open Stay. When I spoke to the handler of the attacking dog, I gathered he was quite aware that his dog was aggressive. The following are 2 exercises which I would suggest to replace the Open Stays. 1) A one-minute individual out of sight sit-stay. 2) Another exercise could be a moving down followed by a recall. (similar to Utility Moving Stand)”
From AB-Z-1
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:59:03 -0700 I would like to voice my support for the following changes to the obedience rules: 1. Dogs that fail in the individual exercises are excused from group exercises. 2. Dogs must be in heel position and under control when entering the ring for group exercises. Dogs demonstrating a lack of control should be excused before stays begin. 3. Dogs shall remain on a six foot leash at all times during the group exercises. The leash will remain attached to the collar and be left on the floor in front of the dog as the handler leaves the dog. 4. Stays will be judged in groups of up to 8 exhibitors who have qualified up to this point. 5. During stays, if any dog shows unsteadiness or attempts to disturb another dog, the steward (as directed by the judge) will remove the dog by the leash to the other side of the ring. 6. The stay exercise will consist of either the down stay or sit stay at the discretion of the judge. Exhibitors will not know which stay will be required until the class begins. All dogs will be judged on the same exercise in a class. As someone who has ring stewarded many times, I am always worried about the safety of the dogs and people. If the leashes were left on during the stays it would be a much safer means of stopping any problem should anything happen. It wouldnąt take away from the difficulty of the exercise but would add a measure of safety. There is no benefit to having dogs continue into the stays if they have failed the individual exercises. Itąs no more than a training session at this point as the dog has failed anyway. Matches and classes are the place to train. Thank you.”
From AB-Z-1
Date: Fri, 14 Nov
2003 Hi Gin For a long time I have felt that it would be good to eliminate the Open Stays and this is not just for personal reasons. I have always felt that any responsible person would not leave their dog out of sight let alone with unknown dogs. Big safety concern. I like some of the alternate suggestions to replace the stays. I think it would be challenging to train and also be a good lead into the Utility moving stand. On another note I would really like to see some kind of rule that judges must continue to trial and put even a CD title on a dog at least - say perhaps once every five years. I really think it keeps people in closer touch with the sport.”
From O-T-2 “Ms Cummings I just thought I'd send you a quick comment on the sits and downs as I see them. The reason I have always trialed in B classes is my anticipation of the dogs being better trained and hopefully being more stable in the these exercises. I have witnessed some scary situations where dogs have moved and interfered with other dogs in A classes. I like the idea of dogs not moving into the stationary exercises if they have failed to qualify in the previous exercises. Although failing an exercise doesn't guarantee the dog will break the stay in either position the possibility is probably greater given that the training and control shown is below that required to receive a qualifying score. By not having that dog in the stationary exercises we will reduce the opportunity for a problem to occur. Given that, I do believe the stationary exercises are important as many of us use them daily with our dogs throughout our everyday lives. A solid stay may play an essential role in the safety of the animal in various situations. The stationary exercises should not be removed from the qualifications required for a Canadian Kennel Club title.”
From AB-H-1 ” I have spoken to many people about the stay exercises and I guess, it is not until you have been around the block a few times, as we have been, that you really start to think about these Stays. Most new people really do not have much of an opinion about them but then they have not seen the results of these same stays. My response was that by Open the dogs will have demonstrated their ability of perform line stays in Pre Novice and Novice. The need to leave one's dog in a line with other dogs isn't necessary and is downright dangerous. I figure it's a lot safer to have those dogs in the ring with their handlers standing across the ring than to go into an open stay assuming all is well only to return to a savaged dog. As I have said before, I would be all in favour of one Stay exercise, position at the judges discretion, for 3 minutes but then you are not removing the chance of some horrendous dog fight - it will happen at some time I am sure OR are the really bad (as in aggressive) dogs knocked out of competition during the shorter stays in Novice? I really hate to have my competition dog go down on a sit stay and then I am reinforcing this by asking him to do a down stay right after. My other solution here would to be able to excuse myself after my dog has broken his sit stay. Enough of my whining here. In a perfect world --------.”
