AUTHOR=Ford Dianne P. , Cullen Kimberley L. , Stickney Kathryn , Sharman Murray , Cullen John D. 

TITLE=Dog agility tunnel risks for incidents

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Veterinary Science

VOLUME=Volume 12 - 2025

YEAR=2025

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2025.1547824

DOI=10.3389/fvets.2025.1547824

ISSN=2297-1769

ABSTRACT=BackgroundFlexible tunnels are the second most common obstacle on all dog agility courses, surpassed only by jumps. There has been a lot of debate and concern regarding risk factors associated with slips, falls and delayed exits (unseen slips, missteps, trips, falls). However, only one study was found which focused on the tunnel-related injuries, and it relied on handler reporting and did not consider base rates of the risk factors. As such, it is currently unknown which risk factors are statistically predictive of incidents. This study addresses this gap.MethodsObservational data from local, regional, national and international agility competitions (between June 30, 2023, to September 22, 2024) were collected from various agility organizations and countries by a team of researchers who are also judges and/or coaches within the sport. Tunnel, equipment, competition and course attributes, ground type and conditions along with tunnel incidents (slips, falls, and delayed exits) were recorded. Correlation, regression analyses, and chi-squared tests of independence were conducted to identify the relevant factors associated with incident rates.ResultsThe data included 563 tunnels (75.0% were incident free), with 30,418 tunnel performance observations (1.552% were incidents). The identified factors associated with incidents include tunnel characteristics (equipment specifications, shape on course), type and density of fixtures, course design (shape in design, angle of approach), ground and conditions. Their association with incident occurrence will be further detailed below.DiscussionSeveral previously assumed risk factors were relevant; however, some were not supported, and additional new factors were identified. Implications for future research and for organizations, judges, trial hosts, and competitors are discussed.