The Invitational Champions

Russell

Copyright © 2018 John P. Russell.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted by any means—whether auditory, graphic, mechanical, or electronic—without written permission of the author, except in the case of brief excerpts used in critical articles and reviews. Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this work is illegal and is punishable by law.

ISBN: 978-1-4834-8680-2 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4834-8682-6 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-4834-8681-9 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018907109

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Lulu Publishing Services rev. date:  07/13/2018

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A book of this sort could not be accomplished without substantial help from a number of sources. Perhaps, first and foremost is The American Field Publishing Company, owner of the Field Dog Stud Book and publisher of The American Field, the oldest continually published outdoor magazine in America.

The premise of this book was to rely heavily on the published reports of the trials appearing in The American Field— these considered to be the most reliable accounts of events that occurred over a period of more than fifty years. In addition, the data and information available in the Field Dog Stud Book was essential to describe the breeding, performance and production of the Invitational champions. Bernard J. Bernie Matthys, Managing Editor of The American Field, very generously granted permission to use verbatim excerpts from trial reports and information and data from the Field Dog Stud Book. His support went far beyond mere permission, however. He and his staff patiently answered questions, provided guidance to additional information sources, and assistance in the use of proprietary systems. Special thanks are appropriate to Linda Orisanky for her cheerful and patient assistance. A highlight of this process was the visit that I and Anna Taylor made to Publishing Company offices in Chicago to access information available there.

A second thank you is appropriately directed to the staff of the National Bird Dog Museum in Grand Junction, Tennessee. The ladies of the Bird Dog Museum are always helpful and a pleasure to work with. The museum and the resources it contains are a wonderful resource to the sporting dog community. Among the many resources contained in museum is a library containing a comprehensive collection of issues of The American Field and other related publications.

Special thanks are owed to my Hall of Fame collection of great friends and mentors, Henry Weil, J. D. Boss, Arthur Curtis, and T. Jack Robinson. My involvement with bird dogs is life-long, but my field trial career began in 1974 at the conclusion of my formal education. I was fortunate to be influenced from the beginning by a group of mentors that not only helped me understand the nature of the all-age class of bird dogs but imbued me with the sense that the value of the field trial experience goes far beyond the mere collection of titles, ribbons, and trophies. They may be gone but their spirit and the value of their contributions live on and will continue. Another good friend whose encouragement and counsel has been helpful is Tom Word of Richmond, Virginia, author, reporter, and sportsman.

I would be remiss if I did not identify two other groups that have provided a measure of inspiration for this effort. Special thanks are owed to Sue, Anne, Dan, Jill, Tooter, Hoss, Duke, and all of the others that have brought me such pleasure for more than forty years of field trial activities. They have been forgiving of my mistakes and excesses of temper, found ways to teach me of their essential nature, and otherwise brought joy and pleasure to my life. A second group owed some special thanks include Jack, Scooter, Smoky, Leroy, Lucky, and Big Andy. A friend of mine once said, If there is such a thing as a horse hell it is at a bird dog field trial. These special friends have carried me safely and unflinchingly over uncounted miles of heat and cold, mud and dust, and obstacles of all sorts. They have been hauled thousands of miles to places where sometimes only the most rudimentary facilities exist and yet did their essential jobs without complaint. There is not a hall of fame for field trial horses but if such existed, I have a couple of candidates that deserve recognition.

Finally, it has been said, Every man deserves one good woman. I have been double blessed! My wife of 39 years, Kayelene, was my helpmate for many years of my field trial activities, providing encouragement not only to me but service to the West Kentucky Field Trial Club, the Quail Championship Invitational, and to the sport. The second great lady in my life is Anna Taylor, my cherished friend, fiancé, and future wife, who has provided consistent encouragement to this effort and more importantly brought joy and spirit into my life.

Bird dogs and bird dog field trials have always been part of my life. This work is no more than my somewhat feeble effort to repay that presence for the joy and inspiration that I have been afforded.

