ITEM 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE.

Apologies had been received from Mr H Wynne from the South East and East Anglia area.

ITEM 2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

2. The Chairman signed the minutes of the meeting held on 15 June 2005 as an accurate record, subject to the following amendments:-

a. Page 4, paragraph 12 – Listed Status Clubs. The last sentence of this paragraph beginning “It was also confirmed …” was removed, as it was incorrect.

b. Page 5, paragraph 19 – Regulation Changes. Some members of the Council did not feel this paragraph truly reflected the discussion which had taken place at the previous meeting. The Council was reminded of the circumstances behind the discussion, and that Mr Wynne had been elected to the Working Trials, Obedience and Agility (WTOA) Sub-Committee by the Associates of the Kennel Club, and not as a representative of the Obedience Liaison Council. The majority of the Council agreed to amend the third sentence of the paragraph to read: “ It was confirmed that not all the Obedience Council representatives had voted for the Council recommendations at WTOA.”

ITEM 3. MATTERS ARISING / RESULTS OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

3. Promoting Canine Disciplines.

This matter, relating to the production of a Kennel Club obedience training video, could not be discussed as Mr Harlow was not present at the meeting.

Afternote: Mr Harlow advised the office that a meeting of the Canine Events Group had not been held since the previous Obedience Council Meeting. He confirmed that a meeting was due to be held during the 1 st half of 2006 and he would raise the matter then. He also confirmed that he had sent his apologies which had not been received.

4. Obedience Excellent Qualifications.

The Council was advised that the certificates would be issued by the Kennel Club and forwarded to competitors, not Societies as stated in the agenda. A press release had been issued when these certificates were approved. A further press release would be issued advising competitors how to apply for an application form. This could be done by contacting the office or downloading one from the Kennel Club website.

5. Kennel Club Award of Merit for Pre-Beginners and Beginners.

The Council was advised that not many Societies had expressed an interest in these certificates, which was disappointing. The Council was reminded that these certificates would be issued by the judge on the day of the show to any combination in Pre-Beginners or Beginners classes that lost 10 marks or less. Details of these certificates would be included in the press release, mentioned above. The Council members advised the office of 35 clubs in which they were involved, that required certificates. These would be issued as soon as they were available. A suggestion was made to include a supply of certificates with each show licence but it was queried how practical this would be, particularly as many shows for 2006 had already received their licences. The Council was reminded that the certificates could be applied for in bulk and kept for subsequent shows. Any Society that wished to receive a supply of certificates should contact the office.

6. Regulation K.3.b(5) - Obedience Warrant.

The Council noted that this Regulation amendment had been approved to allow competitors to use OW after a dog’s name, although it was acknowledged that this was common practice already.

7. Regulation G.24 – Animals allowed in Show.

The Council noted that this Regulation amendment had been approved to allow spectators to bring dogs with them when attending an obedience show. The Council was reminded that this dispensation was at each Club’s discretion.

8. Specimen Schedules.

The Council was advised that all the specimen schedules had been updated and were available from the office or the Kennel Club website. The Council was advised that if any representative was aware of a schedule that was printed incorrectly they should advise the club secretary of the error. It had particularly been noted that some schedules had included an incorrect Pre-Beginner qualification, which had been causing confusion.

9. Website Show Diary.

The Council was advised that the rolling twelve month show diary was expected to be included on the Kennel Club website during 2006. It was agreed this would be very useful for show organisers and competitors.

10. Obedience Show Dates.

The Council was advised that the show date application form had been amended and the revised objection policy was now in place.

ITEM 4. PROPOSALS FROM SOCIETIES / PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.

11. Crufts Championship Obedience Final Judges.

a. Mr Coughlan, on behalf of Leicestershire German Shepherd Dog Club, proposed that all Clubs with Championship Obedience Status should select the judges for the Championship final at Crufts Dog Show. This proposal was seconded by Mr T Deegan.

b. A discussion took place on how the Crufts judges were perceived to be selected from a small, select group of people, although it was acknowledged that all areas of the United Kingdom had been represented. The majority of the Council agreed a more transparent process would be welcome and would appreciate the opportunity to submit names for consideration. It was, however, accepted that although Crufts was unique, it was also a Championship show and no other Society would accept other Societies selecting its judges. Concern was also expressed that the judges for Crufts were now appointed so far in advance and their circumstances may change before the judging appointment. The Council was advised this was due to problems occurring in the past, when judges had already agreed to judge for other Societies in the same year.

c. It was reiterated that the proposal was for each Society to select the judges, not to submit names for inclusion on a list of possible judges. This suggestion was deemed to be impractical, as it would be possible to receive over 40 different nominations. Following a vote, this proposal was lost with 3 votes in favour, 14 against and 1 abstention.

12. Crufts Championship Obedience Final Judges.

a. Mr Ashley, on behalf of Loughborough Dog Training Club advised the Council that its proposal had been the same as that of Leicestershire German Shepherd Dog Club. Due to the previous discussion, this proposal failed to received a seconder.

b. As the actual proposal had not been included on the agenda, Mr Ashley agreed to advise the Club of the situation. He was given permission to resubmit a proposal for the next meeting suggesting a way to submit names for consideration by the Crufts Sub-Committee, allowing a more open and transparent process.

ITEM 5. JUDGES WORKING PARTY (W.T.O.A.).

13. The Council was advised that up to 31 August 2005, 200 delegates had attended a Regulations and Judging Procedure seminar and examination, with only 5 failures. It was estimated that, to date, approximately 250 candidates would have passed this examination. These candidates ranged from people who had never judged, through to experienced Championship Show judges who had awarded Obedience Certificates on several occasions.

