Minutes of the KC Agility Council
Liaison Meeting
These are the official minutes of the KC Agility
Liaison Council held on 19 January 2012 at 1-5 Clarges Street, London W1. Read what happened and,
if you have an opinion, let your area rep know what you think. You can also put your views
forward on the Agilitynet
Facebook page.
PRESENT
-
Dave Ray - Midlands
-
Richard
Jordan - Midlands
-
Ian
Mallabar - North East
-
Janet
Nero - North East
-
Pauline
Baltes - North West
-
Mike
Hallam - North West
-
Ronnie McAleese
-
Northern Ireland
-
Morag
Kelly - Scotland
-
Simon
Chandler - South East & East Anglia
-
John
Gilbert - South East & East Anglia
-
Tony
Griffin - South & South West
-
Lesley
Olden - South & South West
IN
ATTENDANCE:
-
Steve Croxford - Activities
Sub-Committee & General Committee Member (Item 4 only)
-
Debbie Deuchar - Manager – Working Dog Activities
-
John
Leslie - Specialist – Working Dog Activities (Item 4 only)
-
Joanna
Nosalik - Specialist – WTOA
IN THE CHAIR:
Dave Ray
ITEM
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
1. Apologies had been
received from Mike, representing Wales.
ITEM
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
2. The minutes of the
meeting held on 23 June 2011 were signed by the Chairman as an accurate record.
ITEM
3. MATTERS ARISING
Results of
Recommendations
3.
The Council noted the following matters which had been approved by the General Committee at its
meeting on 11 October 2011:-
-
Amendment to Regulation
H(1)(B)3.k (Weaving Poles)
-
New Regulation H(1)(B)3.m (Equipment
Sizes in Special Classes)
-
Amendment to Regulation H(1)10.f
(Running Orders)
3. International Agility Teams
The Council noted the written
reports from Graham Partridge, European Open and World Championships Team Manager. The
Council expressed gratitude to Graham Partridge and the entire management team for their commitment
and hard work to the International Agility Teams. It was highlighted that both teams had
represented the Kennel Club to a high standard.
4. Calculating Accurate Course Times
The Council noted that the research
undertaken by an Accredited Trainer and some agility competitors had been compiled into a
matrix which would continue to be updated. It was noted that the matrix contained information
on all three heights, all the grades in each, including the course time set, the winning dog's
time, as well as the lowest placed time, amongst other factors. The matrix would be provided
for the Council's June meeting. The Council agreed to put a proposal forward, to stipulate that
judges must calculate course times, for its meeting in June 2012.
ITEM 4. AGILITY STRATEGIC
DIRECTION
6.
6. The Chairman began by welcoming Steve Croxford to the meeting to address this matter as he had been involved with the
process since its inception. Prior to any discussion, the Chairman highlighted that agility had
evolved over the decades, yet the strategic position on the discipline had remained relatively
stagnant throughout that period and, therefore, was out of date with current modern agility. It
was recognised that the proposed changes would change the outlook of Kennel Club agility, but
emphasised that the entire project was still under consultation including a review of the fees
involved.
7. A lengthy discussion
ensued. An overall grievance was that the project was perceived as being imposed onto the
agility community without thorough consultation with grassroots competitors. It was explained
that when the business model was proposed, it was difficult to consult each individual person
which was the reason why select persons from different roles within the agility community had
been consulted, details of which had been published in the minutes of the Council's June 2011
meeting. It was reiterated that the aim of these objectives, was to seek ways of encouraging
more clubs into the Kennel Club fold as well as making it easier for registered clubs to hold a
Kennel Club licensed show. Both matters had been outlined in the Council's Five Year Strategy.
It was also stressed that the Kennel Club needed to address problems such as clubs 'borrowing'
licences, by recognising the practice and finding a solution to suit the majority before the
matter escalated. The Kennel Club also sought to provide a structure that was compatible with a
modern environment. As a result, its two main objectives were to create a channel of
communication with unaffiliated clubs and private trainers through introducing Listed Status,
and to create more flexibility in gaining a licence to hold a show, by offering different types
of agility shows.
