January 2019 Announcement Video

[Billie Rosen]

Chris, when you say tugging, I assume you mean tugging with a leash?  Not with a toy attached to the leash?

I agree 100% that we need  more clarification of these rule changes (which will be forthcoming), but that people are panicking before the new rules have even been tried.

[Chris Nelson]

We're debating right now the ability to have a small, reasonable toy attached to the leash.

If the dog is going to play with the leash when the run is over, the toy really isn't that much different.
Same reward, same behavior.

I would start pushing clubs to have a bucket at the finish line, so when a handler asks for their leash on the ground it goes in the bucket, and not just sitting on the ground so we don't run into issues with targeting at the finish line.

I suppose my confusion is this.

The run is over.   All we care about is the performance of the dog between the first and last obstacles.   Why not let people reward their dogs?  The main argument is that it's distracting to other dogs.   Which I disagree.  Many things are distracting to other dogs, that doens't mean we don't allow them.    Lots of people have mentioned it's an aggressive behavior, yet I haven't seen a certified behaviorist say anything.  And the few certified people that I do know, have zero issue with tugging from a behavior standpoint.   

What is the difference in a dog grabbing a leash to tug after they have been leashed up, or grabbing a tug toy attached directly to that same leash?

I wouldn't want the toy to be removable from the leash, cause that would be an issue.  But if it's just an extension of the leash, why are we so against it?

[dogrsqr]

Exactly Chris.  If your dog is tugging with their leash, than the leash is a toy.  If we’re going to let dogs tug on their leash a toy on the leash is no different.  I’m talking about a braided leash that has a tennis ball as a handle, incorporated into the leash.  I’ve seen them in other venues. 

Gina

[Chris Nelson]

Exactly Chris.  If your dog is tugging with their leash, than the leash is a toy.  If we’re going to let dogs tug on their leash a toy on the leash is no different.  I’m talking about a braided leash that has a tennis ball as a handle, incorporated into the leash.  I’ve seen them in other venues. 

Gina

I would have no issue with that.

I think a size limit would need to be out into place.  Somebody mentioned a giant holy roller which I think is a bit much


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DataHound]

Three questions regarding the bonus program changes.

First, with changing how Bonus runs will be scored, does this impact what is necessary for the videos, assuming that video submission will still be required? Currently my understanding is the video follows the dog and does need to show the handler the entire time. With the new scoring it seems that it would be necessary to be able to see the handler and the dog at all times so that whether points are given for each sequence can be determined. Where I trial that would likely require having 2 videographers to get everything which honestly I would not be too fond of since it is challenging to get one sometimes. I do like the change for consistency with Champs just trying to think things through.

Second, will Champs requirements for Stakes change?

Third, will the distance challenge “program” be impacted?

Thanks
Sandy T., Flynn and JoJo

[Chris Nelson]

Three questions regarding the bonus program changes.

First, with changing how Bonus runs will be scored, does this impact what is necessary for the videos, assuming that video submission will still be required? Currently my understanding is the video follows the dog and does need to show the handler the entire time. With the new scoring it seems that it would be necessary to be able to see the handler and the dog at all times so that whether points are given for each sequence can be determined. Where I trial that would likely require having 2 videographers to get everything which honestly I would not be too fond of since it is challenging to get one sometimes. I do like the change for consistency with Champs just trying to think things through.

Second, will Champs requirements for Stakes change?

Third, will the distance challenge “program” be impacted?

Thanks
Sandy T., Flynn and JoJo

1). Only one video will be required,  generally rely on handlers playing nice and staying within their boundaries if the video can’t show them 100% stepping out.   But we’re looking into some other options for this as well involving the on site judge.

2) they will change to reflect the new criteria.  It won’t be a massive deviation from the current criteria.   If you’re getting bonuses now and qualifying for champs you will still be good with the updated criteria.

3) distance challenges will have the same criteria of 4 sections per course


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cindy]

Also as a side note. 

These changes have nothing to do with bringing in other venue people.  If it does,  cool.

But that is not the intended goal for any changes we make.   We have goals for nadac and we’re making changes to reach them.   But it has nothing to do with other venues.

/rant

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, Chris.  I didn't mean to offend you at all.  I guess I combined your comments on wanting to increase participation in NADAC with the change of allowing people with titles in other venues to start at a level other than Novice and drew a faulty conclusion.  My bad.