Tom Word

Richmond, Virginia

Dedicated to Arthur S. Curtis and J. D. Boss

THE INVITATIONAL STANDARD

The Quail Championship Invitational provides a unique qualifying standard for the open all-age competitors. By limiting the entry to twelve top performers from the previous year’s major circuit trials, the Invitational becomes the de facto all-star event for the open all-age class. The Invitational field is composed of proven performers, the best from the previous year’s competition. The invitational is not intended to identify a champion performer but to establish the best of the best from a field of champions.

To accomplish this purpose, the Invitational features a unique format intended to provide a fair and rigorous test for the dogs. By requiring four hours of performance over three days of competition, the invitational format eliminates, to the extent possible, the element of luck of the draw and requires consistency of effort rather than a single flash of brilliance. Further, the Invitational is the premier endurance test of the sport and is intended to exemplify the endurance all-age performer.

The winner of the Quail Championship Invitational must demonstrate the requisite qualities of the all-age class at a high level. The Invitational winner must:

• hunt boldly and independently throughout — should not require excessive direction from the handler,

• demonstrate qualities of the finished dog by consistent coursing to logical objectives, responsiveness to the handler, and maintaining a forward pattern,

• exhibit strength, courage, and an unquenchable desire to find game regardless of cover or conditions — not simply choosing the easy path but hunting through habitat likely to hold game,

• exhibit style, speed, and stamina in action,

• handle game correctly — locate and point quickly and accurately using body not ground scent, back without caution, be steady,

• demonstrate extreme character and finish around game — style, intensity, location, and polish — must not show softness or apprehension.

The Quail Championship Invitational seeks to identify the epitome of the open all-age class of dogs, an individual with strength, courage, intelligence, and character at the highest level. A flawless performance of pedestrian quality should not be favored over one that, although imperfect, thrills with the magnitude of the effort. Above all else, the Invitational seeks to identify the endurance performer. If the judges are, to any extent, uncertain of the ability of an individual to continue at an all-age level of performance, then that dog should not be recognized as the Invitational champion.

INTRODUCTION

If a modern-day field trialer could somehow be transported in time and place to the quail fields east of Memphis, Tennessee on October 8, 1874, he or she would be hard pressed to recognize the activity that was taking place. Bird dog field trials in this country, at their birth, exhibited little of the characteristics that define their nature today. Absent were the established rules and procedures for conduct of the competition, standards for performance, procedures for judging, methods of handling, and countless other details that are familiarly present at today’s events. Indeed, a visitor to that time and place would likely even have some difficulty recognizing the nine dogs to be bird dogs as we know them today.

Just as likely, the competitors at that first event, the birth of one of the oldest continuous sports in this country, could have no inkling of the evolutionary processes to define the sport that were set into motion on that day. Yet to come were the organizations that would nurture the fledgling sport; that would define procedures and formats; that would endure and become legend. Yet to come were the individuals who through their acumen and dedication would guide the emergence of standards for ethical leadership, judging, handling, and reporting. Yet to come were the legendary performers and performances that through their brilliance would define what is possible as the expression of the highest class of bird dog performance.

What was present at that first field trial was the desire by the participants to identify the performers exhibiting the highest expression of class in bird dog performance. What was present in the first event was the essence of the sport, to identify the individuals most desirable for breeding to raise the level of bird dog performance for all enthusiasts. What was present at the beginning remains the essence of the sport today, to celebrate class in dogs, performance, and people.

As the sport evolved from its infancy, a variety of formats were attempted in order to test the character of the participants. Those that stood the test of time, the prairie trials, the Free-for-All, the Continental Championship, the United States Open, the All-American trials, the National Championship and others were quite successful in service to their purpose, to elevate the standards for pointers and setters and to raise the overall quality of performance of bird dogs. There remained a question for some, however, could there be a format that would more conclusively test the qualities of the contestants, a test that would be more comprehensive in its scope, that would ameliorate the vagaries of luck in determination of the outcome?