From O-K-4 I am writing to all of you, as representatives of CKC, to ask your help in eliminating the long sits and downs from the Obedience exercises in Novice and Open. I normally stay silent and go with the flow of decisions but I feel very strongly about this issue. I cannot understand why the CKC would continue with a practice that puts dogs ( and in some cases, judges) at risk. The exercises do not reflect needs in everyday life. I would never leave my dog in a long sit or down in a situation that might endanger her, and go away from her or out of sight. To do so would be completely irresponsible. I thought that CKC promoted responsible care of dogs. These days in the obedience rings, there are more and more dogs that are close to "going over the edge". As competition increases, breeding practices that are looking for more and more drive and high style, are also losing some soundness in temperament. The CKC should not be encouraging any practice that might cause injury, emotional scarring, or even death. All of these examples are documented in North America. There are also unexpected instances in which even a dog of sound temperament may succumb. I was in an outdoor trial with my dog, who had already completed his CDX and had never broken a sit or stay. Until that day. For some reason (perhaps a bee?) - he broke and leapt backwards over the fence and ran towards the highway. I was terrified - and so grateful that someone was able to grab him as he headed over the hill. That was the last time I put him in the ring because even though proofed and reliable, and of sound temperament, I knew that even he, could break. What if he had leapt into another ring and surprised another dog? This had never happened before, but showed me that no animal can be perfect. Anything can happen. I witnessed another trial - indoors - where a very fast dog not only broke the sit-stay - but raced out of the ring and into the next ring where the dogs were on a long down - he circled twice around a small dog, and raced out into the kitchen before anyone could catch him. If the wrong dog had been in the ring, there could have been a very tragic melee. Now I am starting to work with my young dog. We work in the field and on tracking - she shows great skill and I do not ever have to worry about the threat of another dog there. We are working on obedience - will I enter her? How can I rely on the sound temperament of all the other dogs in the ring. How can I expose my best friend to a situation where she could get hurt? There is no reason to. I can find enough dog sports where we can train – but I do not have to fear an attack that will damage her, physically or psychologically. If you want to demonstrate dogs' skills and training, there are surely better ways than sitting them in a row and going away from them. Please eliminate the long sits and downs.
To: <> Ms Cummings I just thought I'd send you a quick comment on the sits and downs as see them. The reason I have always trialed in B classes is my anticipation of the dogs being better trained and hopefully being more stable in the these exercises. I have witnessed some scary situations where dogs have moved and interfered with other dogs in A classes. I like the idea of dogs not moving into the stationary exercises if they have failed to qualify in the previous exercises. Although failing an exercise doesn't guarantee the dog will break the stay in either position the possibility is probably greater given that the training and control shown is below that required to receive a qualifying score. By not having that dog in the stationary exercises we will reduce the opportunity for a problem to occur. Given that, I do believe the stationary exercises are important as many of us use them daily with our dogs throughout our everyday lives. A solid stay may play an essential role in the safety of the animal in various situations. The stationary exercises should not be removed from the qualifications required for a Canadian Kennel Club title. Just my thoughts.
From AB-M-5 “My humble suggestion, eliminate the long sit and long down. Replace them with a revised Figure 8. Use 4 free standing uprights. Require the dog and handler to make 2 complete turns around each post. It would be the handler’s choice as to sequence, as long as all posts are used.”