8.
8. The Council discussed the
various aspects of the project and requested the following main points be clarified, considered
or reviewed before its meeting in June:
-
The possibility for certain
shows to have the option to hold classes for dogs as young as 16 months of age was unanimously
opposed. It was argued that a class for younger dogs would encourage competitors to begin
agility training even earlier which it believed could be detrimental to the dog's health and
welfare.
-
Further clarity should be
provided for Special and Limited Shows as they may confuse new competitors because of the
differences in classes available.
-
Listed Status shows which
receive more than 1000 entries to have a surcharge of 10pence per dog thereafter was felt to
be too stringent. It was suggested to either remove the additional fee requirement altogether
or initially introduce it as five pence per dog or at a higher level of entrants. Furthermore,
it was queried how show numbers would be verified, but it was confirmed that the office would
request a copy of the ring-plan for reference.
-
It was perceived as unjust
that existing fully registered clubs and societies that held qualifiers would be expected to
pay £10 more for their licence in the future. Furthermore, it was requested that the office
reconsider providing protection over date clashes for Premier Shows rather than just
Championship Shows.
Concern was raised in the
Northern regions that independent shows were stifling competition from fully registered
clubs. Whilst the Kennel Club could not prevent competitors from entering 'independent' shows,
it was anticipated that the new proposals would provide a few more alternative options that
would give a show society more control over its numbers and allow registered clubs more
flexibility in its show planning to therefore hold more shows.
Detailed clarification for
'capped classes' was required and how it would work practically. The office confirmed that the
matter had been discussed in depth internally, but agreed to provide more information in due
course. Consideration was also to be given on the possibility of an opening and closing date to
ensure competitors had an equal chance at entering such classes.
Further clarification was
needed with on the references for Listed Status training clubs. It was confirmed that Dog
Wardens or Environmental Officers had provided hundreds of references for Good Citizen Dog
Scheme Listed Status training clubs without any associated risks being identified. It was
agreed that more detailed information was needed to understand the exact requirements for
applications to ensure clubs/private trainers obtained the correct paperwork in advance.
9. By the end of the
discussion, it was agreed that the feedback received had been constructive and that generally,
the majority were willing to consider developments in agility, but emphasised a need for more
effective consultation with grassroots competitors. The Council also requested that the draft
annex to the H Regulations be distributed to the agility community at its earliest opportunity
so that it could be discussed at its following meeting. In order for competitors and clubs
alike to fully absorb the proposed changes, the Council requested that the implementation date
be pushed back to January 2013 and to allow a transition period of one year. This would mean
that from January 2014, no club could offer a Kennel Club show license to any other individual
or organisation and the agility community would have had time to adapt to the changes put in
place. It was confirmed that the views and concerns submitted would be reviewed and that the
Agility Strategic Direction documentation would be adapted accordingly.
10.
Steve Croxford thanked the Council
for inviting him to the meeting and thanked the agility community for all its constructive
feedback. It was stressed that the only way to take positive steps was to work and cooperate
together for the future development of the discipline.
ITEM
5. AGILITY GRADING REVIEW WORKING PARTY
11.
Agility Grading
System
11. The Council noted the
minutes of the Agility Grading Review Working Party meeting which was held on 3 November 2011.
12.
Progression Between Grades 1 –
John Gilbert proposed the
amendments to the grading system for progression between Grades 1-6. Mike Hallam seconded the
proposal. It was noted that although some areas wanted the proposals to either be strengthened
or weakened slightly, the majority of feedback had been positive and it was felt that the
proposals were a progressive step forward. It was reiterated that the aim of the Working Party
had been to distribute numbers more evenly amongst the grades, although it had admitted that
Grade 3 may always be a larger grade due to new dogs with experienced handlers beginning in
that grade. It was emphasised that the proposals were created from an overall consensus of the
views submitted from the agility community and that the amended grading system could be
reviewed in the future. The majority of the Council voted in favour of the amendment and
recommended the following proposals:
FROM:
H(1)(A)7 Progression
Progression from each Grade will
require one Agility win or three Jumping wins at that grade, except that progression from Grade
6 will require four wins at Grade 6, two of which must be agility classes. Results from Combined
Classes will only count towards progression from the dog's current grade.
