If you have been reading or have read the previous post
What Would You Do For Flyball’s Sake
you may be interested in an update. Rather than post additional information via the comments, since at times it is difficult to keep up with the twists and turns going on with discussions such as this, here is a brief summary and update.

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

This is probably one of the most difficult blog posts I’ve written. I believe the topic and the specific incident need to be brought up because it appears flyball’s good name could be damaged if what I’ve heard and read is true. I am concerned because I believe flyballers everywhere, regardless of which organization they play with, want flyball to support and adhere to sound ethical principles.

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

Controversy.

“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