I keep thinking each time there is a comment or a specific point gets some good discussion going, that flyballers who read this blog will say that all-encompassing thing that clicks the light on for everyone.

By ‘george’ I think I’ve found it. Did you see it, too?

Bottom line for NAFA flyballers is out there. If you are a flyballer who agrees that animal abuse and neglect related to a flyball event is OK in your interpretation of your world, just sit tight as you are in good hands with NAFA leadership. They have spoken and they have taken action accordingly. Your dog’s ONYX plaque will look good next to the person’s convicted (which, coincidentally, your tourney entries and hostings have/will help pay for.)

On the flip side, if you are not OK with this entire scenario you are the one in charge of your interpretation of your world and you have the capabililty to tell NAFA and to do or say something to change it.

Enough said, I trust.

v/r, Linda

Before getting to the heart of this post, if you are not a delegate vote holder with the ability to cast a vote, you are still able to communicate your voice directly to NAFA via their website contact link. They may suggest you direct your comments to your Club Owner; however, I believe NAFA still has the obligation to listen to what you have to say as well.

If you are a Club Owner, a Judge, a Regional Director or a Board of Directors member, what do you think about the Rules (i.e., combination of Rules of Racing, Policies and Procedures, By-Laws and NAFA Articles of Incorporation) as they relate to the person convicted of animal abuse & neglect related to a flyball event (as described and discussed in the previous posts on this topic)? Do you plan to become involved and let NAFA know what you think?

Before you answer, have you read the previous posts and previous comments? If you have not yet had the opportunity, I ask that with all due respect for other flyballers and readers of this blog, please be so kind as to take time to read them before responding to this post. I know it will mean a great deal to concerned flyballers all across the country and very much appreciated by the readers of this blog.

In addition, I offer for everyone’s consideration the following request I sent to NAFA leadership yesterday:

To – NAFA Chairman of the Board…, NAFA BoD et. al, NAFA Officers et. al.

Re – Original request and subject (below, dated October 6) and follow-up regarding person convicted of animal abuse and neglect related to a flyball event, their continued participation and/or their dogs’ continued participation at a tournament November 12-13, 2011 in Region 11, Florida.

Date – December 1, 2011

I request the entire NAFA leadership included above review this issue and respond to the author herein as well as the NAFA flyball community as a whole with regard to the subject above; specifically:

1) explain their interpretation of the Rules of Racing, Policies and Procedures, By-Laws and Articles of Incorporation Statement of Purpose (i.e., referred to in combination herein as Rules) that relate to this specific issue including the continued participation at yet another tournament noted above.

< including but not limited to a) the original requested sections outlined below (Chapter 5, Article IV, Article VI) along with Articles of Incorporation 'purpose', b) was the person suspended, c) if so, under what time parameters, d) were the person's dogs included in the suspension, e) if dogs not included, explain why

2) explain their interpretation of NAFA's Code of Conduct, Code of Ethics specifically with reference to Chapter 5, Section 5.1, a-e

3) explain their interpretation of a 'suspension', including their interpretation of 'NAFA benefits and privileges' as they apply to the following statements found in several places in NAFA's Rules:

"…to suspend or place on probation individuals or Clubs from all NAFA benefits and privileges for infraction of NAFAr Rules of Racing or Corporate Policies and Procedures…"

< specifically, but not limited to a) name all the NAFA benefits and privileges that could be suspended, b) what, if any, benefits and privileges were suspended in the above case

As the issue of animal abuse and neglect related to a flyball event is an imporant and integral component to the integrity and good name of all NAFA flyball participants, your timely attention to this request is anticipated and appreciated.

Sincerely,

Most readers of this blog already know my perspective. I believe they would also like to know yours if you are willing and able to share your thoughts.

v/r,
Linda

According to tournament statistics, it appears NAFA has chosen to allow animal abuse and neglect to continue rather than stand up for sound ethical principles. It has chosen to ignore its own published code of conduct regarding responsible dog ownership and humane treatment of our dogs.

In reference to the subject of NAFA Rules, Corporate Policies & Procedures and By-Laws governing the person who was convicted in September, 2011, I received the following official response from NAFA CoB on behalf of the ED and the NAFA Board of Directors (dated October 18, 2011):

“I just wanted to follow up and let you know that our ED has responded to this issue in what I consider to be an appropriate fashion, pursuant to our rules and bylaws. For reasons that would include potential civil litigation, it would be inappropriate to discuss details with anyone other the the party directly involved. Additional and appropriate details, also pursuant to our rules, will be forthcoming in future minutes. Thanks again for your concern, patience, and understanding.”

