Are the chute tunnel and tyre jump dangerous?

My point is that *every* piece of agility is dangerous on some level. Including the running going on between obstacles. Should we all just quit doing agility because something might happen? It's an inherent risk we take by doing agility. Heck, it's an inherent risk we take letting them run around the yard...
You know, the table shows no agility, yet we're stuck with it :P Pointless here in the US. The argument used to be that it showed control/training by having to sit and down. Now, it's positionless, and just wastes five seconds by stopping the action. Oh yeah, and it's not any better than any of the other pieces of equipment for my dogs. Not exactly good on my 12" dogs who are taller than their table height, and when hitting it at a full run, have to slam the breaks hard not to slide off the side...
 
I guess I see things a little differently than most of the posters here. On the one hand, I agree with those that point out that there are inherent safety issues in any sport (and in every day living). I also agree with those that say that you can't make anything totally safe. To use an analogy, I am a huge football fan (American football), but it is unlikely that I would encourage a son of mine to pursue such a career choice because of the inherent dangers involved. But in football (as in agility and other dog related sports), the conservators of the sport must make choices, and those choices will likely sadden some and elate others. But they shouldn't shy away from tough choices simply because some choices are unpopular. I don't even have an opinion as to whether or not the changes mentioned in this thread are good or bad - only that those in charge have a duty to all involved to act responsibly.
 
JLSOhio51 said:
But in football (as in agility and other dog related sports), the conservators of the sport must make choices, and those choices will likely sadden some and elate others. But they shouldn't shy away from tough choices simply because some choices are unpopular.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.

We went through all this with the review and equipment changes here. People even got down right rude about the changes and woe be anyone who supported the changes on the agility forums. I found it sad because the people making the decisions weren't doing it lightly. They were the judges and officials who are out there every weekend watching run after run, they were the best people to make those judgments and they put an awful lot of work and thought into making the right choices for us all. They still went ahead and it hasn't hurt the sport at all.

You should see if the BAA is putting out a discussion paper or is holding any meetings on it.
 
I don't agree that it's a sport so too bad if it's not safe. It's an activity that people do with their dogs - the majority do it for fun, not to see their dog injured. How is having an unsafe piece of equipment showing a dog's agility, it isn't. Let the people who are willing to risk their dogs create a seperate sport. And I will point out that in human sports the rules and equipment are always being reviewed and changed for safety reasons. And if you don't think it's unsafe - just read all the discussions on dog injuries in Clean Run.
Click to expand...

I agree. While it is a sport, and sports are inherently dangerous, we should be doing everything we can to minimize risk. Part of this falls on the owners/handlers - we have to make sure we train and condition our dogs appropriately, warm them up and cool them down, and know their limitations. We need to look out for our dogs' best interests (ie. for me, not entering my dog in the USDAA 22" height when he's 16.5" tall). We also need to take more responsibility for our training - making sure we cue them appropriately and safely on sharp turns, set them up at correct angles for tunnel and weave pole entries, etc.

On the other hand, organizations need to look at their goals and decide how they can maintain the integrity of the sport while ensuring their decisions are in the best interests of the dogs.

Does it really make a difference in terms of agility goals if the tire is break away or not? No. Will it improve safety? Yes. So the break away tire should be an obvious improvement.

Does removing the slats and rubberizing the A-frame and dogwalk improve dog safety - absolutely. And neither compromise the goals, so that should be a given.

A dog is safer going through a six foot chute than a 10 foot chute, and it doesn't compromise the goals, so that should be an reasonable fix.

I'm glad organizations finally got smart about weave poles - 24" spacing is safer for the large dogs, and the small dogs can adapt.

One thing I wish USDAA would address is the jump heights.

So there's definitely room for improvement when it comes to safety in agility. I think we need to realize that dogs don't care about the Qs - they care about how much fun they have on course. As their owners handlers, it's our responsibility to ensure they have long, healthy careers, and if making a few changes to the agility equipment/course layouts does that, I'm all for it.
15 years ago it was unthinkable to have children wear bikes while biking...now in Canada, everyone wears helmets while biking, skateboarding, skiing, snowboarding, etc. There's nothing wrong with risk management.
 
Great thread and lots of great opinions.

Here in the US, we have a lot of different venues. Some think certain obstacles are dangerous and therefore, don't have them. Others do. The breakaway tire and rubberized contacts are the newest things. Oh, as is weaves spread apart a bit further. As always, there will be die hards who want things to stay the same and others who want everything to change.

For myself, when I see dogs get tangled up in the chute, it's usually because of the angle the dog is coming out at or it's windy and the chute gets tossed a bit. I have seen dogs get hurt is on the barrel part. I would think keeping a straighter exit would help with tangles. Ditto with the tire. It's usually an early jumper (straight on) or a handler that is trying to slice the tire. So, I always wonder, if courses were designed with a bit more safety in mind, would that help? Or not? I'm just grateful to not have seen any major accidents.