TO:
Progression from each Grade will
require one Agility win or three Jumping wins at that grade, except that progression from
Grade 5 will require three wins at Grade 5, one of which must be an agility class. Progression
from Grade 6 will require 4 wins at Grade 6, two of which must be agility classes. Results from
Combined Classes will only count towards progression from the dog's current grade. (Amendment underlined)
FROM:
H(1)(A)8 Points Progression
At the handler's discretion a dog
may progress up to Grade 5 by winning 75 points at each grade, using the Agility Warrant points
scheme, Regulation K3.c refers, except that there is no requirement for a minimum number of
agility points. If this method of progression is selected, the handler must ensure the Show
Secretary signs the dog's Agility Record Book at the first show entered at the higher grade.
There is no time limit on this progression, however, once a dog has progressed, it cannot
return to a previous grade.
TO:
At the handler's discretion a dog
may progress up to Grade 4 by winning 100 points at each grade, using the Agility
Warrant points scheme, Regulation K3.c refers, except that there is no requirement for a
minimum number of agility points. If this method of progression is selected, the handler must
ensure the Show Secretary signs the dog's Agility Record Book at the first show entered at the
higher grade. There is no time limit on this progression, however, once a dog has progressed,
it cannot return to a previous grade. (Amendment underlined)
FROM:
H(1)(A)9.f Grade 6 (Senior)
Open to dogs which have gained a
1st place in an Agility Class or three first places in Jumping Classes at Grade 5 at Kennel
Club licensed Agility Shows and are not eligible for Grade 3, 4, 5 or 7.
TO:
Open to dogs which have gained a
minimum of three 1st places at Grade 5 at Kennel Club licensed Agility Shows, 1 1st
place must be gained in an Agility (not Jumping) Class,
and are not eligible for Grade 3, 4, 5 or 7. (Amendments underlined)
H(1)9.f.
(Management)
13.
13. Lesley Olden proposed the
amendment to the above regulation. Simon Chandler seconded the proposal. The Council reconsidered
its previous recommendation to split a class once the number of entries had reached 300 and
considered the Working Party's recommendation of 200. It was suggested that this proposal
mainly concerned Southern shows which had larger entries, but it was felt that a split at 200
was too low. Tony Griffin proposed an amendment to the proposal to make the figure 300 again, but
there was no seconder. As a result, the majority opposed the original proposal and, therefore,
it was agreed that the matter should be left to the discretion of the show organisers. No
further action was taken.
14. Championship Class and Grade 7
A discussion took place with regards
to raising the criteria to be eligible for the Championship Class. Many were of the view that
the earlier recommended changes, along with reinforcing the need for more realistic course
times, was sufficient enough to gain eligibility for Championship Classes. It was reiterated
that the aim of this discussion item had been to increase the number of Grade 7 classes
available at shows and to make it a more competitive class. It was recognised that grade 7
classes were mainly being a practice class towards Championship Classes. At the same time, it
would preserve the quality of the Championship Agility Certificate.
15. The Council did not
recommend the discussion item be submitted to the next meeting as a formal proposal in its
present format. The Council was, however, willing to consider alternative options as a means
of creating competitive Grade 7 classes. Suggestions included whether awards should be gained
on an annual basis to grant eligibility or whether certain awards should entitle lifetime
eligibility. It was agreed that any new criteria would not be retrospective and that it could
then be subject to review in the future. Consequently, the Council agreed to list the following
two proposals on its June meeting's agenda. The Council agreed that any change would be for a
dog's lifetime, not on an annual qualification:
FROM:
H(1)(A)9.h Championship Class
Open to dogs having qualified to
compete in Grade 7. To consist of two qualifying rounds of Standard Kennel Club Classes, 1
Agility Class and 1 Jumping Class and a final round of
Agility to be held at the same show.