At the present time, it appears this response was purposefully misleading and a ‘spin’ on the truth. In Florida, on November 12 & 13, 2011, the person convicted of animal abuse and neglect related to a flyball event was allowed to play flyball (yet) again. It could be just the person’s dogs who were allowed to play, but I rather doubt the person was no where around with (at least 4 of) their dogs playing. To me, that part does not matter anyway. What matters is that the person’s name is still listed as the owner/handler and still associated with playing flyball…anyone can put two and two together.

To say the least, I am extremely disappointed in NAFA leadership. I believe they have disgraced everyone who plays NAFA flyball. I believe they ‘chickened out’ by not doing the right thing. I believe they should have more tennis-balls and they should protect the integrity and reputation of our sport.

But, to those who are OK with their fellow flyballers and fellow teammates abusing and neglecting their canine companions, that is something they must choose to live with.

Linda

The topic is regarding the ability of a person to (continue to) play flyball and participate in tournaments after having been convicted of animal abuse and/or neglect related to their participation in a flyball event.

Based on local flyballers comments and a quote they received from NAFA that said basically ‘nothing could be done’ whereby the person was allowed to play flyball after the conviction, I sent a formal request to the Chairman of the Board, dated October 5, 2011. Below are excerpts:

> I request the BoD review the following and determine appropriate action according to NAFA Rules of Racing, Corporate Policy and Procedures and By Laws (stated in combination below as ‘Rules’).

…was convicted…in September 2011; an article was published in the local newspaper whereby other flyballers and the general public were made aware of the conviction and details. The newspaper article stated the abuse and/or neglect occurred during the person’s participation at a flyball tournament.

To many flyballers as well as the public, this is inappropriate and brings discredit to the sport of flyball.

Local flyballers have stated publically that…the Executive Director has spoken with the person convicted…and…that nothing can be done.

To many flyballers this is inappropriate as well as inaccurate and again brings discredit to the sport of flyball as well as NAFA.

Applicable sections in the Rules:

- Chapter 5, Code of Conduct, Section 5.1 a-d

- Article IV, Section 1. Powers (of the Board)

- Article VI, Section 4. Executive Director

Requested action by the BoD:

Review (and) resolution of appropriate action and response to the author herein as well as the NAFA flyball community. >

Here is the answer I received from the Chairman of the Board today:

“Linda:

I just wanted to follow up and let you know that our ED has responded to this issue in what I consider to be an appropriate fashion, pursuant to our rules and bylaws. For reasons that would include potential civil litigation, it would be inappropriate to discuss details with anyone other the the party directly involved. Additional and appropriate details, also pursuant to our rules, will be forthcoming in future minutes. Thanks again for your concern, patience, and understanding.

Sincerely…”

At this point, it appears we all must wait to read future minutes for a possibly-definitive answer. On a personal level, I would like to thank the concerned flyballers who brought this issue to light. Also, in deference to the limited amount of time between when U-FLI became aware of the same issue and subsequently responded to me that my inquiry is presently with the U-FLI Board, I will update this blog when their answer is also received.

v/r, Linda

Flyball is for any dog, but a purebred is worth more according to the latest restructuring of titles and points in the racing classes. If you can, for a moment, imagine a flyball world with 100% purebred dogs or maybe 75% purebred dogs and 25% mix breeds. I wonder what that would look like. I wonder if it would be a better flyball world than it is today.

The Breed Challenge Process and the just announced Multibreed Class points restructure appear to be related. A few blog articles have previously discussed these topics; but, I’m not yet able to fully connect the dots and I have these random thoughts rummaging around.

The following random thoughts are based solely on my own perception as well as loosely based on previously known and/or published facts. I say ‘loosely based facts’ because I do not intend to use exact quotes; however, they will be facts to the best of my knowledge or recollection.

- NAFA BoD has stated that purebreds are at a disadvantage performance-wise in flyball.

- NAFA BoD proposes that purebreds be awarded more points for racing than most mix breed dogs via the restructure of Multibreed racing points.

- Flyball used to be one of the best priced dog sports around; however, if you run in Multibreed your dog may be subject to a breed challenge process that may cost you more money if you choose to defend your dog’s status.

- If you run Multibreed you may want to or need to purchase an ILP/PAL from AKC or another breed registry organization in order to defend your dog’s status.

