Sigh

[SecretBC]

As the Kool-aid drinkers have continued to chime in, Sharon has only gotten more resolute about her decision to add barrels. That's kind of how it always goes. She mentions something in passing, you get a few protestors, a whole SLEW of "OMG, I worship the ground you walk on, Sharon!" posters, and then she puffs up and proclaims this new idea to be the *best thing ever* and that it WILL go into effect. Immediately at Funraisers, next year at all trials. It went from, "Clubs will have the option of using barrels," to "Clubs will be required to have at least one barrel."

 

That's just how NADAC is. Honestly, competitor uproar means nothing to Sharon and she will do what she wants. Hello, look at the hoopla over the VT program (the stupidest idea ever, to integrate VT points with those earned at traditional trials). There was uproar over that and she did it anyhow. That was what ultimately pushed me to start trialing elsewhere. It was too much for me.

 

The only reason I plan to continue with any NADAC whatsoever at this point is because Kaiser is two Chances runs from NATCH (where he will be the first Alaskan Klee Kai to do so) and Secret only needs seven Chances for hers. Once that's done I see no point in continuing. My oldest, Luke, is ready to start stepping back anyhow.

 

The reason I'm so vocal and bitter is because I've been a huge NADAC supporter since I started agility. I have defended it more times than I can count to people who left and people who've never even tried it. I can't defend it anymore, because it's no longer "agility" as the world knows it. The changes are becoming laughable. The Kool-aid drinkers are ANNOYING AS HELL. I'm so sick of the, "It should be about having fun with your dog. Awards and titles and Q's shouldn't matter at all," blah, blah, blah. Well guess what, some of us do like a little competition and are vilified in NADAC for saying so.

 

Sharon's latest about how she doesn't feel it's the "course's responsibility to challenge you" is the newest line of BS to annoy me. Uh.... I haven't been "challenged" by a NADAC course for the last two years. It's the whole reason I started doing bonus lines with Luke, because I was bored out of my mind by the repetitive nature of the courses presented every weekend. If I went to a trial where you were expected to run the same course twice in a row I'd just leave. If I want to practice skills I set up exercises at home and run them several different ways. I go to trials to test myself -- and I expect the courses to challenge and test me. I shouldn't HAVE to have 50' between myself and my dog to feel challenged. The courses at the Elite level should have SOME element of difficulty....

[PSmitty]

It's not the "course's responsibility to challenge you"? Ummm, really?

[SecretBC]

In all its glory:

 

Hi, group.

I guess I am very surprised by some of the feedback, since "my" view

was totally opposite.

I didn't think that "my" views and challenges were that different from

others, but I guess they are!

First, I thought that the "newbies" would be very bored with double

runs and a "new" obstacle called a barrel. I THOUGHT that the experienced

people would be absolutely excited and LOVE it!!

 

Just from my viewpoint, I LOVE challenge! But I am a self-motivating

person and I have never accepted "norm" as the defined "best"....

I am intrigued by comments from experienced handlers that the "course"

doesn't challenge them on the second go round. That never occurred to me

that the "course" needed to be what challenged people. I thought that

"people" would challenge themselves!! My reaction would be to handle from a

totally different position, from a closer or further distance, or try for

more speed.

 

I get more upset with only "one" run.... I can't think of very many

courses in my life that I didn't want to run again.... not just to get a Q,

but to try a different handling position, more speed, less speed, bigger

distance, less distance, tighter turns.... a different handler move to get

better information to the dog for the course....

 

I never even dreamed that a handler would run a second time and use

the "same" handling position with the same speed, with everything the

"same".......

 

Dogs are such wonderful creatures because, given the opportunity, they

are always willing to give "challenge" to this sport...!!! That is why we

got into agility is because of the challenge of communicating with a

living creature that would give us feedback on our ability to communicate clear

information to them. If the dog isn't "challenging" then I am guessing

that you can't make time and have an issue with distance. Dogs are vibrant,

amazing creatures when they are taught to not just "accept" the norm, but to

engage life with enthusiasm and vigor.

 

It is funny to me that "courses" being rerun are called boring... to

me I could run a course over and over and every run would be different and

challenging!! What a thrill to handle from the opposite side, to make all

front crosses a rear cross and vice versa... to run with "no"

crosses............. to test a different verbal.....

 

I look at a couple of the private emails from competitors that found

it "boring" and in some instances, watching some of those teams "is"

boring............ there is no ZEST, no inspiring flash, just a team keeping

everything under control to get a Q.