A group of sportsmen in Albany, Georgia undertook to answer this question in about 1940. These individuals, members of the Southern Amateur Field Trial Club led by Raymond Hoagland of Cartersville, Georgia, designed an event unique in its format. They believed that a three-day event in ideal quail habitat and with a limited field of proven performers conducted in a manner that would minimize the luck of the draw would answer the questions in an affirmative manner. They held the inaugural event, the Quail Championship, in 1941 and again in 1942. Dubbed the dream trial by William F. Brown, the trial generated a great level of interest in the sport. Unfortunately, conflict between nations on a global scale prevented the continuation of the trial during this period of time.

An event of such promise was not forgotten by those in attendance, however, and in 1964 the trial was resurrected as the Quail Championship Invitational to be conducted on the West Kentucky Wildlife Management Area near Paducah, Kentucky. The promise seen in the earlier presentations of the trial was quickly shown to be a reality and the trial rapidly became a fixture of the sport. Acknowledged by many to be the most comprehensive and equitable test in the sport, the Invitational is a prestigious title for knowledgeable bird dog breeders and handlers.

The Invitational assembles a field of the best performers from the previous year’s major circuit trials. To simply qualify for an invitation to the event is a notable accomplishment — the annual qualification for the event is the most difficult in the sport. To gain the title one must be the best of the best a notable accomplishment indeed. As one would expect, the list of winners of the Invitational is very distinguished and includes some of the greatest performers the sport has known. The story of the Invitational as told by the winners and their performances is one of great significance to the sport of field trials in America.

In the chapters that follow, the story of the Invitational and of its importance in the sport is told through those of its champions.

THE FIRST YEARS

The story of the Invitational ostensibly begins in the early portion of the 1940s but in reality, begins with the advent of the sport in 1874. In the earliest years, there was only one class for competition, that of bird dog. The term all age referred to an age classification in the hierarchy; puppy, derby, and all age — the all age group including all individuals competing beyond the derby year. Thus, the first definition of all age was in reference to a finished dog. The purpose of the trials was to identify individuals who best expressed the characteristics important to defining the highest class of bird dogs or finished dogs.

A source of confusion in the sport is the use of the terms class and all age to convey different meanings. For example, all age is used to mean an age grouping such that an advertisement for a trial might include separate stakes for puppy, derby, and all age. It is also used to denote or describe a performance standard to distinguish from other levels of performance. For example, a program of trials might include separate stakes for puppy, derby, all age, and shooting dog. It is sometimes used as an adjective to describe the level at which an individual competes; thus, the descriptions all-age dog and shooting-dog. In a similar manner, the term class is found to describe a performance as a class performance, a portion of performance separate from contacts with game as in the dogs were placed on class, and as a descriptor for an individual as in a class dog.

Regardless the variety of usages, the first definition of all age remains to convey the attributes of a finished individual in the qualities that define class in a bird dog; courage, endurance, intelligence, boldness, independence, conformation, style, intensity, biddability, consistency, etc. What we wish to accomplish is to identify individuals with the requisite natural qualities such that the finished dog will demonstrate:

• an intense desire to find birds

• scenting ability to detect the presence of game, and to locate it accurately and promptly without false pointing or blinking

• staunchness on point

• intelligent ground work, and the pace and range most effective for the country being hunted

• stamina

• speed, industry and independence at work and intensity in searching

• quickness in locating his handler, and in seeing and hearing his commands

• kindly handling and good manners, including steadiness to wing and shot, and backing his brace-mate’s point

• boldness on game and willingness to face heavy cover, briars, and adverse conditions unflinchingly

• style of carriage and grace of movement, searching the cover with high head and active, happy tail and loftiness in motion and on point.

Such a dog is a class individual and will satisfy even the most exacting critic.

One of the enduring tensions of the sport involves the value of boldness and independence as exemplified by extreme range and speed against a more complete expression of class qualities. In the early years of the sport, the emphasis on range and speed almost to the exclusion of other qualities made it possible for dogs that showed little but heels to win. Indeed, unless a dog showed extreme range and speed, it had little chance of winning. William F. Brown in his biography of Albert F. Hochwalt devotes a chapter on the subject of class and credits Hochwalt with having substantial influence on the movement away from the class craze toward a more complete expression of the qualities of a high-class bird dog.¹ The class proponents did not go quietly and there remains a sentiment at some level in the sport that race measured primarily by range and speed supersedes other qualities in the all age class.

