I thought my previous post(s) regarding the subject of a person convicted of animal abuse and neglect while at a flyball event were hard for me to write, but I take that back.
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
27 comments ↓
The person has been suspended pending hearing. The dogs can still run. This same person still has way more than the court allotted 5 dogs. She also recently got in a rescue puppy. Much more distressing than NAFA’s “apparent” disregard of the situation is the lack of concern from the court’s. Also, what about her team that is not only condoning the abuse, but also the blatant disregard for the court order. It is just plain wrong.
It is sad that they are allowing this to happen and choosing not to stand up and say something. Set the tone so to speak moving forward. Especially for someone who works in the animal cruelty field-it breaks my heart. The laws are not tough enough…consquences are not there!
I don’t know but flyball is being to be a turn off to me anymore-where’d the fun go? where did the people who love a dog before their “flyball” potential go? Kind of disheartening to me but probably happens in agility and other dog sports too. Just probably easier to ignore since you are not on team of multiple dog and handlers where as agility its just you and your dog(s).
While the situation involving the deceased dog is indeed unfortunate and very sad, NAFA and U-Fli BOD’s should have jurisdiction ONLY over what occurs at a tournament or at the tournament site. It should NOT extend into what occurs at a person’s private residence – PERIOD – that is for the other authorities to handle. If those authorities don’t do their job then complaints should be filed with their organizations – it is not up to NAFA and U-fli to enforce the law. I highly doubt when the bylaws were written, anything other than tournaments, and tournament venues in use during the events, was being considered. Again, sorry that the incident occured resulting in the death of an innocent animal – but it did occur at a person’s private residence.
Disappointed is not a word I would use to describe this issue. I rescued abandoned and abused Northern breed dogs for many years so my word would be sickened, as in animal abusers sicken me as do those who condone or ignore the problem. Even courts often do little more than slap wrists because of weak legislation.
I remember several years ago a team member and her dog had come as spectators to show support since her dog was not yet tournament ready. Before long she left the grounds crying after being confronted by those in charge. Her crime? The rather large dog at her side was wearing a prong collar and if not promptly removed she would be asked to leave; she had no other collar. It was said prong collars did not reflect well on NAFA or the sport; some considered it abuse. Now I ask you, how can NAFA representatives take such action over a collar yet today a convicted abuser is allowed to continue participation (includes allowing her dogs to run)? The same ethics rules are still in place!
I see another commenter mentions the “person has been suspended pending hearing.” I get the suspended part but why the hearing? Wasn’t she was already convicted for an animal crime. That alone should be enough for NAFA to require she and her dogs not be allowed to participate in NAFA events for at least as long as her conviction and any probation are in force. This is an animal sport so NAFA should have anticipated this problem long ago; in absence of court directed time frames NAFA should have its own set minimums/resolutions.
Last point. Why not let the dogs participate with a different handler? Allowed to run, any points the person’s dogs’ earn still apply to titles and awards. What is the consequence if the owner still gets this benefit? But why punish the dogs? Non-participation is in no way detrimental to the dogs; it is my experience that dogs are happy doing any job for which they are rewarded, provided they are not mistreated in the process.
I enjoy flyball but not enough to continue playing under this type of … leadership.
>NAFA and U-Fli BOD’s should have jurisdiction ONLY over what occurs at a tournament or at the tournament site. It should NOT extend into what occurs at a person’s private residence.<
Two corrections of facts here:
1) The death did NOT occur at a private residence. It occurred at the owner's place of BUSINESS.
2) This incident occurred as the direct result of the deceased dog's owner ATTENDANCE AT A FLYBALL TOURNAMENT. If there had been no flyball tournament event that weekend, the dog's owner would not have been in attendance and therefore, the dog would still be alive. If the deceased dog's owner had elected to skip this flyball event, the dog would still be alive.
The fact that the dog DIED as a direct result of neglect caused by the dog's owner attendance at a flyball tournament discredits "FLYBALL" the sport. You can't ignore that fact.
In my opinion, if NAFA Leadership feels that it is appropriate to do NOTHING about someone's neglect of an animal which caused its death and was due to their attendance at a flyball tournament, then we need NEW leadership that reflects the values of the flyball community at large. Which is, you do NOT attend a flyball tournament without arranging for proper care and attention of the animals you leave behind.
Chris
Suspending a owner/handler from the sport should include suspension of any dogs running with her listed as the owner or handler. And, I as well find it a little doubtful that someone would send 4 or more of their dogs to a tournament and not attend themselves.