14. The Chairman advised the Council that the Judges Working Party was considering the introduction of a complaints procedure for judges’ poor performance as opposed to a breach of Kennel Club Regulations, which already existed. A complaints procedure of this nature was already in place for breed shows. It was confirmed that this was not intended as an incitement to complain about or to be aggressive towards judges. The Kennel Club was of the view that it had a duty of care to competitors, whilst not wishing to engender a negative attitude towards judges. The Council commented that it was already difficult to recruit judges and if this proposal was accepted matters could be made worse.

15. It was queried whether a complaint of this nature would need to be supported by an objection fee. The Chairman confirmed that the details had not been agreed, and the feedback of the Council was invited before pursuing the proposal. It could be difficult to prove a complaint about a judge’s performance and the majority of competitors would not enter under that judge again, if they felt strongly about the situation. Following a vote, the majority of the Council agreed that it did not consider a complaints procedure of this nature was required as it felt there were few incompetent judges.

16. The discussion continued about the correct procedure for any objection against a Breach of Regulation. It was confirmed that these Regulations had been reviewed and amended in recent years. The Council was advised that anyone could lodge an objection and that any incident should be reported to the Chief Steward on the day of the show and the details included in the incident book. If an individual wished to lodge an objection this should be supported by the objection fee, currently £35. The Chief Steward or Show Secretary would then send a copy of the incident book and any other correspondence to the Kennel Club for investigation.

17. The Chairman advised the Council that the Judges Working Party was also considering implementing a follow up seminar on practical judging. This was already being developed for Agility on Course Building and Judging. It was agreed this was a positive step and would help to educate new judges. Suggestions to be included in the second seminar were how to design a test, positioning of the judge and designing a heelwork pattern. Following a vote, it was unanimously agreed that this seminar should be developed.

ITEM 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS.

18. YKC Crufts Qualification Regulations.

Mrs Potter raised this matter specifically in relation to a competitor who had been given advice, which was not very constructive, in relation to competing in standard classes, having qualified for the YKC Obedience final at Crufts. The Council noted that the correspondence had not been written by the office and this matter should be discussed individually with the Crufts or YKC department. However, the YKC department did acknowledge that some of the Crufts qualifications were confusing and this would be reviewed following Crufts 2006.

19. Objections to Judges not conforming to Kennel Club ‘G’ Regulations.

It was agreed that this item had already been discussed under the Judges Working Party item. It was confirmed that any incident recorded in the Incident Book should be forwarded to the Kennel Club. The Regulations stated that any individual may lodge an objection, not just the Society where the incident occurred. The Chairman agreed to seek clarification from the WTOA Sub-Committee whether a Society was required to lodge an objection fee if it supported an objection brought to its attention by an individual.

ITEM 7. DATE OF NEXT MEETING.

20. It was confirmed that the date of the next meeting was Wednesday 21 June 2006 and that items for inclusion on the agenda should reach the office by 21 March 2006.

ITEM 8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS.

21. Event Management Seminar.

The Council was advised that the first Obedience specific show management seminar was held at the Kennel Club in December 2005. Mrs Garner and Mr Wynne had presented the seminar, with Mr Newman advising about Health and Safety and input from Mr Vines about the role of a Field Officer. 14 delegates had attended, representing 7 Societies. The seminar had loosely been based on the breed seminar and was very practical, advising the delegates on successful show administration. The feedback received had been very positive. Mrs Garner and Mr Wynne were thanked for their time and effort in preparing and presenting this seminar.

22. Stay Stewards.

Mr Rutter asked the Council for guidance on whether there was, or should be, a minimum age for stay stewards and what could or could not be marked. It was agreed that it was impossible to legislate a minimum age, and it was important to have young people involved. It was the judge’s responsibility to ensure that all stewards were fully briefed and were clear on their role. It was suggested that new stewards could shadow experienced stewards to begin with, to learn what was required.

23. Withdrawn Awards.

Mr Garrett wished to discuss the additional paperwork and time involved when a handler was disqualified by the Kennel Club. This discussion specifically related to when a handler’s entries had not been received, who was allowed to enter on the day and was subsequently disqualified for not having a proof of postage certificate. It was agreed that when the Kennel Club removed an award it was the Society’s responsibility to arrange for the award to be returned and issued to the correct competitor, which was often time consuming and expensive. The Council agreed that competitors would know whether they had obtained a proof of postage certificate when they entered and should contribute to the expense of arranging for the correct competitors to have the correct awards, should they subsequently be disqualified. Mr Garrett agreed to prepare a formal proposal for the next meeting.

24. Date of the meeting.

Mrs Case advised the Council that at the last meeting the office stated it would advise the Council representatives, in September 2005 when the January 2006 meeting would be held. This had not been done and the office apologised for this oversight.

25. Mrs Potter.

Mrs Potter KCAI Adv. was congratulated on being awarded Kennel Club Accreditation. Mrs Potter is one of the first two members to gain the award through the Kennel Club Accreditation Scheme for Instructors in Dog Training and Canine Behaviour.

26. Regulation Booklets.

The Council was reminded that all Regulation amendments would now be implemented on 1 January each year and the Regulation booklets would be printed at this time. The Year Book would continue to be printed on 1 July each year with the January Regulations being reproduced in it.

27. Term of Office.

It was clarified that the current term of office would end on 31 December 2006. Letters requesting nominations for the next term of office were expected to be issued by the middle of the year.

28. Mr Page thanked everyone for their attendance.

29. The meeting concluded at 3.00pm.

        Copyright © Thames Dog Training Club 2005. All rights reserved.