I also know that you are supportive of the NADAC loyalists who have been there since the beginning.  I know you wouldn't intentionally slight us.  My point was just that there are many of us out here who ran the old Gamblers class and remember the planning and strategy required.  How that translates to the new Gamblers class is yet to be seen.....but that is equally true of people who have run FAST or similar classes in other organizations.  We're all taking our best guess as to how those skills transfer.....just as someone with a title in USDAA is guessing how those skills will transfer to Elite NADAC. 

If I had a dog who was in Elite and a class was added, it would feel a little weird that some people in Elite were able to enter that new class at the Elite level because they had a title in another organization, but I had to start in Novice because I decided 20+ years ago to only give my agility dollars to NADAC.  Now would I start in Elite.....probably not.  I like doing things in the sequence they are designed.  But many people would and I could see a scenario where I might depending on the age of my dog and my goals.  I'm just suggesting that when a new class is added, everyone currently participating in NADAC should have the same option as to where to start in that class.  Whether that's everyone starts in Novice or everyone picks the level they think is best based on where they're at in a designated class isn't as important as everyone feeling they have the same options.....especially those people who have supported NADAC since the very beginning.

I hope that is more clear and less offensive to you as that really was not my intent.

[Chris Nelson]

Also as a side note. 

These changes have nothing to do with bringing in other venue people.  If it does,  cool.

But that is not the intended goal for any changes we make.   We have goals for nadac and we’re making changes to reach them.   But it has nothing to do with other venues.

/rant

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, Chris.  I didn't mean to offend you at all.  I guess I combined your comments on wanting to increase participation in NADAC with the change of allowing people with titles in other venues to start at a level other than Novice and drew a faulty conclusion.  My bad.

I also know that you are supportive of the NADAC loyalists who have been there since the beginning.  I know you wouldn't intentionally slight us.  My point was just that there are many of us out here who ran the old Gamblers class and remember the planning and strategy required.  How that translates to the new Gamblers class is yet to be seen.....but that is equally true of people who have run FAST or similar classes in other organizations.  We're all taking our best guess as to how those skills transfer.....just as someone with a title in USDAA is guessing how those skills will transfer to Elite NADAC. 

If I had a dog who was in Elite and a class was added, it would feel a little weird that some people in Elite were able to enter that new class at the Elite level because they had a title in another organization, but I had to start in Novice because I decided 20+ years ago to only give my agility dollars to NADAC.  Now would I start in Elite.....probably not.  I like doing things in the sequence they are designed.  But many people would and I could see a scenario where I might depending on the age of my dog and my goals.  I'm just suggesting that when a new class is added, everyone currently participating in NADAC should have the same option as to where to start in that class.  Whether that's everyone starts in Novice or everyone picks the level they think is best based on where they're at in a designated class isn't as important as everyone feeling they have the same options.....especially those people who have supported NADAC since the very beginning.

I hope that is more clear and less offensive to you as that really was not my intent.

I am sorry as well.

Not going to lie about 3 too many issues all occurred over the last day and my patience is a little thinner than normal. 

If people want to enter at the elite level, with a title in Elite chances,  they can.    In the grand scheme of things like someone else mentioned it won’t matter.  They will either succeed which is great,  or they will fail and move down in levels until the skills are there.   Not my ideal situation, as I don’t like to encourage failure, but if that is what the people want then we can do it.

I can understand the issue of seeing elite handlers from other venues starting at a higher level than nadac normies.     I just really hope our nadac folks don’t get too offended when those same people do better at a game they have been playing consistently for longer than us.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cindy.lubin1@gmail.com]

I respectfully disagree with allowing tugging in the ring whether it be the leash itself or a small toy attached to the leash.  In doing so, it would provide an unfair advantage to those competing teams who find tugging to be a reward (and don't mind their dog tugging on the leash) by allowing them to immediately reward a run while in the ring.  If allowing tugging, then in order to be fair then, competitors should also be able to give their dogs whatever reward they use at the end of a run whether it is treats, a ball, frisbee whatever while in the ring.  If the issue is that some dogs try to grab at their leash when leaving the ring, I think it could be up to the judge's discretion as to how to handle these situations.  I've seen dogs that do attempt to grab at the leash, but handlers who clearly discourage the behavior until out of the ring when they can provide an appropriate reward.  I feel like minimal excited grabbing at the leash when it is discouraged/not reciprocated by the handler to not be something to cause an elimination of the run.   