One can find many attempts to define class performance in books and articles by authorities such as Brown and Hochwalt and while they had many common elements they would often differ in detail. A description attributed to I. J. Hix of Selma, Alabama and the Central Alabama Field Trial Club summarized the issue thus:

Everyone loves class in everything — in women, horses, dogs, etc., — but what is class? I have seen a great many definitions of the word and I have about come to the conclusion that class is what you like best to see in a dog. Some think speed and range the highest accomplishment, and to them that is class. Some think style in action and on point the most essential, and to them that is class. I think a good nose, a burning desire to hunt, combining speed and bird sense the highest class of all. In judging dogs all good qualities should, of course, be taken into consideration. ²

Perhaps, the most familiar discussion of class is attributed to David E. Rose, a distinguished handler. In response to a question about class, David Rose is purported to have said, A dog that runs away but not quite. His full description however was more complete. In his full description Mr. Rose said:

What do I call class? My idea of class is a dog that does it all, not the kind that some judges have been placing; the kind that run and do nothing else. You remember, Sir, that back in the old days a class athlete was one who was equally good in any sphere that came under the name of sports. If he was proficient in all of them he was a class athlete and not before. And that’s my idea of a dog. Just because he can run fast and go wide he means very little to me if he won’t handle his ground properly, if he can’t find bevies as well as singles, if he won’t back when called upon to do so. But you can find dogs that will do it all and when you do, you have a class dog.³

As the pendulum of opinion swung toward the desirability of a complete expression of the qualities of high class performance, the question of how to test those qualities became important. A group of sportsmen, members of the Southern Amateur Field Trial Club of Albany, Georgia, undertook to address this question in the early portion of the 1940s. It was there that the idea for a new championship was germinated, one unlike the others available in the field trial sport. Club members concerned with a perceived growing tendency to make too great a distinction between field trial dogs and high-class horseback hunting dogs or shooting dogs had been searching for new ideas to bring extremists closer together on a common ideal for high class bird dogs, set higher standards of performance, and create greater public interest in the sport. Their view was that a high-class field trial performer is the most satisfactory hunting companion and that this conception is endangered by any tendency to set up separate standards of performance. They abhorred the misconception that a field trial dog must solely run at terrific speed and range boldly to impractical distances. They believed a bird dog’s mission in life is to hunt for, find and handle birds for the hunter. It should be understood that, although there was a variety of available field trial formats, this was prior to the development of a system of Shooting Dog trials with ostensibly a separate and different standard of performance.

A group of sportsmen, led by Raymond Hoagland determined that a test over three consecutive days would be a more convincing demonstration of the usefulness of the competitors than the titular events then available. Such a format would be unlikely to be won by a single flashy performance but would require both consistency of effort and endurance. In addition, the factor commonly termed the luck of the draw could be substantially ameliorated if not completely eliminated. The ideal of the Quail Championship was described by Raymond Hoagland thus:

In my estimation, a field trial dog is really a high-class shooting dog; one that is adaptable to different kinds of terrain. Of course, I don’t mean that a quail champion should be close enough to work grouse areas, but he should be one that can run a championship heat over grounds suitable for hunting from horseback. That’s the idea we had in establishing the Quail Championship at Albany.

The concept received an enthusiastic reception from the members of the Southern Amateur Field Trial Club. Robert W. Woodruff of Coca-Cola fame and Ichauway Plantation assured financial support; Lambert D. Johnson of Evansville, Indiana offered the use of his Wildfair Plantation, W. C. Potter of New York City, New York offered the use of Blue Springs Plantation; Dwight W. Ellis of Springfield, Massachusetts offered his Maridor Plantation. A field trial committee consisting of Raymond Hoagland, chairman and stake manager, Major Trammel Scott, Edward Farrior, W. H. McNaughton, and M. G. Dudley was charged with settling the details of the competition.

