news-SubCommittee Measurement

News - Dog Measuring Sub Committee

The Sub Committee appointed after last years AGM to investigate dog measurements and jump heights has reported to the AFA Committee and as agreed at the AGM the Sub Committee Report is now being made available to the Membership for consideration.

The Sub Committee has submitted a summary and two reports, one prepared by Gary Hehir and the other perpared by Colin Bruce. Gary and Colin were the two non AFA Committee representatives on the Sub Committee. Both reports are being released to members.

The AFA Committee was of the view that the two reports needed to be put into a context and that the key issues arising from the study needed to be clearly stated as it these issues that will in due course need to be decided upon by the AFA.

Background Context.

The Sub Committee first task was to investigate various methods of dog measuring and determine best practice in setting corresponding jump heights to result in fair and equitable competition conditions for all dogs, regardless of confirmation. Whilst both reports address this issue, Gary’s report addresses in some detail the conceptual matter of “fair and equitable” and the entire matter of handicaps via jump heights. The Committee thanks Gary and Colin for providing a thought provoking analysis of this subject.

As overall background to the issue of Jump heights the issue of minimum and maximum AFA jump heights was the subject of a decision at the 2007 AGM and the “new” 14 inch max and 7 inch minimum heights have only been in operation for approx 6 months. We thus have limited experience on how the changes have impacted on the sport. NAFA is also now considering further amending wither height adjustment reduction from four inches to five inches. These developments need to be considered when we are addressing any suggested jump height changes or method of measurement changes from the Sub Committee Reports.

The Sub Committee did consider the two recognised ways of measuring i.e. height at withers (shoulder) measure via height stick and the ulna (leg) measurement. Withers measurement is currently used by NAFA, AFA and Obedience/Agility clubs. The ulna measurement is being used by U- Fli in the U.S. Colin’s Report in particular recommends the adoption of the ulna measuring method.

Whichever method is adopted the Committee did consider that there should be a uniform measuring tool specified and approved by the AFA, so that at least there could be consistency in measuring tools.

The reports refer to a measuring exercise which uses a scale to convert the ulna measure to jump height. Both reports continue to suggest that the current max/min jump height would continue to be 7 and 14 inches.

After members have had a chance to consider the reports and make comment or input there will need to be a decision process established. The key matters that seem at this stage to emerge are :

Is there a need to amend or improve the consistency of the current approach to dog measurement and if so what process should apply?
What should be the minimum and maximum jump heights?

The Committee has at this stage refrained from making any recommendation in this matter as the Terms of Reference approved at the last AGM required the Sub Committee Report to go to members for consideration. The Committee felt that members should have the right to make comments and express views which could be taken into account by the AFA Committee before any recommendations are developed.

The summary and two reports are hereby released for member consideration and comment. Please submit your thoughts on this matter to the AFA Secretary, PO Box 4179 Pitt Town NSW 2756.

Kind regards,

Glenn Pritchard

President AFA

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Height Investigation Sub Committee - Summary by Terry Hunter

The Australian Flyball Committee requested the following members to look into various methods of measuring a dog’s jump height.

Sub Committee Chairperson:

Eric Van Zuyden (VIC)

Committee

Gary Hehir (NSW)

Colin Bruce (NSW)

Terry Hunter (VIC)

Dot Baverstock (TAS)

Traditionally the method used by the Australian Flyball Association is to measure the dog at the shoulder minus 4 inches and to round down to the nearest whole inch. This method is the standard measurement used internationally by flyball associations, the exception being U-Fli International (USA) which uses the Ulna bone measurement.

Measuring dogs at the shoulder is a very old method relating back to the measuring of horses at the withers. Its main purpose was to assist in breeding to meet a conformation standard and as it was an internationally used method, it was a convenient tool to determine a dog’s jump height when Agility and Obedience dog sports started. This method is still used to confirm that a dog falls within a dog breed’s conformation standard, but a lot of the dogs that do flyball are not purebreds and therefore do not fall within the ranges set by a conformation standard. This makes it extremely hard to have height exemptions for various breeds and mixed breeds that are not natural jumpers or of an odd body shape.

