Observations About Handling

It is true that even unfortunate events can be transformed into learning experiences — such was the case with the recent Missoula show.

Since I missed the closing date none of my dogs were entered.

Sigh.

Therefore, I spent four days as a Ring Steward for different judges.

I decided to spend the time — in addition to the usual stewarding duties — focused on the handling of dogs. Specifically, I studied good and bad handlers, and tried to discern whether I thought there was evidence of bias against owner-handlers.

I concluded there was no evidence to suspect bias against owner-handlers. However, bad handling was most definitely associated with “losing” and yes, most of the bad handlers were NOT the professionals.

I have thought about how to say this kindly and what I have decided is to use the Juniors Handlers as a way to explain.

Almost every Junior Handler was poised, well-dressed, and quiet in their ring demeanor. They typically moved dogs with grace, followed instructions, and reflected a respectful countenance in the ring.

I watched the Juniors and my response was WOW.

I watched a lot of Owner-Handlers and my response was more along the lines of …

I have heard many of my owner-handler community suggest that judges should be able to find the good dog in spite of less-than-optimal handling.

Nope.

Bad handling is like putting flashing neon arrows over all the dog’s faults, while also making it hard to see the positive traits.

I tried to mentally send messages to my fellow owner-handlers but to no avail — rear toes stayed pointing like east-west directionals on a compass, dogs did the entire down and back while pacing, toplines looked like ski slopes, and most everyone needs to review how to show the bite.

I could seriously go on and on. It was quite educational.

I think many of us in the owner-handler community lack critical self-awareness — about our limitations as handlers, and about the limitations of our dogs. Hubris is the real enemy of success.

One is certainly free to rail against my conclusions and rant that it is all political and yada yada yada — personally, I will just keep trying to be better.

…and the training means human and dog…

2019 Tracking Test and etc.

Alison sent this cool photo of a moose that she took yesterday on a walk.

I love the homely gawkiness of moose — they are beautiful in their special moose way. Thank you, Alison!

Can you see why I took this photo?

Bluebirds are the symbol of happiness — a bright burst of a reminder to pay attention to what is cheerful and happy. Nature’s PING to our psyche.

Yesterday was the Tracking Test, which is held in the most amazing place.

Base camp for the test is always at the campground at Harper’s Lake…

It turns out there was not a track for Claire after all, but I brought scones, took photos, cheered on the other teams, and enjoyed the day.

Claire has twice been first alternate this year in TDX tests — what that means is her amazing day is in the future.

And then I came home and found a TICK in my hair! ACK!

Okay — let’s see how to reframe that…

Isn’t it wonderful that I was able to be in a place so wild and natural that ticks can live? That I have that ability to be out in such a place, hiking around, taking photos — and picking up crawly hitchhikers?

Life is all about coexisting with the Bluebirds of Happiness and the blood-sucking ticks — with an occasional moose thrown in for fun.

And isn’t it just awesome?!

Claire Changes Things Up

Hang on to your hats, Friends, because we received some pretty awesome news.

This.

Claire’s original elbow rating on films done in January was a unilateral Grade One (DJD). I repeated the films four months later for these reasons:

1. Both elbows were normal at 12 months.

2. Both of her parents — and every one of their littermates (n=13) — have normal elbows.

3. It was just one elbow and a Grade One, DJD.

4. The opinion was not unanimous — one of the three radiologists who rated the elbow said it was normal.

None of those things means the original results were wrong but taken together, it seemed prudent to wait and repeat.

And so we did.

This time the opinion of the OFA experts was unanimous — all three radiologists who rated the elbows said they are normal.

I cried many happy tears.

But how are we to understand what happened? And how can we maintain confidence in OFA results when results can change in four months? I called Dr. Keller, the OFA’s Chief Medical Director, and posed those questions to him.

In his opinion, the positioning of the 25 month films created the illusion of a potential issue in one area due to shadowing. The 29 month films were positioned optimally and showed the area clearly, revealing no issue.

Why, I asked, were the 25 month films read at all if positioning was at all problematic. The answer — because they were considered good enough to read by the radiologists.

Huh?! And Yikes.

I met with my veterinarian to review the films and to get her opinion on all this. And that is why I think she is awesome and I want to be her best friend: Because I knew I could talk to her about this and she would be perfectly fine.

She studied the films and then agreed that there was a very slight difference in lateral positioning (how flat the elbow was) that created a wee bit of shadowing in the 25 month films.

We all learned a few things — here are my take home lessons:

1. Positioning matters — a lot. And even really great veterinarians and their staff can have a slight shift of positioning that can cause issues.

2. If you get failed results, call Dr. Keller at the OFA to discuss the positioning — was it optimal? He is very accessible. (Note: I did call him in January and he did not mention a positioning issue — I think the issue may only have been apparent with comparison).

3. If there is reason to question results, repeat the films.

4. It is a very good thing to have a questioning mind.

5. Claire can be a MOM!!!!