They decided that the trial would be conducted over three consecutive days with one-hour braces to be run over the first two days and three or more braces, at the discretion of the judges, of two hours duration to be run the third day. The entry would be limited to sixteen dogs selected from the best performers from the previous season. To ameliorate the effect of the luck of the draw, the first two days of the trial would be drawn such that the dogs competing early and late on the first day would be required to perform in the middle braces on the second day.

To identify the competitors, the committee had to devise a fair and impartial method to identify the top dogs from the previous year’s competition. They classified the open trials of duration of one-hour or greater held throughout the United States and Canada and grouped them according to characteristics of:

• caliber of competition,

• quality of the grounds,

• prestige of the events,

• size of the starting field

• other intangibles.

The winners of these events would earn credits toward qualification with the sixteen top qualifiers receiving an invitation. Any vacancies caused by inability of the principals to accept the engagement would be filled by alternates selected from the list of qualifiers in the order of points earned. Thus, once the classification of trials was accomplished, the identification of the top performers was without bias and simply based on a mathematical compilation of points earned through meritorious performance. This procedure was aided considerably due to the relatively small number of major trials then available.

With the necessary details decided, plans for the initial trial were completed. The October 26, 1940 issue of The American Field announced the Quail Championship Inaugural to be run beginning December 30, 1940. A $1,500 guaranteed purse was available with $1,000 to the winner and $500 to the runner-up. A rotating trophy, the Albany Trophy donated by Robert W. Woodruff, was identified as eligible for permanent possession by the first owner to win the Quail Championship three times. The advertised judges were Emory Beetham of Cleveland, Ohio and Henry Banks of Guerryton, Alabama. Raymond Hoagland was announced as the stake manager with Edward Farrior and Heber Jones as the marshals. A subsequent ad in the December 7, 1940 Christmas Issue of The American Field confirmed these details.

Raymond Hoagland

(From the Hall of Fame exhibit)

Beginning in the 1920s, the Georgia sportsman contributed to hunting dogs in nearly every way possible, as an owner, judge, handler, breeder, show handler, club official, promoter, recruiter, and patron. Known as a militant leader, he was steadfast in his belief of the dual standard, that field trial pointers and setters be given their due regard in the show ring. Owning, campaigning, and showing some of the last dogs to win in both venues; yet when the show people departed from what he thought to be sound confirmation standards, he led the charge to split away. This courageous act has contributed greatly to our current field trial dog level of excellence.

Raymond Hoagland was a recognized leader of the field trial sport. He is generally acknowledged to have been the leader of the effort to design a comprehensive test for major circuit dogs that became initially the Quail Championship and eventually the Quail Championship Invitational. He served as the chairman for the Inaugural editions of the Quail Championship in 1941 and 1942. He also served as president of the Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America and in other leadership roles as a member of the Southern Amateur Field Trial Club. For his service to the sport, Raymond Hoagland was elected to the Field Trial Hall of Fame in 1960.

1941: THE TEXAS RANGER

From the January 11, 1941, issue of The American Field.

Conceived by some of the finest minds in the field trial realm as a thorough test of a bird dog’s abilities the Quail Championship Inaugural lived up to the keen expectations of its promoters for the event, led off near Albany, Georgia beginning Monday, December 30 and concluded on New Year’s Day, was indeed a transcendental achievement. The Texas Ranger, white and liver pointer dog, conqueror of many a classy field and hero of some of the most valiant bird-dog battles, gained the new title after the required three series, during which he exhibited amazing consistency and masterful abilities. He is owned by D. B. McDaniel of Houston, Texas, a development of Jack Harper who handled him.

Runner up laurels were bestowed on Tarheelia’s Lucky Strike, white and liver pointer dog, the property of Gerald M. Livingston of Quitman, Georgia, handled by Earl C. Crangle. Winning championships is no new experience to either of these performers, but no greater honor has ever come to these pointers than that earned by their meritorious performances here.

The Southern Amateur Field Trial Club staged an intelligently publicized titular event a dream trial in a manner of speaking, for an effort was made to give every contender equal opportunity and find the best dog in a field made up of a select group of top ranking field trial performers. Sixteen dogs were qualified, 14 pointers and two setters, and it goes without saying that every one of the starters had earned eligibility by reason of victorious performances in major competition.

