NZ AGILITY HEIGHTS REVIEW 2018 RESULTS OF SURVEY 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This report provides graphs and commentary on the responses and general feedback received as part of Survey 1. A

summary of common themes is as follows:

There was a low level of support for the Status Quo, and widespread support for change.

Respondents generally favoured dogs jumping lower where possible, and in particular there was a very high

level of support for the maxi jump height to be reduced from the current 650mm.

Most respondents indicated that they did not favour dogs of any height jumping significantly higher than

they do now.

There was substantial discomfort in seeing any dog jump 120mm higher, particularly when they have

competed for many years at a lower height.

Small dog handlers were concerned about scenarios requiring their dogs to jump any higher, particularly

where medium and maxi dogs were jumping lower.

Many respondents felt that the issue of large minis/small mediums was not adequately addressed in most

scenarios presented.

Seven rails was generally not considered favourable.

Many respondents felt that fairness could be better improved through splits, and didn’t want to see any one

class with a substantially higher proportion of dogs than the others.

BACKGROUND:

Over the past few months the Heights Review Subcommittee (HRSC) has been analysing a range of data relating to

jumping safety and considering various options to create a new, fairer, safer range of jump heights for Dog Agility in

New Zealand. In April a comprehensive report was released detailing the preliminary findings of the HRSC and

presenting a range of possible scenarios for the agility community to consider. In May 2018 a survey (Survey 1) was

conducted across the agility community to assess favourability for these scenarios alongside a range of international

options.

The purpose of this report is to summarise the results of Survey 1. Appendix 1 contains tables summarising all

scenarios for the reader to reference if required.

PARTICIPATION:

Survey 1 was completed by 402 participants. This included members of the agility community from Zone 1 (103),

Zone 2 (77), Zone 3 (93), Zone 4 (78) and Zone 5 (51).

The graphs included in this section summarise the demographics of survey respondents. These confirm that there

was a relatively even spread of handlers who participated in the survey based on location (Figure 1) and heights of

dogs handled (Figure 2). Almost half of the handlers who completed the survey have been in the sport for more

than 10 years, with the majority of the remainder having been involved for 2-10 years. It was encouraging to see

that 40 people who had been in the sport for less than 2 years participated in the survey (Figure 3).

Figure 1. Percentage of survey respondents by Zone

Figure 2. Percentage of survey respondents by height of dog handled

Figure 3. Percentage of survey respondents by years of experience in agility

Many participants provided constructive and detailed feedback on scenarios and preferences. In total 245 pages

(A4) of comments were reviewed by the HRSC.

Based on the large number of survey participants and a good spread across the various demographics, the HRSC are

satisfied that the results of the survey provide a fair cross section of the agility community, and as such we have

confidence in using the Survey 1 results to inform the next phase of the review.

RESULTS

STATUS QUO

There was low favourability amongst survey respondents for retaining the current heights system (Figure 4.). Less

than 4% find it very favourable and a just a further 9% believe it is somewhat favourable. No survey participant from

the South Island ranked the Status Quo as “very favourable”. Overall two-thirds of respondents indicated that the

status quo is somewhat or very unfavourable. The HRSC believe that this result provides a strong mandate for

change to our heights system.

Common themes that came through in individual comments were:

There is a lack of fairness within and between height groups due to the variance in shoulder heights that our

dogs currently jump

The height range of dogs in the current medium group is too wide

Large minis are overly advantaged due to the low dog/jump height ratio that they jump

Jump heights are otherwise generally too high and considered unsafe for many dogs

In particular the maxi height at 650mm is not supported

Small micro dogs appear to struggle at 300mm

The increase in jump height from mini to medium (a 190mm increase) is unacceptable and small mediums

are jumping too high

Figure 4. Favourability ranking for Status Quo across all heights combined.

