Shadow carried the torch for many years and it is time for a new handler.

Shadow Karen Larkin Troy, MI Paws-a-tive Attitude
NAFA Top Pointed Dogs 2005 – September, 2012
Points 153,112
Iron Dog 10 Consecutive NAFA racing years
Shadow ~ 1998-2012

The torch will change hands when history is made on September 15/16, 2012 in Rockton, Ontario.

Congratulations to Elva and Rukus!

Rukus, Elva Bradley Caledon, ON DOG-ON-IT
NAFA Top Pointed Dogs August 31, 2012
Points 153,027
Iron Dog 10 Consecutive NAFA racing years
Shadylane’s Razin A Rukus ~ 2002-2012

Is NAFA just about the fastest teams, or also about dogs with longevity – solid and sturdy? I think it is time for the NAFA board to review once again this issue of a 150,000 point title.

Most of these dogs that run year after year are well conditioned and we will see more and more dogs being able to reach the 150,000 point level. NAFA titles go from 30,000 – Grand Champion, to 100,000 – Hobbes, but are recognized at all other intervals of 10,000 in between. There are no awards for any dog with greater than 100,000 points.

This has been asked by others in the past, but each time the NAFA board has turned it down, stating that there would not be enough dogs to be recognized at this level. Well I think the time is here to award a title at 150,000 points. It will be ten years since the Hobbes title was awarded September 2002.

Gary told me himself way back when that there was a great big strong push from the flyball community to have the new 100,000 point “Hobbes Award”. If you feel that the time is here to have a new 150,000 point title, please send your comments to NAFA.

North American Flyball Association, Inc.
1333 West Devon Avenue, #512
Chicago, IL 60660
(800) 318-6312 (phone and fax)
flyball@flyball.org

I would like to remind and re-congratulate:

Gary Mueller and Hobbes – A great person and wonderful dog who began to set the bar so high!

Hobbes awards as of August 5, 2012:

930808 Hobbes Mix 109310 Gary Mueller Brampton ON HOBBES=09/28/02
960116 Indy Shetland Sheepdog 139586 Pam Koons Novi MI HOBBES=08/30/03
980128 Shadow Mix 153112 Karen Larkin Troy MI HOBBES=01/17/04
960741 Cosmo Labrador Retriever 106020 Michael Zamonski Howell MI HOBBES=06/04/05
940786 Off On Intrepid Border Collie 106802 Mary Kline Andover MN HOBBES=02/19/06
960417 Glide Border Collie 108465 Cindy Arnold Fair Haven MI HOBBES=06/03/06
990699 Bizzz-Quick Border Collie 135064 Ally & Scott Kolesnikow Montreal West QC HOBBES=11/25/06
980294 Xandr Jack/Parson Russell Terrier 111699 Linda Sell Gregory MI HOBBES=07/21/07
990613 Mason Border Collie 110987 Sue Osadchuk Hillsburgh ON HOBBES=10/13/07
970122 Roxanne Border Collie 104875 Jane Horsfield Fountain Valley CA HOBBES=01/20/08
020063 Divit Border Collie 101801 Russell Rex Arcanum OH HOBBES=04/12/08
990354 Razor Mix 113938 Angela Stefanec East St. Paul MB HOBBES=06/07/08
020131 Rukus Mini Australian/American She152292 Elva Bradley Caledon ON HOBBES=06/14/08
981124 Bainbridge Savannah “Hannah” Australian Shepherd 108257 Sharon Atkinson Omaha NE HOBBES=05/16/09
030159 Digit Border Collie 110499 Lynette VandeVenter Loveland CO HOBBES=09/05/09
021414 Sweep Border Collie 123523 Amanda Brown Raleigh NC HOBBES=03/06/10
040545 Scooby Border Collie 135254 Crystal Cappel Atlantic IA HOBBES=05/01/10
050146 Kaya Mix 123901 Sean Higley & Keri Caraher Ault CO HOBBES=08/14/10
011142 Daisy Jack/Parson Russell Terrier 108748 Carol-Anne DeVenne RR#2, Lynden ON HOBBES=07/09/11
010405 Blaze Jack/Parson Russell Terrier 115885 Lara Sorensen Edmonton AB HOBBES=09/11/10
020192 Beans Jack/Parson Russell Terrier 114113 Linda Smith Edmonton AB HOBBES=04/09/11
990859 Jesse Jack/Parson Russell Terrier 102124 Anne Jansen Maple Grove MN HOBBES=05/29/11
060241 Emma Jo Labrador Retriever 115131 Paula Luhring Waverly IA HOBBES=08/21/11
021325 Zing Border Collie 105363 Julie Tillman Ames IA HOBBES=11/19/11
020460 Riot Mix 104814 Cheryl Wood Lynnwood WA HOBBES=09/17/11
000327 Free Border Terrier 100456 Donna Sapp Glen Burnie MD HOBBES=12/03/11
050043 Hatter Border Collie 107727 Crystal Cappel Atlantic IA HOBBES=12/03/11
040006 No Clownin’ Around Mix 102950 Ally Stern-Kolesnikow Montreal West QC HOBBES=02/19/12
051392 Murphy Golden Retriever 101357 Cyndi Porter Minneapolis MN HOBBES=06/16/12