From AB-K-3 Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:14:11 -0700 To: "cummings" <> Subject: Open Stays Hi Virginia, I'm writing you on the topic of the Open stay exercises. Until this weekend at the (deleted specific trial date/location) Trials, my thoughts on the Open stays were that there should be only 1 set of stays, either the long down or the long sit, at judge's discretion. Until this weekend, I thought that this option was simple and would have the benefit of shortening the overall class, keep the interest of spectators and eliminating the problem of reinforcing a mistake on the Long Sit by putting the dog immediately back into the Long Down. However, the picture of Open stays changed dramatically for me this weekend. For the first time, I'm trialing my 3 year old intact male breed deleted – it’s a large breed in Open. Before now, my Open dogs were a male breed deleted – small breed and a female breed deleted – it’s a large breed. Neither dog attracted any particular interest of any other dogs and, perhaps naively, I never felt that either of those 2 dogs were in any particular danger in the stays in the 5 years of trialing them. While I've heard of situations happening in the stays where dogs have been attacked by other dogs in recent years, my dogs have never been involved. I pulled my breed deleted from competition on Sunday because I feared for his safety in the stay exercises. The catalogue order would have had my boy lined up beside an intact male (breed deleted – it was a large breed) who has not been steady in his stays in the past and appears to be somewhat reactive to other male dogs. On the other side of this boy was an intact male large breed who doesn't like my breed in general and who has, in the past, lunged and growled at my dog specifically both in and out of a show situation. Within 2 dogs of my boy in the other direction down the line up, was another large breed who is also reactive. While I donąt believe this particular dog would ever start anything, I think he'd join in if the situation presented itself. Specifically, the line up for the last five dogs on Sunday, if everyone showed up, would have been: 4. male large breed (reactive), 5. male large breed (don't know the dog), 6. intact male my boy , 7. intact male large breed (unsteady in stays and reactive), 8. intact male large breed (reactive to my breed and to my dog specifically). While I can't say that anything would definitely have happened if all these dogs were left within feet of each other unattended for 6 minutes, it surely wasn't a situation that I was at all comfortable putting my boy into because if something did go wrong, it would have gone wrong in a big way. I am not risking my dog's mental or physical wellbeing over any amount of money, let alone a $25 entry fee. Beyond the risk to the dogs, what judge or steward would want to get in the middle of a dog fight involving 1-2 big male breed deleted, a big male breed deleted and a big male breed deleted? My boy is steady in his stays and is not a reactive dog but I have no idea what he'd do if challenged by another male because I've never put him into that situation and hope never to have to find out what he'd do in such a situation. This weekend makes me believe that we need to get rid of the Open stays altogether because I do not believe that any dog should be put into an unsafe situation for any "sport or hobby" nor do I believe that the judge, ring stewards, other trial officials or owners should be put into a situation where their safety may be compromised by having to separate fighting dogs. I can't even imagine the image that this would create for the public who witness such an incident and imagine that liability to the host club would be significant. There is no remedy for the exhibitor faced with a risky situation created in the stays but to pull the dog and forfeit the entry fee. I can't make a complaint because nothing's happened yet. In a perfect world, perhaps all dogs entered in competition would be bomb proof in their stays but that simply is not reflective of reality. Dogs are dogs and can be unpredictable in a stressful situation like a trial. I was fortunate this weekend because I know the dogs involved and could make an informed decision about whether or not to put my dog in the stays. However, if I travel, I may not know the dogs in the class and may not know if the dog beside mine has had a longstanding problem with boxers or other male dogs or whatever. What do I do then? I don't want to not trial my dog but I also do not want to put him at risk in the name of a hobby that I've chosen to pursue without much input from his perspective. In any event, thank you for your consideration.”
From AB-C-3 Hi Gin. Thanks for sending along the changes for 2005. I must say I was disappointed to see that nothing of any significance has really been done with regards to the open groups. I would have really loved to have seen them gone, and replaced with an honor stay as in UKC. Its only my opinion, and while I have no real concerns with teaching the out of sight stays, I have huge concerns with leaving my dog alone in a line up of dogs and having some psycho mutt decide its time to rip someone apart. Granted, this doesn’t happen often (thank God), but one time is enough for me whether I'm involved directly, or affected by it indirectly. It certainly does nothing to impress JQP to see that happen, (and it always seems that some value is placed on what JQP sees), and again, in my opinion, its quite an unrealistic scenario since I don’t know of anyone who would leave their dog sitting alone with a bunch of dogs basically unsupervised. Hope all is well!