FINLAND

There was mixed favourability amongst survey respondents for the Finland heights (Figure 5). It was generally more

favourable than the Status Quo, with a third of respondents finding it somewhat or very favourable. Marginally

more small than medium and large dog handlers found it favourable. Common themes that came through in

individual comments were:

Too many dogs are required to jump higher than they currently do

The maxi group is too big with nearly half of the dogs currently competing falling into that category. There

were concerns that this would reduce the opportunity to split classes.

Some maxis would be jumping too high.

There was too much variance in the percent jump/dog height range between classes.

Some people noted that it was acceptable for minis and micros to jump a smaller percentage of their

shoulder height due to many of these breeds being longer in the back, shorter in the legs and/or deep

chested.

The HRSC noted the feedback provided on the Finland system and considered this when developing final scenarios.

However it was agreed that there was insufficient support from the agility community to progress with this specific

option any further.

Figure 5. Favourability ranking for Finland across all heights combined.

USDAA (USA)

USDAA had the lowest favourability of the international options provided, with just under a quarter of respondents

finding it somewhat or very favourable (Figure 6). Maxi and medium dog handlers found it slightly more favourable

than small dog handlers. There were no obvious regional differences in favourability. Common themes that came

through in individual comments were:

Too many small dogs would be required to jump higher

The 55mm jump height increase for micros was very unpopular

It does not address the issue of large minis

Many considered that this system would be unfair when unsplit and be even more unfair than the Status

Quo in favouring medium height dogs

There was mixed feedback on splitting the medium class into two with some saying it was less fair, and

others saying it improved fairness.

There was mixed feedback on having six height categories. Some are opposed to more than 5 heights,

others are happy to have 6 heights if it means fairness and safety are improved.

The HRSC noted the feedback provided on the USDAA system and considered this when developing final scenarios.

However it was agreed that there was insufficient support from the agility community to progress with this specific

option any further.

Figure 6. Favourability ranking for USDAA across all heights combined.

ANKC (AUSTRALIA)

ANKC had the highest favourability of the international options provided with 46% of respondents finding it

somewhat or very favourable (Figure 7). Medium dog handlers, and handlers of multiple dogs of mixed heights

found the ANKC system less favourable than other heights. The Zone that found it most favourable was Zone 4 and

least favourable was Zone 3. Common themes that came through in individual comments were:

The 400 height category (dogs of 355 – 455mm jumping 400mm) was generally not popular due it bringing

too many border collies into the small height category, and requiring too many current minis to jump higher.

However some noted that it addressed the large mini/small medium issue that we currently have.

With almost half the dogs in NZ falling into the medium category, and with such a small maxi class, splits

would be unlikely to occur under the NZ system.

Some people liked that this created a “true maxi” category for large maxis.

Many people were in favour of the large majority of dogs jumping lower than they do now, although some

noted that some dogs in ANKC may be jumping too low.

There was favourability for no dog jumping more than 1.11 times its shoulder height.

Some people liked that the jump heights were evenly spread and easy to remember.

Some respondents commented that this system would be good for future Tran-Tasman competition.

Some respondents are opposed to 6 bars.

The HRSC noted that there was a reasonably high level of favourability for the ANKC system. We agreed that the

distribution of dogs in NZ would mean that splits would be unlikely to occur at most shows, and that when unsplit

the medium height class would have an even greater advantage than they do now. For this reason we did not

pursue the ANKC system in its current form, but attempted to bring some of the aspects that people liked about it

into the final options provided.

Figure 7. Favourability ranking for ANKC across all heights combined.

SCENARIO 1

Scenario 1 received mixed feedback from the agility community (Figure 8). It was more favoured by small dog

handlers, with just over half finding it somewhat or very favourable. It was in fact the most popular of all scenarios

with this group (see Section Most and Least Preferred). Conversely just over a quarter of medium and maxi handlers

expressed favourability for Scenario 1. In terms of preferences by Zone – it had the highest favourability in Zone 1

and the lowest in Zone 5. Common themes that came through in individual comments were:

Amongst respondents who found this Scenario unfavourable there was a very strong dislike for large mini

dogs jumping 120mm higher than they do now – especially those dogs that had competed for many years at

this height. This was the most common comment received for this scenario.