 

I look back and think about my desire for "challenge" and that is

where bonus lines and BIG distance was born.... that is where 100+ run indexes

were born....

 

I always knew that dogs would give more and more if the handlers were

willing to communicate with enthusiastic and always challenging them with

"new".... None of my dogs ever got bored with this sport and "knock on

wood" we don't have any time issues, or distances issues and any lack of

enthusiasm to learn new things!

 

NADAC was born from a lack of accepting the "norm" as being

"right".... and EGC and VT and BA.....

 

In 20 years of teaching camps and seminars, I never allow anyone to

accept the "norm" as the "end" of any training regimen and never stop

challenging yourself to be better............... run faster or handle from many

more positions and more or less distance...........

 

When did courses become the "challenge" required to keep this sport

exciting? As I think back, I am betting it is that mind set that created the

courses used by other venues to keep the sport "challenging"....

 

If I went to a trial and saw a barrel for the first time, I would be

jumping with glee... it is a safe obstacle and only requires "HANDLING" to

conquer..... I would be about how I could give clear body language and

verbals to make the "new" performance a FUN and easily understood experience.

 

As I have thought about this all morning.. it has really clarified so

much for me within this sport.............. a lot of the "issues" that I

just don't understand........ but it never occurred to me that handlers feel

that it isn't "their" responsibility to keep the sport exciting and fun for

the dogs!

I have lots of thoughts today as I try to figure out how NADAC is to

accept the responsibility of being "non-boring" to handlers that are not

"self-motivators" and don't take the challenge of being exciting to their

canine partners and for "them" to be the challenge and exciting part of the

sport...............

 

I am a very odd ball, because I can run a horseshoe shaped course and

find it exciting!

 

This does explain why people sometimes leave NADAC because they find

it boring and select another venue that is "more challenging"...............

where the responsibility for challenge and inspiration must come from

"challenging" courses and none of the responsibility for "challenge" comes from

the handlers ability to challenge themselves every time they are a

"partner" to their dogs on a course.

 

I know in seminars, if you change the handlers position by 5-6 feet,

the course is totally different for the team!! The commands are different,

the body language changes because the path indications change because of

different angles being presented. I have had seminars where the same course

is used for multiple days and we can still present excitement and challenge

by changing the "handler" and their presentation of handling positions and

commands.

 

I know I watched an hour of video of an international competition

recently and was shocked that every single handler handled from the same

position, the same turns, the same everything............... and yes, the winners

were separated by 100ths of a second.... but there was no change from

handler to handler........... so it did come down to minute degrees of

difference from the dogs....... and the course designs didn't really offer many

options for "different".... the size and color of the dogs changed, but

nothing else really did............. other than some missed contacts and knocked

bars. I am not criticizing I am just saying that I was disappointed in the

absolute consistency of "norm".....

 

I do like NADAC in that on any given course, you can see dozens of

different handling styles........... and I will watch more closely if any of

those styles change within the same team............ rather disappointing if

a handler always run the exact same way, same style, same

everything...........

 

I have heard people say that if they do anything "different" is shuts

their dogs down..... and I would have to plead with them to get away from

equipment and get "with" their dog with more exciting and challenging means

of communication. The more challenging the handler is, the more exciting

it is for the dog! To stay engaged with a handler that is fun! A totally

consistent handler who never changing their handling in any way usually

becomes rather boring for the dogs and the dogs either slow down or they do

many more "independent" behaviors to keep it exciting!!

 

For me to think that "newbies" would find double runs boring because

they haven't had the experience yet to know the intricacies to keep a dog

fully engaged at all times seemed "logical"............... and that

experienced handlers would jump on this with the ability to challenge themselves and

push for more skills and better handling seemed "logical"..............

but the exact opposite happened...............

 

Great learning experience............... and I wonder just when this

sport changed so radically that handlers should always "be the same" and

repeats are "boring" to those with experience. This sport has become a sport

for "safe" Q's.....

 

I guess I can say that for those coming to camps... we don't teach

boring or "same"..... and there will be many, many "reruns" of the same

course, while the "handler" is challenged to know 4-5 different ways to run the

same course.

 

"I" challenge people to "step it up" a bit.............. what can YOU

do to make agility more exciting and fun.... and not put that

responsibility upon a course design..........

 

If it is the responsibility of the course to create challenge, then

yes, the double run format is never going to work............ it will be very

boring......... and sad....