If she still can attend and watch her dogs compete, and her dogs can still run with her team, accrue tournament and titling points, and in general participate in the tournament, where is the suspension?
I agree with most on here-I don’t think her dogs should be allowed to run at tournaments either. Its not like sending off one dog to a tournament. I’ve done that before but sending 4 of my dogs-I’d would just go then! I don’t see the punishment if the dogs are allowed to run. Dogs don’t know they are winning titles and all that-they just love playing flyball! If their team chooses to allow her to continue on with them, then she could go to practices with her team, train with her team, etc. Since her teammates seem to be okay with it and who knows maybe not all are okay with it. I don’t know any of the teammates, could be a situation where someone doesn’t want to speak out about it.
Chris I agree with you I have had to leave a dog behind when I’ve gone to a tourney and guess what I left knowing that my dog was being taken care of. I just don’t up and leave my dogs! NAFA is okaying me to leave my dog at home unattended to fend for itself for an entire weekend while I go and play flyball with my other dogs and teammates-new leadership please!
I am sickened by NAFA’s behaviour in this situation and if I hadn’t already left NAFA because of the shinanigens that go on I would now.
To “make excuses and split hairs” over this blatent animal abuse incident is just wrong. Who wants to run with or around people who abuse animals in general? To justify it by saying the incident did not happen at a tournament is just plain wrong.
I was once asked by the powers that be in NAFA to either take off a harness that I was running my dog in or leave the tournament because it impeded the dogs forward motion and that was just a body harness!
Sounds like the same old NAFA, some people get away with anything they want and others are ruled and regulated to death, depending on who they are friends with or not friends with.
What happened to this being a family, fun, safe sport?
It’s inaccurate to say the BOD has done nothing. The woman has been suspended, right? Perhaps the rulebook should be revised so that anyone convicted of animal abuse/neglect is immediately barred for life from attending/competing at NAFA events. I would support that. Such a rule would have to have provision, though, for re-examining the status of someone who was kicked out based on a conviction if the conviction was later overturned.
I don’t think I’ve ever read anything in the rulebook about dogs not being allowed to race because the owner was suspended. I think the only reason a dog would not be allowed to race is if the dog was officially excused. If the dogs continue to race but the owner is barred from tournaments, does that mean NAFA condones the owner’s actions? In my opinion, it does not, but that’s just my opinion. The question of whether or not the *club* should allow the dogs to race is completely separate (it wouldn’t happen in my club) and is not something that should be governed by NAFA. As it stands now, I think there is nothing in the rulebook allowing NAFA to prohibit the dogs from competition. So if anyone would like the dogs belonging to someone barred/suspended from NAFA also to be barred/suspended, write to the BOD and suggest a revision to the rulebook.
[The whole question of whether this woman should be permitted to continue to even own dogs is also something that is not up to NAFA to determine. That's up to the authorities.]
I commend the BOD for protecting NAFA from potential litigation. This is the type of case where a wrong move could land NAFA in court and then where would be? Defending the organization’s actions in court could pretty quickly bankrupt NAFA. The way to avoid that is to be cautious and proceed according to the rules. If the rules are inadequate (and it seems that they may be), the rules need to be amended so that the BOD/ED can act more decisively in future (with the hope that there are no future cases like this!)
To DeDe, I can see your points but only to a degree.
The degree being the difference between what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior and what the Rules really mean. To me, the Rules (i.e., a combo of Rules/Policies/By-Laws) are interpreted in a cut and dry fashion in this specific case. Many others see them the same as I do. There is an explanation of this in my other posts on this topic. What I believe has happened is some have a different interpretation of the Rules and they do not see things the same way.
So, who is correct in their interpretation of the Rules as written and published?
The comments or concerns about possible litigation are simply an excuse not to do the right thing according to my (& others’) interpretation of the Rules. I do not believe the Rules need to be revised as they already allow for appropriate action. While it seems that ‘some’ action was taken (according to one commenter on this blog who stated the person was suspended), the action is incomplete in my mind and in my interpretation of the Rules.
The person being suspended is still garnering points and titles (one of NAFA’s benefits and privileges) for their dog(s) which in essence is rewarding the person for wrong behavior. What message does this send to the person? It says all is well and your ONYX plaque will have your name on it along with your dog’s and you as a dog-handler-team (the word ‘team’ being operative here) are A-OK in our organization even though you have abused and neglected your other dog in order to get this very special ONYX recognition for a job well-done.
To me, that is totally absurd and completely wrong and goes against the Rules and goes against responsible dog ownership and goes against NAFA’s code of conduct and goes against NAFA’s Articles of Incorporation. How much more wrong could this scenario possibly get?