From AB-B-1 “I would like to introduce myself before making some comments regarding obedience trials. For me, competing in various CKC events since 1993 has been very rewarding and fulfilling. I have especially enjoyed the training in preparation for competing in each sport. My present female achieved her utility title in 2002. My present male, top breed name removed in Canada, achieved his utility title in 2004 at the age of four years. He completed his Companion dog through to Utility title in twelve months. During the time I have competed, obedience rules have slowly been amended in all classes, bringing about considerable improvement in the sport. Some changes have been significant. However, many changes are still necessary and this is particularly true with regard to the group exercises. I have noted in the obedience group exercises, both Novice and Open, that when dogs are asked to stay while the handlers leave them in position, there is a considerable amount of stress in some dogs. This is not surprising since the dogs are being left in close proximity to a group of dogs unknown to them - who knows what messages the other dogs may be sending them. This stress just intensifies in open when the handlers are required to leave their dogs alone in the ring. At indoor trials, I have witnessed many dogs salivating and leaving wet foot prints on the mats. Both are signs of stress. At outdoor trials, dogs are often asked to remain sitting or lying in the extreme hot, sunny conditions. The handlers are often in a shady area during these group exercises. I have noted dogs panting and acting very restless due to the heat and/or adverse weather conditions. I have seen dogs run out of the ring on their group sits and downs looking for shade. Under other adverse weather conditions such as a downpour of rain, wind etc., the dogs are asked to remain in those adverse weather conditions, the handlers are stationed in a comfortable tent waiting to return to their dogs. Only in obedience trials would conscientious handlers leave their dogs open to the elements in this way. Consider that some dogs have no undercoat or tender skin. Adverse weather conditions for these dogs are particularly unpleasant. At both indoor and outdoor trials small dogs are often placed next to large dogs who may give some unpleasant body language causing more stress. Should the larger dog be aggressive (as has occasionally been the case) the group exercise can be down right dangerous for the small dog. Is it not cruel to leave a dog in the proximity of one he or she perceives to be a threat? Handlers have to do this all the time in order to compete in obedience. In contrast to obedience, when competing in the sports of tracking, field, agility, fly ball etc., dogs work with their handlers as companions, enjoying the competitive sport together with their owner/handler thus, making it a safe, fun and enjoyable time together. This is not true of group exercises (sits and downs) in obedience trials, which appear to be rather cruel exercises for both canine and owner/handler. I and others certainly do not find it enjoyable to see our dogs stressed by our absence especially since this stress is inflected on our dogs simply in order to achieve a title or blue ribbon. It was a huge step forward when the group stands in utility were eliminated. These pointless stands were a prime example of being cruel to your dog in the ring. Isn't it time to also replace the equally senseless - group sit and down exercises as well? If the sport of obedience is to continue, a serious overhaul of the rules and regulations is necessary. The sport should be less regimental or stressful giving way to an enjoyable time for both dog and handler in the ring. Respectfully submitted,
“C” CLASSES – OPEN AND UTILITY From AB-V-1 “Good Morning Gin: Firstly I would like to thank you and Tubby for volunteering your time to host the meeting last night. I know that it is a long drive from Edmonton. I guess I am going at this from a very different perspective to most of the other attendees at last night's meeting. The people we did not hear from are the ones not yet involved. Obedience must remain appealing to the Newbie as well. I find that the majority of entries at the trials are people wanting to put titles on their dogs - not people out for High In Trials. I do not personally care about the "careers" of dogs heavily campaigned by their owners. I do care about keeping our sport one that might be considered by pet dog owners who just might be bitten by the "obedience bug". These new exhibitors will be our competitors of the future. I feel that all obedience giving clubs must make a comfortable environment the most important aspect of obedience trials. If first time exhibitors are not treated well, they will not return to the ring. I would be very much in support of offering "C" competitive classes for both Open and Utility. Open A and B classes would be for exhibitors as currently described in our rules (except that B would exclude CDX titled dogs). All exhibitors wanting to continue trialling in Open would continue in the "C" classes. I would also like to see something similar in the Utility classes with UD dogs competing in a "C" class. A classes would be for first timers, B would be for those who train professionally, or have already titled a UD dog and "C" for titled dogs (eligible for High In Trial). As for the discussion regarding handlers being able to be asked to be "Excused". I would prefer a wording such as: "A handler may ask to "excluded" from the rest of the exercises following a failed exercise. The Judge's decision would be final". The word "excused" is already used in our obedience rules and I feel "excluded" is a better word. I am sorry to drone on about this but I am quite passionate about these things. I know that I am generally on the other side of the table but I feel that we have to do a lot of work to grow our sport. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Individual Person With Different Ideas”
From AB-M-4 I found the Town Hall Meeting held on September 16th, 2004 to be very informative, and worth while attending. I am pleased with the majority of the changes that come into effect Jan 05, however, there are few things that still, in my opinion need to be addressed. 1. Upon completion of the stay exercises, prior to the Exercise Finished command, the handler should be required to place the leash back on the dogs collar. This would help control a lot of undue excitement that can precipitate aggressive behaviour in some dogs. 2. Do away with the out of sight long sits and downs. These exercises are not a true test of the dogs obedience ability. They are stressful for both dog and handlers and place the dogs in a jeopardized position. I for one would like to see these exercises replaced with the honour and either a moving sit or down. 3. Would like to see the Open B class with a varying order or exercises. 4. Like the idea of Utility A and B classes.”