Clyde Moore and Onyx – “Clyde also owned and ran the first dog to reach 20,000 points with the North American Flyball Association. Onyx, a Doberman Pincher, has the distinction of having the 20,000 point title named after her, called the “The Onyx Award”. Onyx had obtained over 40,000 points. She started her racing career before the point system was administered by NAFA and would have probably been well over 50,000 if she had gotten points during her entire flyball career.”

I remembering meeting and running flyball with Clyde Moore way back when… we just ran fun matches, before Kala had a NAFA number, now called CRN.

Karen Larkin

When I created the blog in 2007, I did not envision it would become a watch dog for the Flyball community. I know that I’m partially to blame for this because of the topics I chose to discuss. However, my goal and vision for the blog in 2007 was to discuss training, health and fitness, and topics of interest to all in the Flyball community. I am sorry that my vision has fallen short and will never be realized.

The blog will soon be ending and no further posts are planned. It has had its ups and downs and I have enjoyed being part of it, but now I would like to end it and just fade away.

Larry

Pre-Flight was created to address the concerns of competitors who wanted a more competitive singles class. Too often, dogs were entered in singles who were not ‘race-ready’ and unable to race head-to-head against an opponent in the opposite lane.

Here is a summary of the rules and conditions governing Pre-Flight Singles:

• Dogs entered in this class will be in two races, four heats each.
• False starts will not be re-run.
• Times will not be recorded.
• No judges are required, however the participant may provide their own ‘judges’ if they desire.
• Gating and or props, of any kind will not be allowed.
• Participant with the competing dog, has the option of allowing another dog in the ring with its’ own handler.
• The warm-up time allowed will be the same as allowed for Singles and Pairs at the event.
• An overall time limit of 10 minutes, to run the 4 heats, for each race will apply.
• Both dogs must have a RUN and be of racing age.
• Handlers can release at any time.
• During a race, the dogs entered in this class may use one or both lanes as the participants choose.
• The competing dog may not be entered in any other class.
• Dogs entered in this class will not earn U-FLI points.
• This class of racing can be offered by the Host club before, during or after regular racing.
• Host club fees paid to U-FLI are based on Singles.
• All other racing rules apply.

My team took advantage of this new class at a tournament held in Michigan last month. None of us knew what to expect but, it turned out to be a very productive learning experience for both dogs and handlers. First, it helped tremendously to work with dogs who have “crossing over” issues. We had the opportunity to set up distractions in the true hyped up environment of a tournament in progress.

Second, dogs that we thought were not “race-ready” demonstrated to us that they could focus on their training and handler even with the distractions. It was delightful to have evidence that we could “up the ante” during training sessions with these dogs. Without Pre-Flight, these dogs would have continued to be held back during training. We also felt that certain dogs would’ve advanced much faster during training if Pre-Flight had been available during their earlier flyball training.

One final thought that we had as a result of trying out this new class is this: Pre-Flight offers a potentially effective tool to prevent dogs from “crossing over” by providing an opportunity for better proofing dogs in training. I think proofing dogs that cross for whatever reason (herding, chasing prey or just want to say “hi”) will create a safer flyball racing environment for everybody.

To review all of the rules, please download a copy of version 2.2 of the
“U-FLI Rules and Regulations” and the companion document “Summary of Changes” available here.

Chris

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

Amendment to this Post, February 28, 2012

The following was published on NAFA website:

“NAFA® Board of Directors Meeting Highlights, January 20, 2012- Raleigh, North Carolina

• The board ratified the decision of the Executive Director to suspend Carla Thomas based on her conviction for animal abandonment in Pinellas County, FL. The Board considers this suspension to be indefinite and at the discretion of the Executive Director.”

I subsequently inquired (again) whether the suspension included the person’s dogs but NAFA refused to answer.

Regarding U-FLI’s decision, I was contacted this past weekend and, in my opinion, leadership has made a sound and ethical decision by suspending the person as well as their present and/or future dogs from tournament participation.

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

Amendment to this post, March 26, 2012

Published in BoD meeting minutes:

“January 20, 2012 – Raleigh, North Carolina…Executive Director’s Comments- Lee Heighton…We are currently talking to the AKC to recognize NAFA titles on their pedigrees.”

I believe this is another potential tie-in between NAFA and AKC and may be directly related to CanAm sponsorship, Canine Partners association, the Multi-Breed Challenge Process and Multi-Breed Point Restructuring proposal (which failed by delegate vote).

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