[Chris Nelson]

I respectfully disagree with allowing tugging in the ring whether it be the leash itself or a small toy attached to the leash.  In doing so, it would provide an unfair advantage to those competing teams who find tugging to be a reward (and don't mind their dog tugging on the leash) by allowing them to immediately reward a run while in the ring.  If allowing tugging, then in order to be fair then, competitors should also be able to give their dogs whatever reward they use at the end of a run whether it is treats, a ball, frisbee whatever while in the ring.  If the issue is that some dogs try to grab at their leash when leaving the ring, I think it could be up to the judge's discretion as to how to handle these situations.  I've seen dogs that do attempt to grab at the leash, but handlers who clearly discourage the behavior until out of the ring when they can provide an appropriate reward.  I feel like minimal excited grabbing at the leash when it is discouraged/not reciprocated by the handler to not be something to cause an elimination of the run.   

Why are we against rewarding our dogs?

Is verbal praise not a reward?
Physical petting?

There are different rewards, vocal, physical, toys and treats.

We want to allow as many rewards as possible within reason.

If there was a way to guarantee that treats always hit a dogs mouth and didn’t get lost on the ground I would allow treats as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeanne Allen]

Every time there is a rule change there will be a few people that will be upset.  That is just the way it is. 

With all of the discussion about grandfathering for Gamblers, I would really like to know more on how the new Gamblers is run before I can make any kind of vote on if to grandfather or not.  I did run the old style Gamblers back in the day, but Chris did mention that the new one is a bit different.  It would help me if we could see an example course map and brief rules.  Not all of us were at a Regional where this was tested.

Now as far as the tugging rule.  Personally I think this is being blown way out of proportion.  I could open a can of worms on this subject, but what I want to mention is not allowed in other venues so I will just leave it to your imagination as to what I am thinking about.

[dogrsqr]

I might be wrong but I believe the new Gamblers was pretty similar to FAST.  I honestly don’t see it as an issue for dogs that can do Elite Chances.  I have run ASCA Gamblers without having any problems.  Again no title as I was running FEO.

[JMDATX]

Wait!  The leash runner doesn't have to hand deliver the leash to the handler, unless asked not to?  Thank you Chris!  It always feels like an awkward exchange at the end of the run.  Who gets to decide this? Is it the club or the judge?

What I like about the allowing tugging at the end is not having to watch the handlers whose dogs want to tug get them to not tug.  It usually involves the handler rushing to get the leash and then sternly telling the dog to not tug.  It's painful to watch. 

Jan

[Chris Nelson]

Wait!  The leash runner doesn't have to hand deliver the leash to the handler, unless asked not to?  Thank you Chris!  It always feels like an awkward exchange at the end of the run.  Who gets to decide this? Is it the club or the judge?

What I like about the allowing tugging at the end is not having to watch the handlers whose dogs want to tug get them to not tug.  It usually involves the handler rushing to get the leash and then sternly telling the dog to not tug.  It's painful to watch. 

Jan

The default is for the leash runner to hand off the leash, to help speed up the trial.   But if the handler requests the leash to be left on the ground then it can be done that way.

You just say ‘ leash on the ground please’ as you’re coming in


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Maureen deHaan]

I guess I am a little worn out guys.

This happens every single time a rule changes.  Every freaks out, then the rule takes place, and life goes on.

Everyone was upset about X-Hoopers going away.   Yet it's okay now.
People were upset about the start line training rules, yet that worked out great.
People were upset about the contact update, yet that worked out.
People were upset about every rule change that ever happens.   

I really wish folks would at the very least give this a shot, before completely shutting it down in their heads.
I am taking a step back from this for awhile.

Hi Chris - sorry you are feeling worn out - really I do - & I know it's not just because of my comments / opinions - - However, FWIW - I am not "freaking out"  --  this is the first time I have ever had a strong opinion with any rule changes worth speaking up about and I have been trialing in NADAC ONLY since 1998 ... (I should make that a bumper sticker!)

Still love ya and still bleed purple -