TO:
Open to dogs which have gained a
minimum of 1 1st place at Grade 7 at Kennel Club licensed Agility Shows, and which must be
gained in an Agility (not Jumping) Class. To consist of two qualifying rounds of Standard
Kennel Club Classes, 1 Agility Class and 1 Jumping Class and a final round of Agility to be
held at the same Show. (Amendment underlined)
OR
FROM:
H(1)(A)9.h Championship Class
Open to dogs having qualified to
compete in Grade 7. To consist of 2 qualifying rounds of Standard Kennel Club Classes, 1
Agility Class and 1 Jumping Class and a final round of
Agility to be held at the same Show.
TO:
Open to dogs which have gained a
minimum of 2 top three places at Grade 7 at Kennel Club licensed Agility Shows, both top three
places must be gained in Agility (not Jumping) Classes. To consist of 2 qualifying rounds
of Standard Kennel Club Classes, 1 Agility Class and 1 Jumping Class and a final round of
Agility to be held at the same Show. (Amendment underlined)
ITEM 6. FIVE YEAR STRATEGY
16.
16. The Council noted that no new items had been
submitted for its five year strategic plan, but felt that it had enough matters to resolve for
the time being.
ITEM 7. PROPOSALS FROM
SOCIETIES/PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
17.
Proposed Amendment of Regulation
H(1)(A)2 – Provision of Awards to 10th place.
Richard Jordan, on behalf of Mrs
Hickman, a private individual, proposed an amendment to the above regulation. Ronnie McAleese
seconded the proposal. A discussion took place on whether it would be fair to stipulate that
societies must provide awards down to 10th place regardless of class size. Some
areas felt that the numerically smaller classes would be at an advantage and would increase the
rate of progression based on points. The additional cost to show societies was also considered.
The Council agreed that most shows followed custom and practice by awarding 10% of the entries,
which was felt to be fairest for all scenarios. The majority of the Council opposed the
proposed amendment and, therefore, no further action was taken.
18.
Proposed New Regulation H(1)9.g –
Camping Pitch sizes.
Richard Jordan, on behalf of
Christine Stratford, a private individual, proposed a new regulation which would stipulate a
requirement that show organisers must provide a minimum camping pitch size for competitors.
Simon Chandler seconded the proposal. A brief discussion took place which included
acknowledgement that camping requirements had increased over the years, but that it would be
difficult to regulate. It was stated that if the Kennel Club was to introduce a regulation for
camping pitch sizes, further regulations would be required for the size of the gangways or
positioning of caravans. The majority agreed that the matter should be left to the discretion
of the show management and their risk assessments. The majority of the Council opposed the
introduction of this new regulation and, therefore, no further action was taken.
19.
Proposed Amendment of Regulation H(1)(B)5.c. Re-runs following an elimination
Morag Kelly, on behalf of Ms Smith,
a private individual, proposed an amendment to the above regulation. Dave Ray seconded the
proposal. A brief discussion ensued stating that the proposal was a little vague. It did not
encompass unforeseen circumstances, such as interference from another dog entering the ring,
which may unintentionally cause an elimination and so, may warrant a re-run as a result. The
majority opposed the proposed amendment to re-runs and felt the matter should remain at the
judge's discretion. The Council wanted to stress that although it did not support granting
re-runs in the event of an elimination, it accepted that there may be an unforeseen
circumstance whereby a re-run may be permitted.