People also expressed a dislike for asking any current medium dogs to jump 30mm higher.

There was a mixed reaction to shifting the maxi height cut off from 520 to 510. Some didn’t want more

border collies in the maxi group whereas others thought this was a more appropriate cut off and addressed

the disparity in the medium group.

Small dog handlers generally liked the large minis moving into medium, although some thought it didn’t go

far enough in doing this.

Some people thought that there was still too large a gap between the mini and medium heights (120 mm).

Respondents liked that this option was limited to 5 bars.

The HRSC noted that this was the most preferred scenario amongst small dog handlers but that changes would need

to be made if it was to be more favourable to medium and maxi dog handlers. This particularly related to trying to

minimise any increase in jump heights. We also looked at what small dog handlers liked about Scenario 1 and tried

to incorporate that into our other revised scenarios. Therefore Scenario 1 is rejected in its current form, but a

modified version will be presented for consideration by the agility community in Survey 2.

Figure 8. Favourability ranking for Scenario 1 across all heights combined.

SCENARIO 2

Scenario 2 generally received the most positive feedback from the agility community with 55% of handlers finding it

somewhat or very favourable (Figure 9). It was particularly favoured by medium and maxi dog handlers who had

60% favourability compared with 39% for the small dog handlers. Overall this was the most preferred scenario for

mediums and maxis (see Section Most and Least Preferred). In terms of preferences by Zone – it had the highest

favourability in Zone 4 (60%). Common themes that came through in individual comments were:

Amongst respondents who found this Scenario favourable the most common feedback was that they

thought this was the fairest across all heights.

People also liked that it was the most similar to the status quo and there was an even split of dogs across

smalls, mediums and maxis.

There was favourability amongst medium and maxi dog handlers for the lowered jump heights – although

some noted they were a bit low, while others commented they were still too high.

For those that found this scenario somewhat unfavourable they commonly commented that it didn’t address

the disparity in the medium group, and that it was unfair for dogs of 431mm to be competing against dogs

up to 520mm. A number of people expressed concern that “super mediums” would be created.

Many handlers, particularly those who run small dogs, did not like the increase in jump heights for so many

minis and micros. This was seen as unfair when mediums and maxis would be jumping lower, and a further

disadvantage to this group when classes weren’t split.

It was also noted that this scenario did not really address concerns about the large minis.

The HRSC noted that this was the most preferred scenario amongst medium and maxi dog handlers but that

some changes would need to be made if it was to be more favourable to handlers of all heights. This particularly

related to trying to avoid small dogs jumping higher and to address the disparity in the medium group.

Therefore Scenario 2 is rejected in its current form, but modified versions will be presented for consideration by

the agility community in Survey 2.

Figure 9. Favourability ranking for Scenario 2 across all heights combined.

SCENARIO 3

This scenario received mixed feedback from survey respondents with slightly more finding it unfavourable (42%)

than favourable (39%; Figure 10). It was less favourable in Zones 1 and 2, than in Zones 3, 4 and 5. Notably Zone 2

respondents had only 27% favourability for Scenario 3. There was no obvious difference in preference across

heights of dogs handled. Common themes that came through in individual comments were:

The ranges for dog/jump height percentages were quite even across all groups which was seen as positive

Many respondents felt that 6 bars was too many

Although some commented that they liked that not many dogs would be required to jump higher, others

noted that those that would have to were minis, and therefore would be at a greater disadvantage than they

are now in unsplit classes.

4 splits within the small dog category was generally seen as excessive

This scenario doesn’t address the disparity in the medium group with dogs 431mm jumping the same height

as 520mm dogs.

The HRSC noted that there was some favourability for Scenario 3 but that people had many of the same concerns

about this option as they did with Scenario 2. The subcommittee agreed to use this feedback to help shape the

modified versions of Scenario 2 – providing both a 5-bar and 6-bar option in Survey 2, using the combined feedback.

Figure 10. Favourability ranking for Scenario 3 across all heights combined.