 

Sharon, a very abnormal person............. but very self motivating!!

 

 

Yeah.... Honestly, I couldn't even respond to that e-mail because it pissed me off so much.

[Laurae]

I don't even run agility and it kind of pisses me off. She deflects what seems to be a lot of criticism by completely belittling those competitors who dare to disagree with her proposed changes. Wow.

[PSmitty]

Wow. Just reading the bolded statements leaves me dumbfounded. Honestly, that makes no sense. The idea that the courses in agility are NOT supposed to challenge you is, well, ridiculous (that's the nice word I came up with). Oh, and I love how she puts it back on the exhibitors. Handlers who get bored with no challenges on the courses (including half the obstacles being gone!), are bad "self motivators" and it's their own fault they're bored and not challenged?

 

ETA: Plus, what Laura said!

[Rave]

Well that explains why the courses are so easy.

[mickif]

I'm really having a hard time separating my thoughts but here goes in no particular order:

 

I started in NADAC. Our clubs needed to buy non-slatted contacts, ok, this was done. Then another piece of equipment was taken away, ok. Then hoops were introduced...new equipment, ok, and I do now use hoops for new students to start teaching handling. I ignore the EGC, so know nothing of it. Then the combined VT program comes to be...WHAT? Ok, my hackles went down slightly when a well respected international handler and instructor said, "well, if this is what folks need to do to get titles, then let 'em have it". Now, barrels... so new equipment to buy and train, takes away from time/money spent on more "universal" agility equipment.

 

I agree with this:

"That's just how NADAC is. Honestly, competitor uproar means nothing to Sharon and she will do what she wants. Hello, look at the hoopla over the VT program (the stupidest idea ever, to integrate VT points with those earned at traditional trials). There was uproar over that and she did it anyhow. That was what ultimately pushed me to start trialing elsewhere. It was too much for me.

 

The only reason I plan to continue with any NADAC whatsoever at this point is because Kaiser is two Chances runs from NATCH (where he will be the first Alaskan Klee Kai to do so) and Secret only needs seven Chances for hers. Once that's done I see no point in continuing. My oldest, Luke, is ready to start stepping back anyhow.

 

The reason I'm so vocal and bitter is because I've been a huge NADAC supporter since I started agility. I have defended it more times than I can count to people who left and people who've never even tried it. I can't defend it anymore, because it's no longer "agility" as the world knows it. The changes are becoming laughable. The Kool-aid drinkers are ANNOYING AS HELL. I'm so sick of the, "It should be about having fun with your dog. Awards and titles and Q's shouldn't matter at all," blah, blah, blah. Well guess what, some of us do like a little competition and are vilified in NADAC for saying so.

 

Sharon's latest about how she doesn't feel it's the "course's responsibility to challenge you" is the newest line of BS to annoy me. Uh.... I haven't been "challenged" by a NADAC course for the last two years. It's the whole reason I started doing bonus lines with Luke, because I was bored out of my mind by the repetitive nature of the courses presented every weekend. If I went to a trial where you were expected to run the same course twice in a row I'd just leave. If I want to practice skills I set up exercises at home and run them several different ways. I go to trials to test myself -- and I expect the courses to challenge and test me. I shouldn't HAVE to have 50' between myself and my dog to feel challenged. The courses at the Elite level should have SOME element of difficulty.... "

 

There is a reason that "most", for lack of better wording, serious agility competitors are no longer involved with NADAC, many who were there at the inception, many who were judges...

 

I agree, very little challenge in NADAC. As a friend in another part of the country said, "For the most part, folks here have sort of decided that NADAC is not a venue that does a very good job of challenging the skills of the teams in much of a meaningful way, but the courses are fun to run and in the end that is all that really matters."

 

So, run for fun and don't worry about spending time working on handling skills .

 

And last, but not least... starting 1/14 with NADAC, any dog 7 years or older has to run in Veteran's class. Now, I have no issues with running a dog in Veteran when it's time, but having someone dictate when that is just pisses me off.

[Rave]

My dog at 7 was still kicking @ss in very competitive 22" USDAA classes.

[brndlbc]

I'm sure this will land me in trouble some how

 

Sharon Nelson

"to me I could run a course over and over and every run would be different and

challenging!!"

 

 

From a web search:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

[PSmitty]

 

And last, but not least... starting 1/14 with NADAC, any dog 7 years or older has to run in Veteran's class. Now, I have no issues with running a dog in Veteran when it's time, but having someone dictate when that is just pisses me off.