ITEM 8. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Methods of Securing Pipe Tunnels –
Ms S Bingham
20. Ms Bingham requested the
Council discuss how shows can ensure that pipe tunnels are secured in such a way, that the
height of the tunnel is not reduced under the minimum height by the over tightening of the
retaining straps now commonly used. It was felt that this could potentially cause injury to
larger dogs unaware of the smaller dimension. A discussion took place and the Council agreed
that concern had arisen in the past year with regard to the type of strapping used, which
included the strap being too short or narrow thereby compressing a section of the tunnel to a
smaller diameter. It was stressed that it was the judge's responsibility to ensure that the
equipment in the ring met Kennel Club Regulations as they were responsible for the safety of
the dogs in that particular ring.
21.
It was suggested that strapping with a crossover at the top, was a slightly better option and
it was noted that shows overseas had used strapping at the edges of the tunnel to peg them
down. In conclusion, the Council agreed that wider straps which would spread the compression
onto the tunnel would be preferable. It encouraged equipment manufacturers to create
alternative options to prevent this problem.
Agility Contact Equipment Surface –
Mr & Mrs Jackson and Mr & Mrs Hutchinson
22. Mr & Mrs
Ian Jackson and Mr &
Mrs Hutchinson requested the Council discuss the possibility of stipulating one type of contact
surface to be used at agility shows. There were currently two types of surface used at agility
shows, rubber and painted wood. The Chairman stated that the discussion item was not to
stipulate a type of surface in the regulations, but rather that the schedules should state
which type of surface they would be using at their show. The Council agreed that the surface
could not be regulated since the “rubber” comprised of various compositions, most of which was
not actually rubber. It was agreed that attitudes towards contact surfaces should evolve
naturally and that time would indicate which would prove to be the most popular.
23. The Council was reminded
that this matter had been addressed at its June 2011 meeting. The minutes stated that the
Council recommended a press release be issued requesting show societies to specify in show
schedules, where possible, the types of contacts and equipment supplier they planned to use at
their show or in a particular class so that competitors may be forewarned. The office stated
that the specimen schedule would be revised accordingly to include this information and that
another press release would be issued.
Judging of the Up
Contact – Mr & Mrs Jackson and Mr & Mrs Hutchinson
24.
The Council considered the options suggested for finding a more effective method of judging the
'Up Contact' of the Dog Walk. It was agreed that electronic contacts were a nice idea in
principle, but acknowledged that the discipline had not yet reached that point, partly due to
their high expense. It was also agreed that a second judge was impractical when show societies
already required a high number of judges.
25.
25. Suggestions such as the removal of the 'Up
Contact' were dismissed because it would compromise the safety of the obstacle. Furthermore, it
would encourage dogs to jump higher or from a worse angle. If the contact requirement was
removed, it would suggest a need for a further regulation to stipulate that another obstacle
should be placed in a straight line prior to the Dog Walk to minimise risk of potential injury.
Overall, the majority of the Areas concluded that the matter should remain as it was and,
therefore, no further action was taken. The Council stated that judges were expected to
continue judging both ends of the Dog Walk.
Handler Jumping over or Running
under Equipment – Mr & Mrs Jackson and Mr & Mrs Hutchinson
26.
The Council acknowledged that many judges used custom and practice to eliminate competitors as
described above, even though it was not actually regulated. The matter was brought to Council
as it was deemed that a competitor jumping over, running under or running through an obstacle
is unsafe. It was agreed that the judge was responsible for the safety within a ring and,
therefore, should have the authority to penalise competitors. The Council supported the
discussion and welcomed proposals from the agility community should they wish to take the
matter forward for further consideration.
FCI Agility Rules – Mr & Mrs Jackson
and Mr & Mrs Hutchinson
27. The Chairman stated that
the above item was meant to refer to a request for more FCI style agility courses, rather than
a direct move to adopt FCI regulations. The Council discussed the views of the area meetings
which by majority, did not support the suggestion because most competitors were not well
acquainted with FCI regulations or its style of course design. It was agreed not to take the
matter further.
Optional Obstacle Negotiation – Bill
Glover
28.
