Teeter

[AgilityJeff]

I was happy to see the Teeter go away for many reasons and it seemed like a really good thing for our dogs.  If the teeter could return as a safer, more comfortable piece of equipment for the dogs and could be included in some optional way at first, I certainly would be open to that.

For those who can "my dog has never seen one", OK.  That's what we have been hearing about hoops and barrels for almost a decade.  Somehow most those dogs who never saw hoops and barrels are now doing them.  And best of all, those dogs who have never seen a teeter before have no bad history with the piece of equipment ... so you have the advantage of showing it to them fresh & new, train it right and make it a fun / safe experience for them!

But again, my thumbs up is based on two factors.  It must be in some way optional at first, and it has to be safer / more comfortable for the dogs than traditional teeters were.

[Sheila & the Shelties]

The small dogs weren’t the reason why the teeter went away.  It wasn’t a safety issue for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What was the issue then with the Teeter in small dogs? Or why is there no issue? It seems to me they were more jump offs or fly offs by the smaller dogs because their weight did not tilt the cheater smoothly. Or when it hit the ground, it would bounce a little dog right off it.

[Laura Anne Welch]

Chris, what was the exact reason that the teeter was taken out of NADAC?  I heard that it was because there was no way to ensure a consistent rate of drop and that the concussion on the dog's front end was an issue,, but never heard it confirmed.  Maybe Sharon posted why and I missed the post.  Also, as long as I have the forum to question, I never understood why the tire was eliminated after the break away teeter had been devised to avoid dogs getting hung up on the tire?

[Chris Nelson]

The issue was mainly the concussion.

In order to allow the teeter to even be able to drop for the small dogs it meant it had very little counter weight for the large dogs.   And since people train their dogs to run to the tip of the teeter and slam it down, it causes a LOT of strain on the dogs joints.

You could counter weight it, but then it becomes an issue of having it being accurate across multiple trials.    I'm sure Sharon can chime in if I missed some other key points as well, since I will be honest in that I don't remember that period too well

I can testify that even a breakaway tire, while a great improvement, is still a pretty bad obstacle.    Speaking from experience of having my own dog nearly choked when she got hung up in one.      The circle breaking away is great, but that doesn't stop a dog from getting hung up in the chains supporting that circle.    Even as recently as last year I had seen a video of a dog getting caught up in the chains and causing a not so great injury.
Is it worth the risk having that obstacle, for what purpose?    If we want to test jumping we can do that on a jump.

[Lorrie Stelz]

So glad the tire is not coming back.  Not a fan of the tire. Seen too many issues with it.

[Sara Langston]

Instead of the teeter, what about something like the old swinging bridge to test how dogs react to movement under their feet.  I, personally, never competed while the swinging bridge was used, however, I have heard people talk about it.  Thoughts anyone??? 

Sara

[Laura Anne Welch]

First, thanks for the explanations about the teeter and the tire.  The swinging bridge is used in UKC.  It is a bridge like those you see on kids' playgrounds, slatted, but slatted closely together, and suspended from  a strong support frame. It jiggles and moves, but doesn't really swing.  There is a swinging plank in UKC that does move much more.  I don't know of any other venue that uses the swinging plank.  Maybe they did in the past, but not since I have done agility, and that since 2003.

[HarryMelamed]

Although, I'm headed for retirement, Stanley is and has always been open to finding a new more capable handler.   If so, he in no uncertain terms, thinks that a Teeter is extremely dangerous and super duper scary!!!  And he would be most sad it one ever came to NADAC.  Even in retirement.

[pgmsl]

The thing I dislike about the teeter (besides the concussion, which I agree with) is that the 12' plank + 24" fulcrum make it look very similar to a dogwalk (esp. a slatless dogwalk) from the dog's perspective.  I have witnessed several dogs (mostly smaller ones) stop in the upper part of the dogwalk ramp, waiting to see if it moves.  I have also had a dog make the more unfortunate mistake of thinking the teeter was a dogwalk and running full speed right off the end of it.  Luckily he was not badly injured, but his confidence was so shaken that he would not go near either obstacle for months.  It took 2 years of remedial training to get it back, and still each straight-on approach he would run past the ramp far enough to be sure which obstacle it was, then circle back and take it.  The teeter is an interesting obstacle from the motion control perspective, but I fail to understand why the venues that still have it insist on keeping the high fulcrum for the teeter, when so many other obstacles have been modified for safety (A-frame height, jump heights, weave pole spacing, tire, chute length, etc).  It would be a much safer obstacle, and still provide the motion-control challenge, with the fulcrum set at 12" (or lower) instead of 24".