 

Wow, that would piss me off, too. As Rave said, many, many dogs are competitive in regular classes at 7 and beyond. Heck, most teams don't really start to "gel" until the dog is 4-5, I'd guess. I'll decide when my dog is ready for Veterans.

 

I'd like to see somebody tell Kristi's Wick this little gem.

[MrSnappy]

I don't do NADAC, but my impression is that NADAC is to agility what AKC herding trials are to stockdog trials. A watered down version of the real thing designed to make people feel good about their lesser accomplishments because they can't perform at the level of their more skilled peers (or facsimiles thereof).

 

Honestly? When I want to "handle a course in a variety of different ways" I call that "going to agility class." When I pay money to trial, I want to be challenged and I want to win!!

 

(I usually don't, of course, but it's what I'm striving for. Win I mean - all my poor dogs are handler-challenged! ;-P )

 

RDM

[PSmitty]

Exactly, RDM.

[airbear]

I'd like to see somebody tell Kristi's Wick this little gem.

That is inSANE!!! 7 is not even middle-aged for most border collies! But maybe it's because they've all been sliding around in tunnels and now they're broken?

[mickif]

I don't do NADAC, but my impression is that NADAC is to agility what AKC herding trials are to stockdog trials. A watered down version of the real thing designed to make people feel good about their lesser accomplishments because they can't perform at the level of their more skilled peers (or facsimiles thereof)

 

RDM

 

Even sadder is if folks are only taught "skills" needed for NADAC without them even getting to see/learn/try/understand different handling skills/methods (no, I did not say

systems" , thus never getting to challenge themselves, or their dog, in that way.

[mickif]

I'm sure this will land me in trouble some how

 

Sharon Nelson

"to me I could run a course over and over and every run would be different and

challenging!!"

 

 

From a web search:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

 

Oh my, this is hilarious, thank you for putting it in some strange perspective! Yes, your name will most likely end up on some black list, somewhere . Though, I do set up courses and run them different ways (call me insane) but they are never NADAC courses.

[SecretBC]

That's because there are very rarely any opportunities to handle a sequence differently on NADAC courses. Ooooooh, you can do a front cross here or a rear cross there. Yippee skippy.

 

Although, that really WOULD be a challenge to many of the people I see at NADAC trials. I think there are some people who have honest to god never done a front cross in their life. When I throw in blind crosses I get all sorts of ooohs & ahhs.

[rufftie]

i used to play competitive pool. often after a match i would think "boy, i wish i had that shot over!" of course you never do. and i'm not sure i'd want to. i practice the skills, the shots i missed, shots that might happen and the basics. when i step in to compete i know no 2 games will ever be the same and only what happens on the table that day counts. no do-overs. you're right, that's called practice.

i loved watching people do the distance skills in nadac. i'm sorry that all that talent will be squandered in a venue that will soon only be used by the sharon faithful, who i often thought were sychophants. i have also had some of my emails to the nadac board squashed. shame.

[gcv-border]

Wow!

 

I am not an agility expert, but I did think that NADAC was a bit 'dumbed down'. --- no dogwalk, no tire, etc. Even so, I would go and play NADAC with my dog once a year (he is novice/open in ACK) for a change of pace and to get to play TUNNELERS. Yippee!

 

EGC seemed like an interesting change of pace. VT points really irked me. The barrels - well, I guess that is another wrinkle, but not a particularly challenging one, although to think that tunnels are not safe??? So are they going to remove the tunnelers class??

 

The new rule requiring dogs over 7 years old to move into Veterans is absolutely RIDICULOUS. That is the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

Jovi

[mum24dog]

And last, but not least... starting 1/14 with NADAC, any dog 7 years or older has to run in Veteran's class. Now, I have no issues with running a dog in Veteran when it's time, but having someone dictate when that is just pisses me off.

 

One of mine will be 12 in August and a couple of weeks ago got a 4th place in a class of 63 Grades 5-7 (7 being the top which she is) and at a Champ show where a lot of the best dogs were competing. She actually beat the dog that won the Champ class.

 

We ran her in Vets a few times last year as she'd gone a bit flat but she's picked up again over the winter.

 

Has this Sharon ever done real agility (at least to any competent level) or even owned a dog?