From AB-T-1 I left the town hall on obedience a bit early and did not have an opportunity to submit my comments. I am a CKC member and can provide a novice viewpoint to the sport of competitive obedience. 1 - On long sits and downs at the "return to your dog" I agree that the lead be attached before the dog is released. 2 - I would submit that at novice level the leash be left on the dog for the long sits and downs but placed next to the dog. 3 - The "A" and "B" class does need further review and definition. Firstly, I think we need to have clear in our minds the purpose of obedience competition and titling. Next based on this should the classes be based on the experience of the dog? the competitor in the ring with the dog? or the owner? keeping in mind co-ownership and even cases where a dog is actually owned by the breeder and lives with an individual. I have one such dog which is actually registered and owned by the breeder but the dog lives with me - if the breeder has competed in obedience to the top and I as a first time competitor with a new dog - are we to be considered "B" level? Again, what is the purpose of "A" class. Next, I believe it has been clearly defined in the case of "B" where the handler/owner is a trainer but I think it may need to be further defined as to the type of trainer. For example, someone who only trains agility dogs in my mind constitutes a trainer and should not be competing in "A". While it may not be "fair" perhaps the split between A and B should be dissolved - at least for pre-novice and novice - after all in conformation the only split is based on the dog and perhaps this would be more fair in obedience. 4 - Having the order of obedience exercises change rather than set I have no problem with and I think many coming into the sport of dogs are tending to compete in more than one sport. I compete in agility, freestyle, rally-o and obedience. The idea of posting the exercise order just prior to entering the ring makes no difference to me. I would say - what is the purpose of obedience competition? Is it to show that a dog can learn a pattern or routine and execute it flawlessly or as close as possible to that - which of course recognizes the skill and ability of the handler. If it is to show an obedient dog in life which is unpredictable at best - then rote patterns may not demonstrate this. 5 - I like the idea of the honour sit and down - in my mind this better demonstrates a steady sit/down with controlled activity going on - is easier for ring steward and judge to maintain control in case of a problem. Size and age of dogs would also be less of an issue when only two are in the ring. This would also keep competitors present for their entire session and may even help with paperwork because it would be complete within two rounds rather than having to do eight competitors at once. It is a better test of the dog handler team because if - for example - I was the first competitor and did an excellent first session then went away and something happened to me or upset my dog and then I came back for the sit/down and because of something that happened outside the ring the session ends poorly it may not be a proper test of the dog and/or handler team. That concludes my comments to this point. If you require clarification or further information please feel free to contact me.”
From AB-S-1 “Hi Virginia; I am finally sending you this info on my opinions. 1) I would love to see the Open B exercises 'mixed up'. 2) I am in favour of a Utility A for untitled dogs and a Utility B with mixed up exercises for titled dogs working toward more advanced titles. 3) In the interest of canine safety and demonstrating responsible dog ownership I am in favour of eliminating the out of sight stay exercises in the Open classes. As an alternative 1) Moving sit, call into heel position, followed by a moving Down where the handler circles the ring without looking at the dog and come up behind the dog and commands it to heel as the handler passes the dog without stopping and the dog and handler proceed a few passes in heel position. and 2) Sit stay while the handler assists with jump changes for the next dog. The above are my preferences for replacement, but I do not object to the honour of the one minute out of sight sit with the dog on its own in the ring. Please do not hesitate to ask me questions if I have not been clear.”
From AB-K-1 Thanks for coming to Calgary and talking about upcoming changes and ideas for the CKC obedience fancy. I have been involved in a very limited way as a sometimes exhibitor. I haven't trialed a dog for about seven years. So here are my naive comments. I like the idea of 'C' classes for the competitive trainers and dogs. It is less intimidating for those and A and those who are trapped with the rules in B. The long sits and downs seem a bit outdated, it just doesn't happen. I do like the idea of a dog in a stay honoring while another dog is working, more realistic. I like the idea of varying the routines in Open B and Utility B. I think it is better for everyone, keeps us thinking. You were discussing at the meeting about excusing an exhibitor and dog from a class, when the team was not doing well in the ring. In conformation, excusing from the ring is a serious concern, and counted with the idea that if you are excused too many times, you may never show that dog again. I would like another word used, perhaps, would you like to be dismissed from finishing this trial.”
