I have a great deal of empathy . . . or is that sympathy? . . . for Sharon . . .
Sharon has always been an innovator that has bucked "conventional agility wisdom"; and as it involves creating new and safer ways to play the game, Sharon's mind is one very fertile and productive "field" . . .
Between traditional agility classes . . . or at least those classes that we NADACers consider "traditional" <G> and EGC, we have 11 classes to choose from . . .
Even with 12 traditional classes on a given weekend, in most cases, a minimum of 7 classes are dedicated to Regular (4), Jumpers (2) and Chances (1) . . . not much room for the non-jumping classes, especially Hoopers . . . and it's even "worse" in areas that shun the Non-Jumping Trial weekends . . . many times because entries for those trials are lower than traditional trials . . .
If a club can add 4 EGC classes to a 2-day trial, which ones does one add to build interest that will progress to a full blown EGC trial weekend???
I've been around this sport long enough to know that change is difficult; but why does it seem that the other venues don't get the "flack" about change that NADAC does??? . . . even from NADAC people??? By-and-large, exhibitors don't quit other venues because of changes that improve the safety and enjoyment of the sport . . . it seems that those changes are generally accepted with "open arms" . . . perhaps it's because NADAC instituted the changes FIRST and the others are FINALLY playing catch-up???
Is it because those exhibitors that multi-venue still consider NADAC to be the "outsider" and the venue that complicates their agility lives??? IMHO and at the risk of ruffling some feathers, that says A LOT about the inability of those "trainers" to train for new challenges . . . in other words, if our ancestors that landed on the eastern shores of the US harbored the same attitude, many of us would still be wondering what's on the other side of the Appalachian Mountains!!!
There is still one other venue that has a bunch of weird obstacles and wierd protocols in agility . . . and they still seem to do OK . . .
Personally, I would think it to be very difficult to continue to manage 2 separate programs and 11 classes under one banner, especially in areas where access to trials . . . or even access to sufficient space and video equipment dor VT trials can be difficult/cost prohibitive to obtain . . . is severely limited . . .
For as long as I can remember . . . and I do remember as far back as 1993 . . . NADAC has ALWAYS been about evaluating TEAMWORK, accuracy at speed and accuracy at a distance. Soooooooooooooooo . . . as NADAC has evolved and the distance line has vanished from Regular, why does Regular need TWICE as many points as ANY other class for advanced awards, when Regular can be run "step for step" with one's dog, if the human is physically able to do so . . .
Chances definitely tests the accuracy at a distance foundational concept of NADAC . . . but with 40 seconds allocated for SCT, speed is definitely NOT a factor . . .
. . . and from all that I've been able to glean over the years, with the time adjustments and the Skilled category, the only classes that truly test accuracy at speed are the ones in EGC . . .
Sharon has "fought the good fight" for agility for a long time . . . and I don't have a problem if she's content to forego "rocking the boat" one more time that may have the very real consequence of disturbing cash flow . . . which is very much a business consideration in these times . . . well, ANYTIME; but ESPECIALLY in these times . . .
I simply think that all NADAC-first exhibitors would do themselves a GREAT FAVOR by supporting change rather than "fighting" it . . .
IF, IMHO, Regular requirements for awards were the same as the other classes . . . and IF 7 classes could be chosen from the remaining 10, it would be possible to offer a 2-day trial with 2 runs of each class over the weekend. 1, 3 and 4 day trials would have a bit more "latitude" in class selections beyond that which might be the "typical" 2-DAY trial format. Non-jumping class trials would involve those classes without jumps . . .
As I see it, the NATCH would still only require Regular, Jumpers and Chances . . . but the VERS-NATCH and All-Around could be combined into the VERS-NATCH . . .
Look folks, there are NO "easy" solutions to the seeming dilemma that NADAC has created for itself by having 2 popular programs . . . just not equally popular all over . . .
Folks pooh-poohed Tunnelers at first . . . now, it's probably the most popular traditional, non-jumping class . . .
Folks still grouse about the Hoopers class; but they don't seem to have issues with hoops here and there in the other traditional classes . . . WHY IS THAT??? ANYBODY???
Some folks still aren't too sure about Barrel Racing, NADAC style; but there seems to be broad support for a barrel replacing tightly curved tunnels . . . WHY IS THAT??? ANYBODY???
I don't want to see Sharon/NADAC take any unecessary financial risks with proposed changes . . .
OTOH, I'm more than just a bit disappointed that some individuals/clubs have chosen to be a bit "selfish" for their own wants and desires . . . and to only see the negative aspects of change . . .
As exhibitors, Sharon and NADAC give us SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much in the way of titles, awards and so forth . . .
. . . why is it that some of us are having difficulty "stepping up to plate" when Sharon and NADAC could use a little support???
Whenever we shy away from new challenges, we stop growing . . . when we stop growing, we're dead . . . even though we may still be able to breathe and eat . . .
Hugs & wags,
Al & Pelli