- NAFA has for the past few years had association with or sponsorship from the AKC Canine Partners.

- NAFA participants may register their dog with AKC Canine Partners for a reduced fee.

- It was recently announced that NAFA has been invited to (demo at) the AKC 2011 Championships in Florida this coming December.

- Recently announced on NAFANews Yahoo, with regard to the Multibreed racing point restructure, 2/3 votes ‘for’ will result in binding the proposal and it will be adopted into the Rules of Racing. However, if 51% votes ‘for’, the BoD has (sole) discretion to make the decision.

- The choice will be up to the NAFA flyball community. They have 3 months to decide before placing their vote. I mean the NAFA delegate vote holders have 3 months to decide (i.e., club owner, judge, regional director, bod member, officer, other contributor as assigned by NAFA). Or, it could be the BoD will end up using their discretion to pass their own proposal.

Random thoughts. v/r, Linda

October 6th, 2011 – Multibreed point proposal for a binding delegate vote

Introduction: In an effort to revitalize the Multibreed class, the Board is presenting a proposal for consideration by the delegates that would increase the NAFA title points earned in the Multibreed class. If adopted, the following change would become effective October 1, 2012.

Question for delegate vote: Should NAFA amend the point-count rules for the multibreed class so that each dog on a team that runs with a recorded time less than 24 seconds earns 30 points; from 24 to 27.999 seconds earns 7 points; and from 28 to 31.999 seconds earns 2 points?

Pros: This increase is designed to recognize and reward the comparative difficulty of assembling a multibreed team where every dog running is of a different breed, counting a mix as a single breed. Of all the classes, multibreed perhaps does the most to stimulate interest in flyball because people who have dogs at home can identify with the variety of breeds running and visualize doing so with their own dog.

Cons: This proposal cheapens the points earned by dogs who run with clubs not able to field multibreed teams and makes titles too easy to get. There should be one point system for all.

This is news and the first opportunity for the flyball public to discuss it.

My opinion is that it would have been nice to have some kind of “heads up” before the NAFA Board finalized the wording of the proposal. In the past, the NAFA Board has been presented with proposals to reform the title point system for ALL classes because the times posted by teams today do not even come close to the average times that were posted when the title point system was first adopted by NAFA in the year 1987. Back then, relatively few teams posted under 24 seconds and so it was quite an achievement to do so. Since then, there have several technical developments that totally revolutionized flyball racing. Some of these developments include the EJS (lights), internalized catapult system of box design and the swimmer’s turn. The Board has always rejected proposals that would change the title point system, even proposals that requested the delegates be given the opportunity to vote on them.

So, would it make more sense to reform and rethink the entire title point system FIRST and then look at the Multi-breed class and see if we want to increase points earned in that class?

What other questions and issues or concerns should we be looking at?

…..Chris

What is known at this time:

- A person was convicted of animal abuse and/or neglect which was published in a local newspaper last month.

- The incident took place in 2010 and the conviction in September 2011.

- The article mentioned there was a relationship of some sort with flyball.

- The person continues to play flyball.

- Some flyballers do not believe this is appropriate, both locally and in other parts of the country.

- A local flyballer stated in the comments section of the previous post they knew the convicted person had spoken with the ‘ED’ about the incident and “gave (their) account of what happened”. The same commenter stated they believed the person convicted was going to try for an appeal.

- A local flyballer in a leadership role in the Region commented and quoted from an email they received from NAFA that said (they) would be unable “…to do anything even if someone did file a disciplinary charge.”

- The published NAFA Rules and Corporate Policies and Procedures Code of Ethics addresses “best interests of the dog and Flyball”, “abuse…of a dog”, “inhumane treatment of a dog”, and “misconduct”. The Executive Director (ED) has authority to suspend privileges for infraction of the Rules and Corporate Policies and Procedures as stated in the By Laws.

- An inquiry has been sent to U-FLI to confirm their rules related to this topic.

Whichever way it turns out, at minimum we will all be better informed about both flyball organizations.

v/r, Linda

I’ve written about ethics, integrity and personal character before, but I believe my previous posts about those issues pale in comparison to the specifics of this post.

This post is about the ethical and humane treatment of our canine companions; and, not just while they are playing flyball with us. Even when we are off the flyball field, how we treat our animal family is important to me and I believe there is no room for mistreatment. I am happy to see that many communities share this belief and in some areas of the country thanks to those who have the tenacity to push for better legislation, there are more and more stringent laws and ordinances against animal neglect or abuse.

