1 2 3 4 5 6 7
OTOH, a lot of people in this area of the country, including me, use all of the T words and do it without fallout. There are a lot of things you can do to help your dog differentiate

The problem with "T" words isn't the dogs' ability to differentiate; it's the handlers tripping over their tongues. I stopped using "tunnel" after a run in which I said "Tire! Table! Teeter!... oh, just get in that round thing there!"
I dropped "tire" for the same reason; my dogs know what it looks like, and they know what to do with it, so if I direct them at it they don't need any further cue.
voice timbre, tone, etc. And when
If the chute and tunnel are close, I want to be as clear as possible in directing the dog.

I have to ask: So, have you ever tried running Tunnelers?
Yes, it's not particularly difficult. At least, not compared to an Excellent level course.
Debbie
Yes, it's not particularly difficult. At least, not compared to an Excellent level course.

I guess I didn't make my point clear- I wasn't asking if you found it difficult. You said you used different obstacle commands to distinguish between a closed and an open tunnel near each other, and I was wondering if you'd tried distinguishing between obstacles on a course that consists of nothing BUT tunnels.
Tunnelers does tend to make one aware of the necessity of DIRECTIONALS.
Stopping and thinking about it, I really don't have all that many obstacle commands- "hup" for jumps (which, as noted, ... - "teeter" or "push" for the teeter (there, I think the dogs can use the extra verbal cue), and "chute".

I definitely want the teeter and dogwalk to sound different. I don't think the visual cues are that different between the two, especially since I've seen some teeters with very minimal or dark colored bases. I've also seen them lined up with bases a very short distance apart a definite discrimination. Cala tends to head toward whatever at a dead run and start the mount at that same dead run she also needs cues 2 jumps (or obstacles) in advance. So saying teeter versus walkit can save a very nasty flyoff for her. I also like chute versus tunnel. Debbie S. may be correct, this may be a product of AKC, where we generally see more traps than NADAC.
My jump command is "Jump," (I think over is one syllable too many) but I rarely say it. Instead, with Viva, almost everything is directionals. I also do say "big" with Viva because for a long time she had trouble with spreads. So my dogs have ended up with a pretty large vocabulary, but it doesn't seem to slow them down, in fact I think it speeds them up.
I definitely want the teeter and dogwalk to sound different. I don't think the visual cues are that different between the two, especially since I've seen some teeters with very minimal or dark colored bases.

And of course in NADAC, the visual can be even less since neither have slats. As mentioned in other threads, that's a large part of why I've gone to the more emphatic and distinct command "push!".
I also do say "big" with Viva because for a long time she had >troublewith spreads.

I forgot that one- when running USDAA, I used "Big" for doubles and triples. There was someone at the AAA trial this weekend using "BIG over" for regular bar jumps, and it sounded distinctly odd.
What I use, wrong or right:
As it happens, DH didn't like "tire" anyway and uses just "jump" for all jumps.

With Rocky, I started with "hoop" because of all the 'T' obstacles, but found that it wasn't important what came out of my mouth - body language counts. Now the tire is just another jump.
I like the "over" for the broad jump because it may warn the dog that it's longer - but I'm not sure he doesn't make that discrimination on his own anyway.

That's a good idea. I'm currently (re)training Friday to the spread and double jumps using "big".
DH also uses "tunnel" for both open and closed. I use "chute" because I can keep repeating it if he gets hung up to encourage him to keep coming through.

A different sound is good for the chute, especially if a change in direction is involved and you don't want to pull the dog off to the side to a possible entanglement. Because simplicity is my mantra, I use a "tunnel" command, but use my "go go go" if the path is straight.
I may try to make a change from "tire" to "hoop" but it has that "chute" sound. Maybe it will be a "hup". If I can re-train, Spenser can too.

How many times have you given the wrong names to obstacles yet Spencer has gone the right way? Stop worrying about names and commands - refine your body language.
And stop flapping your arms! (That was to myself.)

Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
I definitely want the teeter and dogwalk to sound different.

Why? How often do you see an obstacle discrimination challenge involving a teeter and dogwalk? You wrote that you have and, not to be overly argumentative, but I'd like to see such a course design.
As to safety, I've never seen a dog approach a teeter as if it was a dogwalk, but that may because of AAC constuction rules where the base of the teeter must be wider than the plank. I'm not sure if I really believe in that one.

Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
if I partially disagree on this (and yes, I know I'm replying to Diane, not Judy, at this point). I agree that gamblers needs more than body language, but find that directionals are the most important, not obstacle names- although obstacle names can help.

Many a Master's gamble will make you truly appreciate the additional assistance of obstacle names. Yes, it can be (and is) done without, but never so well as with.

Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com /
http://dog-play.com/shop2.html
Show more