[alligande]

Yesterday i spent the day on trains and planes coming home from England but guessed that this topic would be here When I saw Sharon had posted on the NADAC list about this, my first thought was here we go again.... I am not as vested in NADAC as SecretBC but I started in that venue 4 years ago as there where lots of trials locally and the people were really nice, truthfully not having a tire/seesaw/table did not bother me, but the hoops started their appearance and have continued to grow in number in every class and that annoys me and now we have barrels. I compete in NADAC because there are lots of trials locally in a great facility, I would do USDAA if it was more accessible, but like Secret I am starting to switch over, I could do AKC locally at the same great facility but choose not to. I would like to be able to support my friends with my limited agility budget, but I will be attending their trials less and less.

 

It is too many changes to fast, this year the NADAC list has seen One controversy over another, having corresponded with Sharon I do not think she really cares about customer feed back, in my opinion she feels she is the expert and the innovator and we should all fall in line, it is her business and she can run it how she likes BUT there are a lot of clubs who have invested heavily in NADAC equipment and they are the ones who will end up struggling.

 

In defense of NADAC it is really not true that only those that can not do other venues do NADAC, I have watched people who have an ADCH and MACH struggle to get their NATCH, it is a different handling style due to the wide open nature of the courses, at the moment my partner and I struggle with them as we do not have distance skills, I have been spending my training time learning how to handle my fast dog for USDAA/AKC style courses as I love the physicality of that style of agility. Watching a great team run a NADAC type course is just as thrilling as any other venue.

[Rave]

Oh Sharon likes feedback, but only of the positive variety. Anything negative is usually stopped before it gets to the list.

[Root Beer]

In defense of NADAC it is really not true that only those that can not do other venues do NADAC,

 

I concur.

 

I know quite a few AKC folks, handlers with multiple MACHs, who also participate in NADAC, to varying degrees. And they don't go out there and have an easy time of it in every single run, either. They seem to enjoy NADAC, and some have even said (in my presence) that they find NADAC to be more enjoyable. That's not universal, of course.

 

Watching a great team run a NADAC type course is just as thrilling as any other venue.

 

I concur with that, as well. It is impressive to watch some of the excellent distance handling. I have never found myself watching someone run a perfect course while maintaining a significant distance from their dog and found myself thinking, "but . . . there was no teeter in the course" or "oh, but there were hoops in the course".

 

I actually think the barrel idea is cool, not as a replacement for the tunnel, but as a new Agility exercise.

 

That said, I can see why it is frustrating and upsetting to those who have been invested in NADAC to see changes that do change the overall nature of the venue. I would be pretty upset if CPE removed all of the jumps from Jumpers, or removed points from Fullhouse, or made a whole course made up of teeters or tables (give me a hoop or a barrel over a teeter any day, and I've always thought the table was just plain stupid). Especially if those changes were made suddenly, and there were a lot of changes within a short time period.

[mum24dog]

We have our own "Sharon" here, but not as extreme - yet.

 

You know the sort - she's the only one who cares about the welfare of the dogs and believes she is being plotted against by the establishment, and she has a contingency of acolytes who hang on her every word. Sees one mishap and extrapolates it into a major problem.

 

We generally find the best thing is to ignore her. Her very minor organisation clearly occupies a small niche in the sport and if people want to take part in what she has to offer where's the harm?

 

The only time she gets mainstream competitors riled is when she whips her followers into a frenzy of outrage because we don't want to change our agility according to her personal ideas.

 

I'm all in favour of free market forces in the sport, but only on a live and let live basis.

 

Interesting to discuss weird ideas though. I don't find barrels a particularly strange idea in themselves, but the rationale given doesn't bear close scrutiny and they aren't what I would call a challenge.

[mum24dog]

I know I watched an hour of video of an international competition

recently and was shocked that every single handler handled from the same

position, the same turns, the same everything............... and yes, the winners

were separated by 100ths of a second.... but there was no change from

handler to handler........... so it did come down to minute degrees of

difference from the dogs....... and the course designs didn't really offer many

options for "different".... the size and color of the dogs changed, but

nothing else really did............. other than some missed contacts and knocked

bars. I am not criticizing I am just saying that I was disappointed in the

absolute consistency of "norm".....

 

This from Sharon suggests to me that she really doesn't understand Agility or what she is seeing.

 

All courses offer "options for different" for a start.

[Rave]

This from Sharon suggests to me that she really doesn't understand Agility or what she is seeing.

 

I thought the exact same thing when I read that.