From AB-W-1
“TO: Virginia
Cummings, CKC Obedience Representative, Zone 10
REACTION TO MIXING UP OF EXERCISES IN OPEN B AND UTILITY B I guess this is not a real issue with me. It is true, however, that this makes it more difficult for dogs competing for their titles – while the trainer may have put one dog through this title before, the dog is still green. Either way, this would make it more exciting to watch and, after all, we really don’t like it when our dogs get “ring-wise” (I know, dirty word!), and anticipate exercises – this would help that problem. SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT EXERCISES OPEN SITS/DOWNS (in my order of preference) 4. My favourite suggestion is the UKC Honour Down - #4. Having just completed my first CDI dog’s title, I have to say this is a more interesting exercise, and, if a problem were to develop between dogs, there are several people in the ring, as well as the handler, to intervene if necessary. Additionally, there are only 2 dogs to mix it up if a fight did break out. Having entered and qualified in 4 trials, under 2 different judges, I did note that the judges set up the exercise in quite a different manner from each other. I think this exercise shows the dog’s obedience under distraction, as there is a lot going on in the ring, a lot of interaction among the judge, stewards, and handler, as well as another handler and dog. 7. Sit/Down Stays – Handlers across ring facing away – well, I guess that would be an improvement, as we are at least still in the ring. Seems kind of silly, though. 8 Out of Sight Individual Down Stay – BORING! But better than the group. 1. Moving Sit – If you made it a moving down, I would go for it. However, even as is, it is still preferable to the current long sit/long down out of sight. 3. The thing I don’t like about this one is the setting up of the jumps with the dog in the ring. Maybe I feel my dogs are too sensitive, but I don’t like the idea of my dog sitting in the ring while jumps are being adjusted. If the handler is fixing the jumps, how quickly or slowly, how quietly or noisily, with how much dexterity or lack thereof, the handler sets up the jump, depends upon the handler’s experience, physical capability, age, possible infirmity – basically, there could be a lot of board banging, jumps falling, etc. I really don’t want my dog too close to that, I want him to know the ring is a safe place where nothing bad will happen to him. Of course, noise and distraction are part of every trial and show, but I don’t want this going on this close to my dog. I could go for leaving the dog and going to another part of the ring to interact with other people, then calling the dog or returning to the dog. But leave the jumps out of it. 5-6 No – we would still be leaving the ring, and the present dangers would still be inherent. 9 –10 No – Shortening the time or leaving as is – still the danger of a fight among the dogs without the handlers being there to intervene.”
From AB-C-4
”Date: Wed, 22 Sep
2004 09:14:42
-0600 Hi Gin, Thought I'd take a few minutes and jot down some thoughts relating to our discussion Monday night. First of all, THANK YOU to you, Tubby & Jeff for taking the time and making the effort to hold these meetings. The obedience community in Alberta is lucky to have folks like you involved, willing to listen to what competitors are saying and taking the time to do something about it. Now my comments: 1. Ch 8 (new section relating to pass/fail in heeling) Suggestion for 8.17.2 In all heeling exercises, a dog that does not stay within 3 feet of heel position (as defined in 8.17.1) for at least 50% of the heeling pattern shall receive a score of zero. (as an aside, I have to ask if we need to use metric measurements here, I.E. "one meter" ???) Mixed up order of exercises in the "B" classes for Open (& Utility B - if this class is created) - YES !!! Changing the "A" classes so that dogs would be tracked instead of handlers - Doesn't seem fair to me. The concept of allowing new handlers a class separate from the experienced exhibitors still seems valid. I don't think the "mixed up" order of exercises should be a concern to most experienced trainers (it might encourage some to avoid pattern training in their everyday work with their dog - maybe making training sessions more interesting to their own dog!) Utility A class - Good idea, as long as this class is subject to the same requirements for handlers as the current Novice A & Open A. RE: 8.16.3 "Collars other that those specified ..." - Let's get this out of the rulebook. Perhaps if we point out to the conformation people that this rule could then be generalized to them, they would support us on this. Replacing Long Sit & Down exercises in Open: You know how I feel about this one. The comments you quoted in the handout show many people feel this way. Before we can get people to agree to change this it seems they have to agree that dogs are put at risk under the current requirements AND/OR that this is no longer an exercise that meets the purpose of obedience: "...to produce dogs that have been trained to behave ... in the presence of other dogs." In today's society it is unacceptable to leave a dog untied and unattended in the presence of other dogs - or people for that matter. It is dangerous to the dog: if he is frightened he could bite someone or run into the path of a vehicle. In either case the dog is dead or injured or sentenced to death or the owner is facing a lawsuit. The bottom line is: No RESPONSIBLE dog owner would put their dog in this situation in everyday life. I've heard people say that the long sit/down exercises are ones that most impress spectators at dog shows. Are obedience competitions then conveying the message that leaving a dog loose and unattended is an acceptable thing to do? Maybe we need to consider the message we are sending to the public. Times have changed from when the original obedience exercises were created. (Gin, I know I'm rambling here, but maybe some of this can get people thinking and give them reason to support a change. Do you know what comments people are making to defend keeping the stays as they are? If so, maybe we can come up with some points to make them re-think that position.) Suggested replacement exercise #3: I like several of the proposed alternatives to the stays. This one, where the handler helps set up the jumps for the next dog, is a brilliant idea. Now here's an exercise that has practical value not only to trainers setting up their own jumps but to the average person whose dog could do a sit-stay while they get their coat and boots on to go outdoors or while they have a conversation with a friend over the back fence. Maybe we could add a scenario where one of the stewards knocks on the table, simulating a person knocking at the door! (That one would challenge many dogs AND impress spectators.) Another suggestion for a replacement exercise for sit or down stays: Dog is left in one of a sit-stay and the handler walks 6' away and turns to face the dog. On signals from the judge the handler verbally commands the dog to stand, then down, then come and finish. This would also be a start for dogs that will do the signal exercise when they are learning Utility work. That's it for now. It will be interesting to hear the response you get at the other meetings.”