I do not want to see this topic at the forefront (of) or associated with flyball in any way but I am compelled to take that risk by informing you, the flyball public, about a recent incident I became aware of. I have no direct knowledge of what occurred; only what I read and have heard from others.

My desire is that readers of this blog will take the time to do their own research and come to their own conclusions, and that this post will spark a fire under some of flyball’s leadership to take action or to let concerned flyballers know that action is being taken.

The incident was published in a local newspaper this month and it described the trial of a person convicted of some type of neglect or abuse that resulted in the person’s dog dying while the person was away at a flyball tournament. I was unable to read the entire article, but it was pointed out to me that the dog was left completely alone and unattended at home while the person was away the entire weekend which resulted in the death.

Personally, I find this appalling and I believe the person should not be allowed to play flyball any longer. However, I have been told that the person is still playing at tournaments even though some folks in leadership positions are aware of the situation. I have not been able to confirm nor deny that anything has been done to remedy this situation.

I believe leadership has the responsibility ‘to lead’. I believe they owe it to all flyball participants to take action and do the right thing. If I had the ‘power’ and based strictly on my limited information and research thus far, I would ban the person from my flyball organization.

What would you do if you had the power?

v/r,
Linda

“Noun: Disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.”

It reminds me a little of the old Abbott & Costello skit ‘who’s on first’. Part of me has a sense of humor about some of this stuff and part of me says hey, this is serious so behave yourself! It is a tossup at the current time which side of me is going to win out here.

First, I must acknowledge that some folks in some regions do not experience the controversy. Other folks in other regions, however, experience it over and over and to them it is becoming a nightmare. I think this may be one of the reasons there has been a drop in NAFA tourneys in some parts of the country.

Second, I believe the Board of Directors needs to really look into the disparity across the country with respect to what is going on and why there is more and more outcry in NAFA flyball. It appears they are at times trying to understand what participants want but at the same time they appear to ignore logic and reason in favor of making an allowance for exceptions that may rarely occur.

Perhaps you’ve already read previous posts and comments on this blog about the breed challenge process proposal; and if you’ve read the outcome posted in the highlights from the August 2011 BoD meeting, perhaps you may wonder as do I why didn’t the board simply clarify the existing rule about how to designate your dog’s breed when applying for a CRN. Believe me, I’ve heard both sides of the argument, but it still boggles my mind why the rule was left unchanged and is still unclear yet a formal challenge process has been developed and will become part of NAFA flyball.

Maybe I am the only one, but I still prefer the adage ‘keep it simple’. To me the challenge process doesn’t fit with this philosophy.

And, there is another such rule that was tweaked during the August BoD meeting (and published in the highlights) that appears to have muddied the waters considerably from what I’ve been reading and hearing. It is about ‘inside interference’. Here it is:

“Inside Interference:
The underlined text should be added to page 12 of the current rule book:
(f) Inside Interference. If a dog or any team member interferes with the opposing team during a heat, the team causing the interference will forfeit the heat. This includes interference in the racing lane, in all in bound areas, and in the area where dogs are waiting to run. Interference is defined as impeding the other team’s dog from running its race. A dog chasing a loose ball into the other team’s area is not necessarily interference. In the event of interference, the judge will assign an estimated time to the team that was interfered with. The time will be marked as estimated and will not be used to determine placement. If a dog crosses the start/finish line after it has already successfully completed the course, it is not a flag. Effective October 1, 2011.”

The last sentence is supposed to be underlined.

What do you think or what is your interpretation?

I’ve been reading and hearing from many long-time flyballers and even they don’t understand this entirely. In my opinion, it is not simple. It is not clear. It has muddied the waters and it may cause untold controversy at tournaments in the future. It also appears to be, at face value, an unsafe rule.

(I think my serious side won out for the moment.)

Linda

Czech FLYBALL Championship 2011

SLOW MOTION MOVIE
4.9.2011 Mladá Boleslav

You do not need any translation to understand this movie. It is shot by flyballers at the Czech National Flyball Championships.

In Flyball, it’s a small, small world.

z tohoto závodu si m?žete objednávat videa! info@dogsports.cz
DVD z celé akce jiz v prodeji!

www.DogSports.cz
www.facebook.com/dogsportsvideos

Artist: HIM
Buy: Buy “Join Me In Death” on: iTunes, AmazonMP3

-Chris