SCENARIO 4

This scenario was generally not viewed positively with only 23% finding it somewhat or very favourable. Of note

more than a third of respondents indicated they found this option very unfavourable (Figure 11). It was particularly

disliked by small dog handlers with 43% finding it very unfavourable and a further 23% finding it somewhat

unfavourable. It was more favourable in Zones 1, 3 and 5, than in Zones 2 and 4. Half of the Zone 2 respondents

found this option very unfavourable. Common themes that came through in individual comments were:

The majority of respondents that provided comments felt that 7 bars was excessive and unnecessary

Some people felt that the split of the medium group was unfair, while others liked it.

A number of people expressed concern about the small mediums being overly advantaged.

Some respondents commented that the small micro group was unnecessary for such a small number of

dogs.

The HRSC noted that Scenario 4 was not well liked and that there was a high level of opposition for 7 bars. It was

agreed that there was insufficient support from the agility community to progress with this specific option any

further.

Figure 11. Favourability ranking for Scenario 4 across all heights combined.

SCENARIO 5

As with Scenario 4, this scenario was generally not viewed positively with around one third of survey respondents

finding it very unfavourable (Figure 12). No particular demographic had high favourability for Scenario 5, but it was

particularly unpopular in Zone 2. Common themes that came through in individual comments were:

If we had to have 7 heights then this option was preferable to Scenario 4.

Overall however, it was felt that 7 bars was excessive and unnecessary

Some people felt that the split of the medium group was unfair, while others liked it. Several noted that this

was the only scenario presented that didn’t create a group of “super-mediums”.

There were positive comments about the fairness being appealing but that this was at the expense of having

too many bars.

The HRSC noted that Scenario 5 was not well liked and that there was a high level of opposition for 7 bars. It was

agreed that there was insufficient support from the agility community to progress with this specific option any

further.

Figure 12. Favourability ranking for Scenario 5 across all heights combined.

MOST AND LEAST PREFERRED SCENARIOS

There were noticeable differences in the preferences of scenarios between handlers of small dogs and handlers of

medium and maxi dogs. The HRSC felt it was important to consider this when reviewing survey results and preparing

the next phase of the review. The sections below examine the survey results by height handled.

SMALL DOG HANDLERS

The scenario most preferred by small dog handlers was Scenario 1 (Figure 13). Approximately twice as many

preferred this option than any other individual option. Following this there were a similar number of handlers who

chose ANKC, Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 as their favourite. Scenario 5 was the most commonly chosen as the least

preferred by these handlers. This was even more disliked than the Status Quo, which came in second (Figure 14).

Figure 13. Most preferred option for small dog handlers

Figure 14. Least preferred option for small dog handlers

MEDIUM DOG HANDLERS

The scenario most preferred by medium dog handlers was Scenario 2 (Figure 15). This was well ahead of the second

favourites which were ANKC and Scenario 3. Status Quo was the most commonly chosen as the least preferred by

these handlers. This followed by Scenario 5 (Figure 16).

Figure 15. Most preferred option for medium dog handlers

Figure 16. Least preferred option for medium dog handlers

MAXI DOG HANDLERS

The scenario most preferred by maxi dog handlers was Scenario 2 (Figure 17). As per the mediums this was well

ahead of the second favourite which was ANKC. Status Quo and Scenario 5 strongly stood out as the least preferred

options for maxi dogs (Figure 18).

Figure 17. Most preferred option for maxi dog handlers

Figure 18. Least preferred option for maxi dog handlers

NEXT STEPS

The HRSC is extremely grateful to all 402 people who took the time to complete Survey 1 and who gave such

thoughtful and constructive feedback. The subcommittee has used the responses on favourability, preferences and

comments to help shape a short list of 3 revised scenarios. These will soon be presented to the agility community in

a report before being subject to a second survey. Survey 2 will inform the final recommendation for changes to the

NZ heights system. The Agility Committee will have the final approval of any change to regulations.

APPENDIX 1 – SCENARIOS INCLUDED IN SURVEY 1