Linda
Exactly Linda! After all it is ALL ABOUT THE POINTS. Forget team work, safety, fun and what is right or wrong.
I’m with you Linda, so what the individual was suspended the points on their dogs, dog/handler/owner teams are still accumulating and it signifies that NAFA will find loopholes for this type of behaviour and then have the audacity to say “we did something about it”.
This sends the message it is ok to be a part of NAFA even tough point greediness cost an innocent animal their life.
It is the same mentality that troubled me about the “Iron Dog” award. In my opinion it promotes running dogs after they may be physically unfit to do so just to get the plaque. How many dogs will be running on pain killers, etc just to get that last year or two in? Lets get real, 10 years of running! Your dog has to be 1 just to compete, that puts these dogs at 11 years old at the least! I’m all for healthy competition but this all is getting dangerous. Just for some stupid stuff to put on a wall.
Hi MC,
Although off-topic slightly, I wanted to offer my comment about the Iron Dog award. There are some exceptions that I personally know of whereby a dog has actually been running for over 11 years and even a dog for over 13 years (both dogs started at approx 1 yr old) and these dogs are ‘not’ nor have they been running any races on any painkillers or any other type of medication for injuries. Both dogs just happen to be extremely healthy and well-cared for througout their home life as well as in flyball.
However, I get your points about ‘point greediness’ especially considering the choices and decisions the person made in order to participate in the tourney while the abuse/neglect occurred.
v/r, Linda
Re: Iron Dog award–also off topic, but I would ask what’s worse–a happy, healthy dog running in tournaments for 10 years, or a team burning a dog out in two or three years and then rehoming it?
Iron Dog is for dogs that have earned points in 10 consecutive NAFA fiscal years. This means that my 10 year old dog, who ran in his first tournament in NAFA FY 2003 (October 2002) at 15 months old just earned this award at the Can-AM (NAFA FY 2012). His litter sister, who ran in her first tournament in September 2002 (NAFA FY 2002 still) already earned it. Both 10-year old Shelties would be surprised to learn that they are running in pain…
Earning points in a year doesn’t mean running full time on a team every weekend, and Flyball isn’t the only dog sport we participate in. My dog will continue to run (Agility, Flyball) for as long as he’s healthy and enjoying himself. Iron Dog was a nice byproduct of this, not an end in itself.
I have a question. What exactly do you think being “suspended” means?
What does it mean to be “barred” from a tournament?
If someone is suspended and barred from the tournament, does that mean you can’t sit ringside but, it’s ok to be in the crating area? What about seating/benches intended for the general public? The parking lot is “ok” but, not inside the building? Or, you can use restrooms just don’t watch the racing?
I’m not being cute, here. “Suspension” is supposed to mean that you cannot attend the tournament. But, there are many places that exist close to the tournament that are a part of the venue but, I can see where somebody pushing the boundary “limits” of a true suspension can attend close enough to be in attendance at that event without running their dogs.
They can dance just outside the boundary and thumb their nose at a “suspension”.
Where exactly is the line that a person who is suspended from flyball (but their dogs may compete) cannot physically cross?
Chris
>>… the BOD for protecting NAFA from potential litigation. This is the type of case where a wrong move could land NAFA in court and then where would be?
You have to know something about the Law to know how false or true this statement is. This case did NOT put NAFA under any risk of possible litigation. Why? Because the portion of the Law this issue falls under is “Defamation of Character”. Fact is, NAFA would be acting on the basis of a higher Court under the jurisdition of some level of Government. Since the case in question has already resulted in a “conviction”, there is no defamation. Defamation is only proveable by spreading statements of facts known to be misleading and false. A Court conviction of a felony is about as “factual” as you can get. Any “PRIVATE” organization’s action taken because of such a conviction could not be construed as defamation.
No case = no litigation.
So, presenting “avoidance of litigation” as the reason for non-discussion and/or ineffective action is a way to sweep this all under the rug. Shrug our shoulders and say, “we tried.” The message to all of us is “Don’t question the NAFA Board. They do a GREAT job and if they say they can’t change it then, NOBODY can change it.” Reward laziness.
Bull Hockey!
They CAN change it but, it doesn’t suit their purposes to change it. They make decisions based on what’s good for them. Their dog, their team/club, their region. By accepting their explanations, no questions asked, they never have to get better. It doesn’t have to make sense. They’ll always be in control. Again, reward laziness.
The Rules don’t need to be amended. NAFA’s Rules gives NAFA all the authority they need and the conviction of animal cruelty due to neglect in a Court of Law is all the evidence they need. Case closed.