The Council reviewed the practice of placing numbers on obstacles to give competitors a choice
of ‘either end' or ‘either side', in Standard Classes. The Council agreed that although this
practice was slightly ambiguous, it should be left for the discretion of the judge as to how
the obstacle would be judged. No further action was taken.
Obstacles Consecutively used on a Course – Bill Glover
29.
The Council was requested to review the practice of using a jump obstacle twice consecutively
on a course, either in opposite directions, known as “back-jumping”, or twice in the same
direction. It was stressed that the minimum distance between obstacles would be reduced and,
therefore, breaching Kennel Club Regulations. It was highlighted that each dog's path would be
different based on its landing and that competitors were responsible for ensuring the safest
possible path for their dogs. There was also concern expressed regarding the abrupt twist that
could be asked of a dog when back jumping, which could be detrimental to its wellbeing.
30. A debate also took place
on whether an obstacle with two consecutive numbers should be termed as the same obstacle or
whether the one obstacle should be treated as two separate obstacles. The Council sympathised
with the reasoning for the discussion item, but felt it should be the judge's discretion to
ensure good course design, taking into consideration the safety of the dogs.
Re-runs – Ms H Smith
31. The Council discussed when
a competitor should run should they have been granted a re-run by a judge. It was agreed that
it would be considered that the dog requiring a re-run had already worked for the purpose of
ensuring a handler's dogs were worked in the sequence ii which they were drawn. The Council
was against the view that a judge could make a decision at the end of the class whether a
re-run was offered, as a means of ensuring all the given placings were filled. It advised that
judges should make a decision, on whether to grant a re-run, at the time of the incident and
that the competitor should have another attempt within 10 further dogs having run would be
preferable.
ITEM 9. INTERNATIONAL
AGILITY FESTIVAL
32.
Dave Ray gave a verbal
report on arrangements for the Kennel Club International Agility Festival to be held at
Kelmarsh Hall on 10-12 August 2012. It was noted that plans were progressing well, following
the success of the layout in 2011, it was confirmed that it would remain the same for 2012 and
that the format of the classes would be similar. The office stated that the Young Kennel Club
Jumping and Agility Dog of the Year heats would be held at the Festival. Following a series of
heats, there would be a Final in memory of Don Nunn and that the Nations Cup competition would
be altered slightly. It was further noted that new Health and Safety procedures had been
introduced including having paramedics on site, as well as the presence of a veterinary trade
stand.
ITEM 10. JUDGES WORKING PARTY
(WTOA)
33. The Council noted a
written report on the progress of the Judges Working Party. It was stated that a number of
matters were currently being considered which required further discussion and that that the
Council would be informed of its recommendations in due course.
ITEM 11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Large Dog Olympia
Semi-Finals
34. Concerns were raised
whether it would be fairer to take a smaller number of dogs from the Novice and Senior Olympia
quarter finals held at Stoneleigh, rather than 36 currently taken. This would allow each
handler to have a minimum of two runs at Olympia. It was agreed that this matter would be
reviewed.
Use of Muzzles at
Shows
35.
The Council noted that concerns had been raised that some competitors used black material
muzzles on their dogs, immediately after having run a course, which kept the dog's mouth shut.
It was argued that this type of muzzle prevented the dog from panting properly and, therefore,
put the dog's welfare at risk, especially in hot weather conditions. The Council stressed it
did not support the use of muzzles. However, where a dog required a muzzle, it should be of the
basket type style to ensure the dog could pant properly. The Council requested the office to
issue a press release to highlight this matter.
ITEM 12. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
36.
34. The date of the next
meeting will be 21 June 2012, which will be the last meeting of the current term of the
Council. Items for the agenda should reach the office by 23 March 2012.
35. There being no further matters to
discuss the meeting closed at 15:00pm.
Agility Liaison Council
Representatives
1 January 2010 – 31 December 2012
Listed below
are the Area Liaison Council Representatives that can be contacted should further information
be required on any of the items included on the minutes.