Unfortunately the Sub-Committee was working with time limits that did not fully allow us to investigate the different methods or measuring devices used in the world. The Ulna Bone method was unfamiliar to the majority of the committee, Colin being the exception. We decided that we should look at this method and it became the main focus of the work being done in looking at dog heights in the time frame available.

Although we have been doing flyball in Australia for over 12 years now, there has never been a set type of shoulder measuring device used by the AFA. The various devices used can vary greatly in their design and efficiency. The majority of dogs I have measured using various shoulder measuring frames, are not trained to stand and their fore find the whole process intimidating. This is particularly evident in dogs that are new to the sport and do not come from a show or obedience background where they could have access to a height frame.

When measuring small or nervous dogs this can be a harrowing experience for the dog, judge and handler. In many cases I have measured dogs on the flat surface provided, but the surface provided has not always been non slip. Although we are using the shoulder measurement as our bench mark, no particular type of frame has been set as a standard frame for general use and there can be a wide variation in designs used within a state by the different clubs.

We are obliged under our agreement with the Australian National Kennel Council, not to change our rules for two years from the signing of the agreement between the ANKC and the AFA. I believe we should for this time period, specify a particular design and type of non slip service to be used nationally until the end of this current agreement.

One of the shoulder measuring frames is pictured below

If we as an association decide that the Ulna bone measurement is better than using shoulder height frames and we decide to use that method, we will not be able to bring it in overnight. We will need to have a device engineered and manufactured, judges and officials trained and a representative sample of dogs measured.

This could take us up to the end of the ANKC & AFA agreement, as we will have to decide and vote on which method we will use and then manufacture a suitable device, regardless of the method used.

The Ulna Bone measurements were done with a device made by Gary Hehir and which he sent to the various sub committee members. These measuring devices were then used to take sample measurements of dogs of different heights and builds. In an attempt to compare the current jump heights to the jump height measured by the Ulna measurement. Colin Bruce adapted the UFLY measurement scale to suit our current height limits of 7” to 14”; the Ulna measurement range is from 6” to 12”.

One of the Ulna measuring devices made by Gary Hehir

Working independently we measured various dogs and recorded and compared the two jump heights. In general we used the dog’s left front leg, if this was border line the opposite leg was measured and the shortest measurement used in recording the dog’s jump height. I when measuring the dogs in Victoria used Colin’s scale as this would allow us to compare a dog’s current jump height to their jump height under the ulna bone measurement.

As a judge I found the ulna device far less intimidating, easy to use and to read the dog’s measurement on the scale. My measurements were added to Colin’s XL file which is attached to his report. Both Gary and Colin had valid opinions about this method. Rather than do their efforts an injustice in summarizing them, they have been left in their entirety for the members to read and discuss.

The scale used is presented below, the measurement is done by measuring the leg from the Accessory Carpal Bone to the end of the Elbow, this measurement is then compared to the scale provided by Colin and the jump height recorded.

Below 4.5” = 7” jump Height

4.5 to 5” = 8” jump height

5” to 5.5” = 9” jump height

5.5” to 6” = 10” jump height

6” to 6.5” = 11” jump height

6.5” to 7” = 12” jump height

7” to 7.5” = 13” jump height

Above 7.5” = 14” jump height

A border line measurement can be represented as follows: an ulna measurement of 6” would equal a jump at 11” not the lower height of 10 “.

The Ulna bone device being used on a dog

From my observation of the Ulna bone method, I believe it would assist those dogs who are of a shorter but bulky body type. This method certainly is easier and less intimidating than our current range of devices.

While I was in the UK a couple of years ago I observed the measuring wickets they used and they are fairly simple to use. They are basically rectangular U shaped metal and have a tag marked with the height in inches. If you are measuring a dog you put one wicket over the shoulder. If it does not touch the ground, then the dog is taller than that jump height, you then try the next highest wicket and if that touches the ground then. The dog is under that jump height.

Below is the measuring board with a collection of the measuring wickets leaning against the fence.

This is an important issue for our association and I would encourage all members to read both Colin’s and Bruce’s more detailed reports and discuss them. There is a lot of detail in the reports and I would not encourage anyone to rely on my brief summary of the different methods, when deciding which system they wanted. But to think of which system they believe would best suit the sport of flyball and flyball dogs.