The field assembled for the inaugural event was stellar indeed — the best of the previous year’s major competition. Although the details of the point system used to identify the best performers are generally not available, it is sufficient to state that it was a system devised and applied by sportsmen of the first rank, individuals that were familiar with the sport, knowledgeable of the trials selected and the standards under which those events were conducted. The point system was without bias toward any individual or group and, indeed, the point system was not intended to qualify dogs — the dogs qualified themselves by virtue of their performances. For the inaugural event, the qualifying trials were the recognized trials of one-hour duration or greater conducted during 1939 and 1940 up to the titular events on pheasants at Buffalo, New York. This, of course, was well in advance of a similar point system devised to recognize the top all age bird dog of the year in a competition sponsored by Purina beginning in 1964.

The trial, thus, was the de facto all-star event for the field trial sport. Of the original 16 invitees, three declined and were replaced by the next three in the order of merit. The starters are list below in order of their appearance in the first series with the handler and owner(s).

Again, from the January 11, 1941 issue of The American Field:

To consider the actual running of the stake, it was stirring if not inspiring from beginning to end. The fates were kind in providing clear, pleasant, delightful days, perhaps somewhat warm for the dogs during the midday, but never excessively so. The grounds around Albany were utilized because they afforded just such type of tests as the founders of the stake desired. The W. C. Potter and L. D. Johnson holdings were run over, the courses laid on Blue Springs, Pineland, and Wildfair plantations. The morning running occurred over Wildfair and Pineland, with Ed Farrior, superintendent for Mr. Johnson, marshaling these courses. During the afternoon, Heber Jones marshaled over the Potter property. It is beautiful bird country, among the best natural quail territory to be found in the land and ideal shooting grounds. The cover is relatively close and heavy, ground vegetation abnormally high this season, and one would not describe it as wide-open field trial terrain, nevertheless it is superbly suited to the purposes of this stake….

The Texas Ranger won the quail championship inaugural most persuasively. Whelped April 2, 1937, this white and liver pointer exhibited sensational form in his two one-hour races and came into the finals with a clear-cut margin over the balance of the field. While his two-hour effort did not overshadow some of the other finalists as he had on the preceding days, certainly, in the evaluation of all three appearances, none challenged his right to the crown and all in attendance agreed unanimously that the D. B. McDaniel pointer, handled ably by Jack Harper, richly merited the distinction accorded him — first winner of this new title which is destined in years to come and with a sequence of high class competition to become one of the most sought-after honors in the bird-dog sphere.

The Texas Ranger set a high mark on Monday when, down in the first brace after lunch he delivered a classy heat and scored five clean finds. While his technique was not invincible, it was vigorous and effective. Take that second find! It came at the end of a brilliant cast and was masterfully accomplished: the dog fairly exuded class as he stood with utmost confidence alert, attractive, intense, and his birds were located beautifully. This point was at once triumphs of poise and suspense — inspirational performance — but Ranger went on to complete the vindication of a wide-ranging, hard-hunting, keen-nosed field trial performer. He amassed a total of five bevies in an hour and except for the fact than an exact definition could not be obtained of what transpired on another bevy, Ranger might have been credited with six. In any event, he had more than enough birds and a good race, conceded to have an edge on the rest of the field upon completion of the first day’s performances.

On Tuesday in the second series of one-hour races, the Texas Ranger came back to add to his margin. This performance fairly overflowed with quality. The dog did not approach his bird finding score of the preceding day, but the two bevies he did find were extraordinarily meritorious and in the heavy country a performance sure to induce a thrill. Ranger revealed insatiable fervor and eagerness, a tremendous amount of energy, remarkable for this climate. Stick to class in a bird dog is almost axiomatic and Ranger prove the soundness of such judgment.

