Verbal cues have almost become a must in modern agility, but how do you decide what cues you need? As judges find new ways to challenge agility handlers, I sometimes find the need to add another concept to my list of useful cues. You don't have to decide on every cue right from the start – you'll find that you don't need some that you thought you had to have, and that you might want to add something that's missing later on. Before I add a new cue, I have three questions that I consider:
Do I need this cue?
Does it solve a problem that I encounter that I can't fix by using the cues and concepts we already know? For me, some cues are widely used by other handlers and trainers, but I don't see the need for them, and therefore I have chosen not to train them – for now. I'm always open to the possibility that there might come a time when I need to add more cues. As course design evolves, my toolbox needs to evolve with it. Because agility is evolving, there are also cues I used to teach that I no longer spend time on. Ten years ago, I taught my dogs a verbal cue to take the non-obvious tunnel entry. Because judges now are much more aware of setting good lines to tunnels, I haven't seen the classic tunnel threadle situation in competition for ages. If the situation were to arise, I would have to handle it with my other handling cues and verbal cues, and I think we would be fine. The cues you need can vary greatly depending on the venue and the level of agility you're enjoying. You can't just copy someone else's toolbox when the tools you need might be very different.
Your style of handling might also strongly influence your choice of verbal cues. Many of my cues are based on the dog following my physical handling. If I had to get around courses without running, or even without moving at all, I would probably have to add some more cues and change many of the ones I am currently using that are based on the dog following the line I set with handling.
Can I define the criteria?
Some cues would be very helpful in theory, but I struggle to define the criteria. If I can't visualize clear criteria that would work in all the situations where I would use the cue, I usually leave it and spend more time thinking about other solutions or possible criteria that work for me. When I was first introduced to the concept of having two different backside cues – one for wraps and one for slices, I immediately started thinking: What about all the options in the grey zone? At what landing point from the backside do I switch from the wrap cue to the slice cue? And will that be a clear criterion for the dog? I was also a bit stuck on the first question: do I even need two different backside cues? My dogs usually landed in the correct spot based on my handling, and if I needed to help them out, I could always use my directional tight turn cues as they committed to the backside.
I decided to wait and a year later, after discussing with others who made the change, I decided to have one general backside cue where the criteria are "get to the backside of the jump, take the jump, and follow my handling to adjust landing spot", and one backside cue that would always be a perfect slice, landing close to the second wing of the jump. I reasoned that backside slices were the hardest jumps for my dogs, and that a different verbal cue might help with the jumping effort. I know that some of my friends have made the opposite decision – adding a new cue for the tight wraps and using a general backside cue for all other options. This comes back to the first question – what cues do I need with this dog for the courses we want to run?
It's been a few years with my two backside cues, and I don't feel that it changed much at all. If I had to make the decision again, I would probably have stuck with just one backside cue. For others, using two different cues has been very helpful.
Do I have a good plan for teaching it?
It's not enough to feel the need for a new cue and be able to visualize the criteria. I also need to have a good plan for teaching it. Sometimes, the process seems straightforward; other times I can't figure out how to make a good training plan. If I can't think of a good way to teach the behavior, I will wait until I figure it out. If I can't think of a way to teach it, it often comes back to ambiguous criteria – what do I really mean by a soft turn? But it could also be that some concepts are hard for dogs to grasp, and the time spent trying to teach a dog to read the numbers on course or understand multiple soft turn cues for all the different jumping angles they encounter might not be worth it in the end. I really do believe that some concepts are harder to teach than others, but I'm also open to the possibility that I just haven't figured out a way to teach it yet, and that I will be laughing at my incompetence ten years from now.
Keep it simple, but don't be afraid to add when needed
For me, the key is to keep it as simple as possible and as complex as needed. I love adding new verbal cues when I see a clear need, can easily define the criteria, and have a good training plan. I have some verbal cues that make total sense for me and my dogs, but are not commonly used by most handlers. I've also decided not to teach some very popular verbal cues, like directional backside cues and soft turn jump cues, mostly because I don't feel the need to add them to my toolbox when what we currently have works really well.
This week in The Agility Connection membership blog, I give you a complete list of my verbal cues for jumps (and sometimes tunnels/weaves/contacts). I describe why I need them and what the criteria are. I will also link to the lessons showing how to train them.