Midlands
Mr Richard
Jordan, 2 Passmore, Tinkers Bridge, Milton Keynes, MK6 3DZ
Tel: 01908
667798 E-mail:richard.jordan@talktalk.net
Mr Dave Ray, 13
Helmdon Close, Rugby, Warks, CV21 1RS
Tel: 01788
561253 E-mail: drayped@aol.com
North
East
Mr Ian
Mallabar, The Granary, Spen Lane, Rowlands Gill, NE39 2BZ
Tel: 01207
544406 E-mail: ian.mallabar@btinternet.com
Mrs Janet Nero,
6 Northgate, Oulton, Leeds, LS26 8NZ
Tel: 0113
2823445 E-mail: jandcnero@btinternet.com
North
West
Mrs Pauline
Baltes, 45 Well Orchard, Bamber Bridge, Preston, Lancs, PR5 8HJ
Tel: 01772
494852 / 07803 261808 E-mail: pabq@blueyonder.co.uk
Mr Mike Hallam,
Hollins View, Leek Road, Bosley, Macclesfield, SK11 0PP
Tel: 01260
223190/07711058910 E-mail: m.hallam@btconnect.com
Northern Ireland
Mr Ronnie
McAleese, 27 Dermott Walk, Comber, Newtownards, County Down, BT23 5NU
Tel: 02891
878125 E-mail: ronnie@patchagility.com
Scotland
Ms Morag Kelly,
5 Broompark Crescent, Murthly, Perthshire, PH1 4HH
Tel: 01738
710354 E-mail: moragkelly_@hotmail.com
South &
South West
Mr Tony
Griffin, 20 Monmouth Avenue, Weymouth, Dorset, DT3 5JR
Tel: 01305
777856/07743 655311 E-mail: tonygriffin20@tiscali.co.uk
Miss Lesley
Olden, Birchwood House Cottage, Sherfield English, Nr Romsey, Hampshire, SO51 6FF
Tel: 01794
323037 E-mail: lesleyolden@aol.com
South
East & East Anglia
Mr Simon
Chandler, 16 Hawth Hill, Seaford, East Sussex, BN25 2RW
Tel: 07772
670086 E-mail: sjabbaman@aol.com
Mr John
Gilbert, Keba Cottage, 100 Bedford Road, Barton-le-Clay, Beds, MK45 4LR
Tel: 01582
882366 E-mail: faldoagility@aol.com
Wales
Mr Mike Shaw,
Ewyn-y-Don, Llanon, Wales, SY23 5HZ
Tel: 01974
202347 E-mail: somethingferal@aol.com
ENDS
[024.12]
2nd
February 2012
For journalists
who would like further press information, images or interview requests click
here:
Like our Facebook page
http://www.facebook.com/Kclovesdogs
Follow us on Twitter
http://twitter.com/kclovesdogs
The Kennel Club
is the largest organisation in the UK devoted to dog health, welfare and training. Its
objective is to ensure that dogs live healthy, happy lives with responsible owners.
It runs the
country's largest registration database for both pedigree and crossbreed dogs and the Petlog
database, which is the UK's largest reunification service for microchipped animals. The Kennel
Club Assured Breeder Scheme is the only scheme in the UK that monitors and sets standards for
breeders, in order to protect the welfare of puppies and breeding bitches. It also runs the
UK's largest dog training programme, the Good Citizen Dog Training Scheme and licenses shows
and clubs across a wide range of activities, which help dog owners to bond and enjoy life with
their dogs. The Kennel Club runs the world's greatest dog show, Crufts, and the Discover Dogs
event at Earls Court, London, which is a fun family day out that educates people about how to
buy responsibly and care for their dog.
The Kennel Club
invests in welfare campaigns and the Kennel Club Charitable Trust, which supports dog welfare
charities and research into dog diseases and also into dog training and education programmes.
The Kennel Club jointly runs health screening schemes with the British Veterinary Association
and through the Charitable Trust, funds the Kennel Club Genetics Centre at the Animal Health
Trust, which is at the forefront of pioneering research into dog health.
| 