Chris
“Where exactly is the line that a person who is suspended from flyball (but their dogs may compete) cannot physically cross?”
I’ve been told by an RD that physically removing a suspended person from the tournament is up to the Tournament Director, and what the TD can do depends entirely on the agreement they have for the venue. If it’s a location that’s “open to the public”, there’s not much they can do unless the person is disruptive enough that the police can be involved. If it’s private property, they might need to get the property owner involved. Bottom line is that enforcing a suspension where the person physically out of the ring has never been easy.
I suspect the problem of someone vicariously racing their dogs just hasn’t come up with past suspensions and NAFA hasn’t needed to make a rule against it. In this case, my guess is the notice of her suspension came late enough that the club had to choose between running her dogs or pulling teams.
Yes, the “right” thing to do would be to pull teams, but it should be obvious that a club who associates themselves with someone convicted of animal abuse doesn’t think like the rest of us.
If NAFA wants to make a point, the simplest mechanism would be to declare any teams these dogs ran/run on as “illegal” and strip any points and placements. They can do this any time, so there’s no hurry. The longer NAFA waits, the more of an unpleasant surprise for those affected.
To C -
The Rules state a suspension is”…from all NAFA benefits and privileges…”. To me attaining points and titles on the owner/handler’s dog is one of the benefits and privileges. If the person were truly on suspension, then it means (among other restrictions placed on the person) their dogs would not be racing. The fact that the dogs did in fact race means either there is no NAFA suspension in place (even though one commenter already stated there was) or the person’s home Club as well as the tourney host Club ignored the suspension.
In reference to the other point of it being ‘too late’ to pull a team, I believe it is never too late, as NAFA allows Performance teams even at the very last second before race sheets are turned into the head table at a tourney.
Linda
True enough.
Keep in mind that I’m not condoning this situation. I’m pointing out how one screwed up club and everyone else trying to make the best of a bad situation would have led to it.
Assuming a suspension was communicated to everyone involved in advance of the tournament, people at the tournament might not have found out these dogs were on the time sheets until they showed up in the ring. Someone could have been checking over time sheets before racing, but in order to catch this situation someone would have had to have a list of “banned” CRN’s in advance. Would you have planned for a bunch of dogs belonging to a suspended owner to show up and race at your tournament? I wouldn’t have.
Dealing with this at the tournament would probably have been one of those nasty ring side confrontations everyone hates and tries to avoid. On the other hand, it’s very easy to leave it to NAFA to determine if the dogs are actually allowed to run (for all you know, they may have had an ownership change before the tournament) and if not, handle it as an illegal time sheet.
As for switching to Performance…
They’re still associating with this person. It’s obviously a club which doesn’t think like the rest of us.
You’re assuming they’re aware of Performance being an option. It’s not that common. What is sadly very common are flyball competitors (even team owners) who have never opened the rulebook.
Performance only works if you can lose dogs and still be able to make teams. That’s not always possible. Would you lend them a dog?
To C -
The dogs’ owner in NAFA database post-tourney was the same person convicted when I posted on this blog. Also, the judge listed on the tourney information on NAFA website was previously aware of the entire situation based on commenters to previous posts. As well, the RD should have been notified and may have been in attendance at the tourney. Also, of note is the response I received from NAFA CoB was dated Oct. 18, which alluded the ED had taken appropriate action. The tourney did not occur until roughly 30 days later. Anything last minute on the part of the person, home club, host club, judge, RD, etc. seems unlikely as all should have had ample time to make other arrangements.
Linda
I didn’t say anything about a defamation of character suit. Take the time to think about it and you’ll realize there are other ways a lawsuit could be filed. They may not seem reasonable, but many lawsuits are filed that are unreasonable, and some even end with the plaintiff winning.
Where’s the club’s responsibility? They are the ones who are condoning this person’s actions by continuing to run her dogs. What about the other people in the region? Why doesn’t someone who has seen those dogs run since the conviction file charges against the club they ran with?
To Dede –
The Club may also be suspended by NAFA directly without someone filing charges against them. According to NAFA Rules, the ability to “suspend NAFA benefits and privileges” (of the person and/or the Club) is one of the responsibilities of the Executive Director (and the Board of Directors are able to ratify the ED’s actions).
Linda
Dede,
I did not say that you said anything about a “defamation” suit”. I am the one who brought that up. I brought it up because it is the ONLY legal issue that could turn this issue into a lawsuit against NAFA. And, it is an issue that is NOT WINNABLE because of her conviction in a criminal case.