Going into the two-hour finals, Ranger’s tally showed seven bevies handled without semblance of error. He was put down first thing in the morning on Wednesday. On the preceding days, three of the dogs had drawn blanks in the first hour. Of the quartet run, only Tarheelia’s Lucky Strike found a bevy and that in the final ten minutes of the second series race. But Ranger and Jack Harper, his handler, were undaunted by such precedent of unpleasing prospect. The dog made a prodigious cast at the outset, which likely gave his pilot a few anxious moments, but Harper was not the only one to break out in a fine sweat of excitement. Then the dog appeared in front and after thirty-five minutes, he scored in expert style on a bevy in corn. But Ranger did not stop finding birds; he chalked up three more bevies, not all with the inspirational performance that had marked his previous races yet accomplished creditably enough to assure his position at the top of the stake. Weighing all three performances, Ranger was an outstanding victor and though the dog is not new to field trial fame, his achievement here at Albany in this Quail Championship Inaugural will go down into bird-dog archives as his greatest triumph.

William F. Brown said Texas Ranger’s win of the Inaugural Quail Championship and the 1941 win of the National Free-for-All were the greatest of the ones he saw. He wrote:

Ranger covered the country like a windstorm yet handled with glove-like ease… Ranger was the epitome of what is meant by a big running dog. It was nothing short of incredible the way Jimmy would work the country out front, always appearing at the right place and no matter the scope of his tremendous cast he always knew where his handler, Jack Harper, was, and seemed to divine what direction the course would turn.

Many a phenomenal performance this writer had the pleasure of witnessing and it would be exceedingly hard to term any particular effort the pinnacle of Jimmy’s prowess. Perhaps it was his sensational and brilliantly consistent performance in the Inaugural Quail Championship. Perchance his ever-to-be-remembered three-hour exhibition in the finals of the National Free-For-All Championship in 1941, when the dog finished so strongly that Harper confided that he could’ve gone another hour without the slightest trouble, and among those fortunate enough to have witnessed this colossal effort there was not the slightest dissent.

The Texas Ranger ran one of the greatest three-hour races ever witnessed he was indefatigable and endowed with almost human intelligence. He had more than the spark of greatness and his keen eyes mirrored his remarkable instincts. Truly a phenomenon which the work field trial world will long remember.

Brown, in his account of the Inaugural Quail Championship, described the Texas Ranger thus:

The Texas Ranger is a medium-sized pointer brought to this Quail Championship Inaugural fit as the proverbial fiddle, perhaps a trifle under 50 pounds. His confirmation is pleasing, he has rather attractive head properties, though his muzzle is a bit on the light side. Ranger’s speed, range, application, and stamina exemplified the highest type of bird dog whether for field trial or shooting purposes. Maybe he was too wide for the latter in this heavy country, but he got results and generally handled his birds to perfection.

The account of the running is limited to the brace in each series involving the Champion as described in The American Field report:

Bobbitt’s Peerless Pride with The Texas Ranger (1st series 5th brace) There was no dalliance during the luncheon period and at 12:28 this pair was sent away to the east of the road over the Blue Springs Plantation of W. C. Potter with Heber Jones taking over the marshaling chores that Ed Farrior had attended to during the forenoon. This was an hour packed with action. Pride got away in flashy form and disappeared on the initial swing, while Ranger could be seen every so often. At 12:36 Ranger scored the first of five clean bevy finds; he pointed to the right and Pride, attracted by the rush of riders, galloped to the vicinity; evidently the setter did not see his brace-mate on point, but Fraser stopped Pride. The commotion and confusion caused Ranger to lose some of his loftiness; although Harper walked through the bevy once without disturbing the birds, Ranger continued to indicate them exactly and the handler raised a bevy that was sticking tight, the dog’s actions all that could be desired. Ranger completed a brilliant cast that brought him a second bevy at 12:39 the dog standing in open, stylish and intense, and no relaxation until the birds were in the air. The pointer swung far to the left but was soon brought around. Pride got into the swing of things after having been rather modest in his efforts for a brief time. At 12:54 Pride made a credible find at thicket on the right; the birds were well located; some went back over Pride’s head and the setter whirled but stopped at command. They searched diligently during the balance of the time and scored repeatedly. Ranger was observed pointing in thick place of a dividing line to the left, Pride then espied on a lofty stand at the edge behind Ranger, which English acknowledged as a back. Ranger had birds in front of him, to the side and a brace of quail got up directly in front of Pride; in the heavy cover, circumstances indicated this as a divided find. A second bevy arose deeper in adjacent cornfields at the shot. Pride connected quickly again; at 1:02 he pointed attractively and this resulted in a bevy handled immaculately; three minutes late later Frazier found Pride on another stylish stand, a bevy, and it was beautifully accomplished. Both dogs vanished from view and about 10 minutes after the last bevy, birds were seen to boil out of a thicket in front; both dogs were in the cover, Pride moving when observed while Ranger was motionless. Harper dismounted to shoot over his dog, but Ranger began to move about. An exact definition was not obtained. At 12:21 Ranger pointed at plum ticket to the right; a single got up wild, the dog blameless, and several more arose out to the right. Ranger handling this opportunity in creditable fashion, for he waited while Harper tried for more before firing. Pride got his last bevy in sedge to the right, excellent style, location accurate and manners impeccable. Ranger climaxed his hour with a point to the left of cover along roadway, his attitude not so intense as on his better points, but location was commendable and the dog steadiness personified. Counting two disturbed by riders, no less than 13 bevies were officially tabulated.