From AB-H-1 “Gin, I want to thank you and Tubby for taking the time to talk to the Calgary obedience fancy about the upcoming rule changes. It is very much appreciated. Your approach was very easy to listen to and your handouts were most helpful. I would like the obedience council to consider letting a judge inquire if the handler would like to have his dog excused after failing any exercise. OR A handler may ask the judge to be excused at anytime during his/her routine. Another excellent concept coming from Monday’s discussion, is the idea of a Utility A and a Utility B class. The entries (at least here in Alberta) in utility are huge, sometimes Utility will be the largest class. Splitting it into A and B in keeping with the other two classes would make a great deal of sense. The idea of mixed up exercises in the Open B and if we had a utility B class is another great idea. However, if this was to happen, then the eligibility of handlers for A and B would probably have to be re-thought. Again, Gin, thank you for being so passionate about our sport.”
From AB-M-6 Hi Virginia, I hope these comments aren't too late. 1. I think that dogs should be excused from the second half of the group exercise if they fail the first part. I do not think that a dog that fails any of the individual exercises should automatically be excused from the group exercises. If the dog fails an individual exercise but appears to be under control to the judge, the handler should be given the option to participate in the group exercises. If the dog, in the opinion of the judge, appears to be out of control, then the judge should excuse the dog from the group exercises. 2. I think that the dogs should be in heel position on entering the ring for the group exercises but I do not think that leaving the ring should be in heel position unless the ring stewards lead the dogs out of the ring in the same fashion that they take the dogs into the ring. 3.I'm not sure about having the leash on during the stay. I can't make up my mind whether it is safer or whether it poses more of a danger. 4. I like the idea of varying the order of the stays. I would leave the Novice stays at 1 minute and 3 minutes for the sits and stays respectively. 5. Although I like the idea of 3 ring stewards, I am not sure whether making this mandatory would be feasible. It may hinder clubs from holding trials. Volunteers are hard to get. I do like the idea of removing an unsteady dog from the ring (this almost means that I am leaning towards having a leash on the dog for the stays.....well, maybe not) 6. I like the idea of the pylons. I also like the idea of the ring steward leading the teams out of the ring ( in heel position). Thanks for asking our opinions on this one. Ttyl
From AB-S-2 “Further to the Town Hall meeting of last night at the NACA building, I would like to express a few of my proposals and ideas: I would like to see removal entirely of the reference to the ownership or co-ownership of the dog when entering both Novice A and Open A classes. When the dog attains a CDX, it should be entered in Open B class only. I think restricting a professional handler or trainer to only entering the B classes is fair and should remain the same. The B shall should be added to utility and mixing up exercises in the B classes would make obedience trial more interesting. I would strongly support removing the Open stay exercises and replacing them with the UKC honour downs to alleviate the danger of leaving a group of dogs together without the handlers’ immediate supervision. Thanks so much for your time and information at these sessions. I find them enlightening and beneficial.
From AB-K-5
From AB-M-7 Re: long sits and downs for Open Classes: Either sit or down for 3 minutes – not
From AB-T-3
From AB-T-4
Don't forget to visit our 'Frequently Asked Questions' for more information! |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