[Chris Nelson]

The thing I dislike about the teeter (besides the concussion, which I agree with) is that the 12' plank + 24" fulcrum make it look very similar to a dogwalk (esp. a slatless dogwalk) from the dog's perspective.  I have witnessed several dogs (mostly smaller ones) stop in the upper part of the dogwalk ramp, waiting to see if it moves.  I have also had a dog make the more unfortunate mistake of thinking the teeter was a dogwalk and running full speed right off the end of it.  Luckily he was not badly injured, but his confidence was so shaken that he would not go near either obstacle for months.  It took 2 years of remedial training to get it back, and still each straight-on approach he would run past the ramp far enough to be sure which obstacle it was, then circle back and take it.  The teeter is an interesting obstacle from the motion control perspective, but I fail to understand why the venues that still have it insist on keeping the high fulcrum for the teeter, when so many other obstacles have been modified for safety (A-frame height, jump heights, weave pole spacing, tire, chute length, etc).  It would be a much safer obstacle, and still provide the motion-control challenge, with the fulcrum set at 12" (or lower) instead of 24".

I completely agree.

We did play around awhile back with a lowered teeter, and I really liked it.   Even the dogs who did the worst case scenario performance,  which is running to the end of the ramp and riding it down,  had very little concussion.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Linda W. Anderson]

Do you mean this?
Linda

[Suzy Winkle]

Personally, I think it is awesome that NADAC is revisiting and doing some testing with the teeter - regardless of the outcome. To me it shows that NADAC is committed to being relevant in the agility world and not afraid to revisit past decisions.

I also think it's great people express their opinion on the topic!

While not advocating for a return of the teeter, per se, I would also welcome the teeter if it were to return. Since I know NADAC is concerned about safety, I would expect it would be a version of the teeter I would be comfortable asking my dogs to perform in the "special class" that might include the teeter. I would also strongly welcome an opportunity to train in the ring with the teeter. To me, this idea sounds like a win!

Thank you Chris and company for continuing to think about possibilities and make decisions thoughtfully!

[Billie Rosen]

I think making a teeter with a 12" fulcrum or some other very different fulcrum than the teeters in use in other venues would discourage those of us who love doing multiple venues, and it would definitely discourage people from other venues to coming out and trying NADAC, which is an expressed goal in the recent announced rule changes.  Better to do without than to make it a baby teeter.

[Chris Nelson]

Actually we found all the dogs did the lower teeter  with no issues.   They all got it on the first try quite nicely,  and that was after running over a full height teeter multiple times. 

It’s more of a perception issue for handlers then an issue for the dogs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shirlene Clark]

The thing I dislike about the teeter (besides the concussion, which I agree with) is that the 12' plank + 24" fulcrum make it look very similar to a dogwalk (esp. a slatless dogwalk) from the dog's perspective.  I have witnessed several dogs (mostly smaller ones) stop in the upper part of the dogwalk ramp, waiting to see if it moves.  I have also had a dog make the more unfortunate mistake of thinking the teeter was a dogwalk and running full speed right off the end of it.  Luckily he was not badly injured, but his confidence was so shaken that he would not go near either obstacle for months.  It took 2 years of remedial training to get it back, and still each straight-on approach he would run past the ramp far enough to be sure which obstacle it was, then circle back and take it.  The teeter is an interesting obstacle from the motion control perspective, but I fail to understand why the venues that still have it insist on keeping the high fulcrum for the teeter, when so many other obstacles have been modified for safety (A-frame height, jump heights, weave pole spacing, tire, chute length, etc).  It would be a much safer obstacle, and still provide the motion-control challenge, with the fulcrum set at 12" (or lower) instead of 24".

I completely agree.

We did play around awhile back with a lowered teeter, and I really liked it.   Even the dogs who did the worst case scenario performance,  which is running to the end of the ramp and riding it down,  had very little concussion.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just finished re-habilitating a very young papillon who mistook a teeter for the dog walk.  She had never been on a teeter and got a terrible fright.  Following the incident she refused to go on a dog walk at all.  It took a lot of time and patience and work with her owner to get that little dogs confidence back.  We were successful but it wasn’t easy.

Shirlene