Terry Hunter

Bruce Colins Report U-Fli measurement Gary Hehir Report



	News - Dog Measuring Sub Committee The Sub Committee appointed after last years AGM to investigate dog measurements and jump heights has reported to the AFA Committee and as agreed at the AGM the Sub Committee Report is now being made available to the Membership for consideration. The Sub Committee has submitted a summary and two reports, one prepared by Gary Hehir and the other perpared by Colin Bruce. Gary and Colin were the two non AFA Committee representatives on the Sub Committee. Both reports are being released to members. The AFA Committee was of the view that the two reports needed to be put into a context and that the key issues arising from the study needed to be clearly stated as it these issues that will in due course need to be decided upon by the AFA. Background Context. The Sub Committee first task was to investigate various methods of dog measuring and determine best practice in setting corresponding jump heights to result in fair and equitable competition conditions for all dogs, regardless of confirmation. Whilst both reports address this issue, Gary’s report addresses in some detail the conceptual matter of “fair and equitable” and the entire matter of handicaps via jump heights. The Committee thanks Gary and Colin for providing a thought provoking analysis of this subject. As overall background to the issue of Jump heights the issue of minimum and maximum AFA jump heights was the subject of a decision at the 2007 AGM and the “new” 14 inch max and 7 inch minimum heights have only been in operation for approx 6 months. We thus have limited experience on how the changes have impacted on the sport. NAFA is also now considering further amending wither height adjustment reduction from four inches to five inches. These developments need to be considered when we are addressing any suggested jump height changes or method of measurement changes from the Sub Committee Reports. The Sub Committee did consider the two recognised ways of measuring i.e. height at withers (shoulder) measure via height stick and the ulna (leg) measurement. Withers measurement is currently used by NAFA, AFA and Obedience/Agility clubs. The ulna measurement is being used by U- Fli in the U.S. Colin’s Report in particular recommends the adoption of the ulna measuring method. Whichever method is adopted the Committee did consider that there should be a uniform measuring tool specified and approved by the AFA, so that at least there could be consistency in measuring tools. The reports refer to a measuring exercise which uses a scale to convert the ulna measure to jump height. Both reports continue to suggest that the current max/min jump height would continue to be 7 and 14 inches. After members have had a chance to consider the reports and make comment or input there will need to be a decision process established. The key matters that seem at this stage to emerge are : Is there a need to amend or improve the consistency of the current approach to dog measurement and if so what process should apply? What should be the minimum and maximum jump heights? The Committee has at this stage refrained from making any recommendation in this matter as the Terms of Reference approved at the last AGM required the Sub Committee Report to go to members for consideration. The Committee felt that members should have the right to make comments and express views which could be taken into account by the AFA Committee before any recommendations are developed. The summary and two reports are hereby released for member consideration and comment. Please submit your thoughts on this matter to the AFA Secretary, PO Box 4179 Pitt Town NSW 2756. Kind regards, Glenn Pritchard President AFA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Height Investigation Sub Committee - Summary by Terry Hunter The Australian Flyball Committee requested the following members to look into various methods of measuring a dog’s jump height. Sub Committee Chairperson: Eric Van Zuyden (VIC) Committee Gary Hehir (NSW) Colin Bruce (NSW) Terry Hunter (VIC) Dot Baverstock (TAS) Traditionally the method used by the Australian Flyball Association is to measure the dog at the shoulder minus 4 inches and to round down to the nearest whole inch. This method is the standard measurement used internationally by flyball associations, the exception being U-Fli International (USA) which uses the Ulna bone measurement. Measuring dogs at the shoulder is a very old method relating back to the measuring of horses at the withers. Its main purpose was to assist in breeding to meet a conformation standard and as it was an internationally used method, it was a convenient tool to determine a dog’s jump height when Agility and Obedience dog sports started. This method is still used to confirm that a dog falls within a dog breed’s conformation standard, but a lot of the dogs that do flyball are not purebreds and therefore do not fall within the ranges set by a conformation standard. This makes it extremely hard to have height exemptions for various breeds and mixed breeds that are not natural jumpers or of an odd body shape. Unfortunately the Sub-Committee was working with time limits that did not fully allow us to investigate the different methods or measuring devices used in the world. The Ulna Bone method was