I'm with the people who say, with any sport, there's always a chance of getting injured. But IMHO, it's you that has to decide where you draw the line for your safety and the dog's. For example, I don't trial in the rain. Koji doesn't have a strong rear-end awareness and has slipped off equipment if it's wet. I'm a total klutz. Forget me running in the rain, I'll probably slip and hurt myself. Oh wait. I have slipped on wet grass. :o

And an example of an accident that no one could have prevented. It was a nice sunny day. Koji and I were running well. Not sure why, but Koji looked at me as he tried to take a jump. He took the jump down. He hit the side of the jump and the pole, the whole jump fell over. Here's an 18" tall dog, jumping over a single 16" jump and basically hitting the side of the jump. He was fine, but obviously I was shocked that he hit the jump like that.

We won't even discuss me falling, almost taking out wings on the jumps, or almost smacking into the tire. LOL. If anything, I'm more likely to get hurt than Koji. He's definitely more agile than me.

BTW, not sure if this is all venues or which one, but aren't we now switching over to plastic cupped jumps? Too many dogs getting hurt on the metal cups due to tight turns/jumps.

I think it's all a matter of being safe, w/o going overboard and completely changing the sport.
 
Thanks for all the comments. My main thought when posting was to really understand how the chute and tyre were dangerous compared to other equipment, so why these specific items were banned. I could understand the old solid tyres being a danger, but I wasn't sure how the chute was.

I am very interested in safety in agility and it is important to me that the risk of injury to Merlin is as small as possible, while understanding that it cannot be eliminated altogether.

The reason I run with BAA is because they are very concerned with dog welfare and have sensible jump heights and course lay outs. The British Kennel Club is very behind in all safety regards and a lot of people are leaving it because of this. I will not run Merlin at KC because of the simply ridiculous jump heights, at his 16-17in he would have to jump between 21in and 24in depending on the competition!

As I am still new to agility I am always curious about discussions on the subject as I want to understand the 'whys' behind decisions. I also want to ensure I make the right decisions for Merlin's well being. Though this is a sport, I know most of us do it purely for fun and to enjoy time with our dogs, and I want to do this with Merlin for many many years to come. Thank you all for your responses.:smile2:
 
I thought this was a very interesting discussion as I hadn't given any thought to how the chute could be dangerous (providing the end was pegged) - can't belive the dog in the clip had to be put down as it didn't appear to be that seriously injured? (To the earlier poster - the comments on the video suggest it was this particular dog that was pts following the incident.)

I had always thought the contact obstacles - particuarly the DW - would be the main problem, can't understand why that has to be quite so high?

As I haven't started competing with Epic yet these are all things to bear in mind BUT I do wonder if more dogs develop/sustain injuries through obsessive tugging as when actually competing? My (Yogi's) chiropracter has said this is often a contributary factor in chronic spinal problems. BUt just about everything carries an element of risk and it's impossible to eliminate it entirely. It's a lot like the recent discussions surrounding the Grand National horse race. The only way to make something completely safe is to stop doing it but where does the line get drawn? Plenty of dogs I know have sustained cruciate injuries while running around in normal play. I know of two dogs that have died in accidents while on their daily walks. :no:

I like the idea of the break away tyre and rubber contacts to make things safer but not sure about the idea of removing obstacles completely if they are generally low risk.
 
seashel said:
can't belive the dog in the clip had to be put down as it didn't appear to be that seriously injured? (To the earlier poster - the comments on the video suggest it was this particular dog that was pts following the incident.)
Click to expand...


Perhaps I am looking at the wrong clip. I have replayed the clip at the beginning of this thread several times and I did not hear anyone from the gallery mention putting the dog down and there is no voice over on the clip as I played it. I would question how anyone in the 45 seconds shown have determined that the injuries were severe enough that the decision could be made so quickly. The only reason that this point is important to me is that we should always attempt to stick with facts we can substantiate when we discuss issues that so many people have strong feelings about.

seashel said:
BUt just about everything carries an element of risk and it's impossible to eliminate it entirely... The only way to make something completely safe is to stop doing it but where does the line get drawn?
Click to expand...

I think that the line is drawn by the individual(s) who puts his/her dog in the competition. I would agree that some of the changes discussed might be a bit premature to institute, but I don't fault organizers for considering the changes. In this day of increased litigation (and particularly terms such as "foreseeable consequences"), I fully understand wanting to make changes. You are correct, it is difficult to know where the line should be drawn, but that is the way of all things. Should we allow our children to walk to school alone, and/or at what age? Should they be allowed to play sports? These are the same folks who should draw the line for their dogs.
 
It is interesting that they pull these two particular obstacles when really the biggest injuries are sustained on/because of the aframe and dogwalk, according to the study I read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top