YES, I have thought about it and researched it and that’s why I said it. You think about it and tell all of us what OTHER additional grounds for a lawsuit exist?
What is becoming a possible legal issue for NAFA going forward is using the vagueness of “protecting NAFA against a possible lawsuit” as a smokescreen to avoid dealing with the issue at all. The ED and the rest of the NAFA Board WORK FOR US, NAFA players. Sticking their head in the sand or plugging their ears and singing “la, la, la, la, laaa” is NOT following our published Rules, Policies and Procedures. It is counting on the fact that 99.999% of NAFA flyball cannot afford to pay for an attorney to bring these issues into court and force “accountability” on NAFA.
NAFA DOES need protecting from potential litigation because the current Leadership is NOT proceeding according to the Rules. We need NEW Leadership!
1. Just because someone doesn’t think a lawsuit is winnable doesn’t mean one couldn’t be filed and would have to be defended by NAFA.
2. An individual could sue NAFA for not allowing his or her dogs to compete when they haven’t been officially excused. A club could sue NAFA for not allowing dogs to run on their teams when they haven’t been officially excused.
I’m sure that 99.999% of NAFA flyball is not considering and has never considered suing NAFA, regardless of their financial status (by the way, how do you know 99.999% can’t afford an attorney?) Perhaps you meant 99.999% of the people who are dissatisfied with the BOD and post about it on this blog? Just curious, if you had the money, would you sue NAFA?
“…allowing her dogs to compete when they haven’t been officially excused…”
The main point is exactly that; i.e., the dogs are ‘still’ being allowed to compete when according to the Rules they should not be allowed. A suspension is from NAFA benefits and privileges of which having one’s dogs run, accumulate points and titles is such.
I wonder how many other ways there is to spell this fact out?
I wonder how many of the other clubs in the Region and how many other out of state clubs attending the same tourneys (as the person convicted and their dogs) know the Rules? Do they know the Rules are not being enforced? Do they, therefore, by proxy so-to-speak agree with and codone animal abuse and neglect? What about their good name if they do not agree nor do they know that this is occurring?
Linda, the rule is not clear nor is anything spelled out. I didn’t find any definition of privileges and/or benefits listed in the Rulebook. Your interpretation of the rule is that having your dogs run (whether or not you are participating) is one of the benefits. The rule could be interpreted other ways, all of which could be considered “correct” depending on the viewpoint of the person doing the interpreting, and all of which could be arguable in court. That is my point.
To Dede –
How do you, personally, interpret ‘benefits and privileges’? What are they to you?
How did ‘the person’ get suspended…meaning, how is it defined in the Rules that ‘a person’s participation’ is a benefit and privilege?
If it is not spelled out as such in the Rules, how was the person’s participation itself even suspended to begin with?
Do you believe that an owner/handler accumulating points and titles on their dog is a ‘benefit and a privilege’?
Do you believe others think it is a benefit and privilege?
I am not being sarcastic, here. I am truly interested in how and what you think.
Linda
NOTHING in the Rulebook is clear and spelled out. Case in point: This past Spring, a handler was “reprimanded” for an “Inappropriate correction”.
Really?
There is no provision in our Rules for a reprimand. It is not contained anywhere in the Section on Ethics and Code of Conduct. It is not included in the Glossary. It is not defined. And yet the Board handed down a “reprimand”. By what authority? NOT the Rulebook! What does a reprimand “mean”? Anything they want it to. It’s not in the Rulebook and when asked to define it, the answer is that they cannot discuss it. (Presumably, to protect NAFA against a possible “Lawsuit”)
And, when asked in a L-chat for the definition of an “inappropriate correction”, the response was: “we cannot discuss the issues in the case you are referring to:” I answered back that I was not referring to any case in particular. I desired a clear definition so that handlers IN THE FUTURE could avoid ethics problems with NAFA. I was then asked to describe what behaviors I was referring to and I would be provided an “opinion” as to whether or not this action was considered “inappropriate”.
In other words, the NAFA Board does not need anything clearly spelled out in the Rules or Meeting Minutes or even a Leadership Chat in order to take “action”. They can decide issues and take action based on their personal opinions and the issues presented requiring a decision and action to be taken to implement that decision. They do not need to explain what actions they take, why they take that action and it does not need to be included in the Rulebook.
NAFA has been making unilateral decisions for the NAFA community without consulting that community to determine what is “BEST” for that community. And the defense for criticizing that unilateral viewpoint seems to be that is the NAFA Board’s interpretation and that is what makes it right. Once elected, they are placed above us all and the Rulebook is treated like a “suggestion” book.
We need NEW Leadership!
Leave a Comment