unfamiliar to the majority of the committee, Colin being the exception. We decided that we should look at this method and it became the main focus of the work being done in looking at dog heights in the time frame available. Although we have been doing flyball in Australia for over 12 years now, there has never been a set type of shoulder measuring device used by the AFA. The various devices used can vary greatly in their design and efficiency. The majority of dogs I have measured using various shoulder measuring frames, are not trained to stand and their fore find the whole process intimidating. This is particularly evident in dogs that are new to the sport and do not come from a show or obedience background where they could have access to a height frame. When measuring small or nervous dogs this can be a harrowing experience for the dog, judge and handler. In many cases I have measured dogs on the flat surface provided, but the surface provided has not always been non slip. Although we are using the shoulder measurement as our bench mark, no particular type of frame has been set as a standard frame for general use and there can be a wide variation in designs used within a state by the different clubs. We are obliged under our agreement with the Australian National Kennel Council, not to change our rules for two years from the signing of the agreement between the ANKC and the AFA. I believe we should for this time period, specify a particular design and type of non slip service to be used nationally until the end of this current agreement. One of the shoulder measuring frames is pictured below If we as an association decide that the Ulna bone measurement is better than using shoulder height frames and we decide to use that method, we will not be able to bring it in overnight. We will need to have a device engineered and manufactured, judges and officials trained and a representative sample of dogs measured. This could take us up to the end of the ANKC & AFA agreement, as we will have to decide and vote on which method we will use and then manufacture a suitable device, regardless of the method used. The Ulna Bone measurements were done with a device made by Gary Hehir and which he sent to the various sub committee members. These measuring devices were then used to take sample measurements of dogs of different heights and builds. In an attempt to compare the current jump heights to the jump height measured by the Ulna measurement. Colin Bruce adapted the UFLY measurement scale to suit our current height limits of 7” to 14”; the Ulna measurement range is from 6” to 12”. One of the Ulna measuring devices made by Gary Hehir Working independently we measured various dogs and recorded and compared the two jump heights. In general we used the dog’s left front leg, if this was border line the opposite leg was measured and the shortest measurement used in recording the dog’s jump height. I when measuring the dogs in Victoria used Colin’s scale as this would allow us to compare a dog’s current jump height to their jump height under the ulna bone measurement. As a judge I found the ulna device far less intimidating, easy to use and to read the dog’s measurement on the scale. My measurements were added to Colin’s XL file which is attached to his report. Both Gary and Colin had valid opinions about this method. Rather than do their efforts an injustice in summarizing them, they have been left in their entirety for the members to read and discuss. The scale used is presented below, the measurement is done by measuring the leg from the Accessory Carpal Bone to the end of the Elbow, this measurement is then compared to the scale provided by Colin and the jump height recorded. Below 4.5” = 7” jump Height 4.5 to 5” = 8” jump height 5” to 5.5” = 9” jump height 5.5” to 6” = 10” jump height 6” to 6.5” = 11” jump height 6.5” to 7” = 12” jump height 7” to 7.5” = 13” jump height Above 7.5” = 14” jump height A border line measurement can be represented as follows: an ulna measurement of 6” would equal a jump at 11” not the lower height of 10 “. The Ulna bone device being used on a dog From my observation of the Ulna bone method, I believe it would assist those dogs who are of a shorter but bulky body type. This method certainly is easier and less intimidating than our current range of devices. While I was in the UK a couple of years ago I observed the measuring wickets they used and they are fairly simple to use. They are basically rectangular U shaped metal and have a tag marked with the height in inches. If you are measuring a dog you put one wicket over the shoulder. If it does not touch the ground, then the dog is taller than that jump height, you then try the next highest wicket and if that touches the ground then. The dog is under that jump height. Below is the measuring board with a collection of the measuring wickets leaning against the fence. This is an important issue for our association and I would encourage all members to read both Colin’s and Bruce’s more detailed reports and discuss them. There is a lot of detail in the reports and I would not encourage anyone to rely on my brief summary of the different methods, when deciding which system they wanted. But to think of which system they believe would best suit the sport of flyball and flyball dogs. Terry Hunter Bruce Colins Report U-Fli measurement Gary Hehir Report