The Texas Ranger with Dawn’s Highland Bill (2nd series 2nd brace) They went away swiftly toward the right, Ranger flitting to a little rise and he vanished into a clump of pines. Bill made a good sweep around in that direction, then came to the front where within four minutes he nailed a bevy at a little coppice, head high, tail level, and it was creditably accomplished. Bill continued on alone. Ranger meanwhile was found on point at the far end of his initial cast, his style picturesque, his birds well located and his etiquette approved by Emily Post. Bill was not too free in his movements, his application seeming to suffer at times, almost lackadaisical, but he would resume searching to promising places. In automobile at the road Secretary Malone noted several quail run across into open pine grove. Bill came casting into the vicinity and pointed. As Bevan arrived, the dog moved after the running birds and established a staunch stand. He did this to circle to locate; while he was executing this maneuver, a single got up to the side of his initial stand, but Bill pinned another single dropping at shot. At this juncture Ranger was brought into the far end of woods, a bevy was ridden up the dog not in the area. Almost three-quarters of the hour had elapsed when Allan Sharpe found Ranger standing in woods far to the right; it was an attractive stand, the ground almost barren of cover, but Ranger had a bevy, a few birds rising in front of him, the main portion flushing from a down burned tree. The dog was above criticism. Bill continued in good form, not as assiduous as might be desired but Ranger went stoutly until the close, wide and ambitious, though hard riding was required for Harper to keep contact with his dog. A second bevy had been ridden up during the race.

The Texas Ranger with Tarheelia’s Lucky Strike (3rd series 1st brace) Sent away at 7:10, the Ranger lost little time in streaking across weed field to timber on the right, while Strike cut up the country to the left ahead. Ranger soon disappeared and Harper showed the nervous tension he was under; Strike showed occasionally, going in creditable form. After 17 minutes Ranger hove into sight ahead, directly on the course, and it was a prodigious fling he had completed most impressively. Luther Smith took charge of Ranger temporarily. A bevy had been ridden up not long after the breakaway, but 35 minutes elapsed before Ranger connected with the first of his four bevies in two hours. He made a commendable find in corn field, intense and picturesque on this stand. The bevy got up as Harper dismounted, but Ranger never wavered, then relaxed and remained motionless until the shot sounded. Strike searched industriously, plunging into the cover with determination. At 8:06 with Dewey English in charge of Strike while Earl Crangle was elsewhere, the dog cast to brush on the left, a bird was seen to emerge and Strike was found pointing under a majestic oak festooned with Spanish moss. A straggler flushed from the vicinity but English did not fire over the dog; it was evidently a stop to flush. Ranger showed a high order of intelligence by repeating a magnificent cast he had made at the outset of his hour heat the day previous, when he ranged to the right of expansive marshland and carried quickly over far rise, but he failed to connect with that particular bevy. The dog came around in superlative