For many years the American Lhasa Apso club worked to be recognized by the American Kennel Club as the breed's parent club. One of the objectives in becoming officially accepted was that the parent club has the authority to revise the breed standard. Such a revision of our Lhasa Apso Standard, issued in 1935 was a must....almost everyone agreed on that point

Finally, the AKC accepted the American Lhasa Apso Club, and the way for revision was cleared. A Standards Committee was selected through approved American Lhasa Apso Club procedures, and they began to work. AKC set down a few ground rules which had to be followed. Size, for example, could not be altered, nor were any disqualifications to be included....

Revising a Standard is a tremendous task and one should not underestimate the difficulties confronting the committee. All breeders who consider themselves knowledgeable have tightly held opinions about the correct interpretation of the Standard. The breed is clearly visible all over the country and is readily identifiable. One will find, however, that in certain geographical areas, perhaps, the Lhasas all look alike, or perhaps the dogs from a particular kennel or breeder will carry an obvious stamp of their origin. The fact that each Lhasa is not a carbon copy duplicate of every other Lhasa in the ring may be laid to the inadequacies of the present Standard.

If we were to picture the perfect Lhasa 1n our mind's eye, what would it look like? Is it out in the ring now, being currently shown? Is it advertised in one of the many publications that are printed during the year? If your ideal dog is from the pages of the past, what have we lost in the breed since that dog was shown? If your ideal dog is from today's crop, how did we arrive at the ultimate and how will we continue it? Perhaps the real questions we must face are, "Do we went our Lhasas to look like every other Lhasa or do we want every other Lhasa to look like the ones we own?"

The new expanded 15th Edition of the COMPLETE DOG BOOK, the official publication of the American Kennel Club, defines the term Standard to mean, "a description of the ideal dog to serve as a word pattern by which dogs are judged at shows." Since it is only through shows that the purpose of a Standard is fulfilled, let us look at the old standard and point out the vagaries here that require clarification, if not correction as pertaining to a dog in the ring.

CHARACTER: GAY AND ASSERTIVE, BUT CHARY OF STRANGERS

My dictionary defines gay as (1) excited with merriment, merry, (2) bright; in appearance, brilliant in color. (3) given to social pleasures or indulgence hence, loose, licentious. None of these seem to adequately describe the character or personality of our dogs. Assertive seems more acceptable as a general term. Also, Lhasas who are show prospects have little chariness of strangers, for breeders take great pains to see that they respond positively to the "strangers" they may encounter--customers, trainers, handlers, groomers, and judges. As the dogs mature and develop their own characters, those adult personalities run a wide range from chary through aloof, quiet, reserved, to charmer and all-out clown.

We must, therefore, approach this section of the Standard as a form of protection for the dog, new to the ring, who is chary of the close inspection given to him by the judge. In other words, it tells the judge to be on his guard.

SIZE: VARIABLE, BUT ABOUT 10-11 INCHES AT SHOULDER FOR DOGS, BITCHES SLIGHTLY SMALLER.

AKC has stated that size must not be altered, but I think we all agree that it clearly-needs clarification. Since the purpose of the Standard is to provide a word pattern for judging at shows, we would expect to find that when it comes to actual judging, that the judge would not put up a bitch who is larger than a dog, either in Winners or Specials Rings. Are we then to assume that a good, large bitch is never better than a smaller dog?

COLOR. GOLDEN, SANDY, HONEY, DARK GRIZZLE, SLATE, SMOKE, PARTI-COLOR, BLACK, WHITE OR BROWN. THIS BEING THE TRUE TIBETAN LION-DOG, GOLDEN OR LIONLIKE COLORS ARE PREFERRED. OTHER COLORS IN ORDER AS ABOVE. DARK TIPS TO EARS AND BEARD ARE AN ASSET.

When the original standard was written, an error was made in interpretation! Westerners think of a lion as being golden, therefore since this was the Tibetan Lion Dog, it must be golden. Later information on the true (mythological) Tibetan Lion has invalidated this color preference. In addition, the colors listed are not clearly defined, nor is the now popular red even listed. My dictionary does not carry color definitions of the words "honey" and "smoke"....: it defines "sand" as "the color of sand" and lists the "average color of common slate, blue-red in hue of very low saturation and low brilliance." Since the Judges for years, apparently, have been ignoring this color preference (and we would say, rightly so) it seems appropriate to correct it officially.

BODY SHAPE: THE LENGTH FROM POINT OF SHOULDERS TO POINT OF BUTTOCKS LONGER THAN HEIGHT AT WITHERS, WELL RIBBED UP, STRONG LOIN WELL-DEVELOPED QUARTERS AND THIGHS.

This area seems clearly well-defined as far as lt. goes, but are important points omitted? Do you not get the idea that something vital has been left out?

COAT HEAVY, STRAIGHT, HARD, NOT WOOLLY NOR SILKY, OF GOOD LENGTH AND VERY DENSE.

The vague area here seems to be the adjective "good" as applied to length. Exactly what is meant by this term? Even short coated dogs possess "good length" to their coats. Surely the intended term must be "long."

MOUTH AND MUZZLE: MOUTH LEVEL, OTHERWISE SLIGHTLY UNDERSHOT PREFERABLE. MUZZLE OF MEDIUM LENGTH: A SQUARE MUZZLE IS. OBJECTIONABLE.

Here we find real confusion. At the time the term "mouth level" was included in the Standard, it was not defined by the AKC. Later editions of the COMPLETE DOG BOOK defined the level mouth as one possessing a scissored or natural canine bite. However, in the years since, this term has come to mean end to end meeting of the central incisors. This makes for a beautiful looking bite, but a rather unnatural one. (It one sets one's own central incisors end to end, one find that one cannot affect a meeting between the upper and lower rear teeth.) It is not an effective bite for a predatory animal such as most dogs were originally. I have in my experience seen only one Lhasa Apso with a "mouth level" and it is one that I have bred and own. I must admit, however, that there are times when the bite drifts and he carries a scissors bite for a few months, usually, for some strange, unknown reason in the summer and early fall.

"Otherwise, slightly undershot preferable. preferable to WHAT, medium or grossly undershot? Or preferable to a scissors bite? This area needs obvious clarification.

Muzzle of medium lengths seems fairly clear since breeding is still more of an art than a science. Therefore, determination of the word "medium" must be assessed in the overall picture of the particular dog in question by the judge in whose ring he appears.

"A square muzzle is objectionable" is another vague and misleading term. A square is generally acknowledged to be a geometric figure having four equal sides and four right (90degree) angles. No one has ever seen a truly square muzzle on any breed of dog, I am sure.

Also, the term "muzzle" is open to question, also. If one defines it as the "projecting jaw and nose of an animal"--in this case, a dog--and we would have a "level mouth," then a side view of the projecting jaws and nose of the Lhasa would show it to have a rather straight appearing line from nose through jaw.

If we view a Lhasa muzzle straight on, eye to eye, and reduce the appearance of the dog to its most basic geometric framework as artists often do when sketching in the foundations for a finished drawing, we can see that some Lhasas have a more box-like appearance viewed head on. And, if one takes a good hard look at Shih-Tzu, one easily sees a box-like appearance to the frontal view of that breed, The squared or box-like look to the front of the Lhasa head is something that makes for confusion between these two Oriental bleeds.

HEAD: HEAVY HEAD FURNISHINGS WITH GOOD FALL OVER EYES, GOOD WHISKERS AND BEARD: SKULL NARROW, FALLING AWAY BEHIND THE EYES IN A MARKED DEGREE, NOT QUITE. FLAT, BUT NOT DOMED OR APPLE-SHAPED; STRAIGHT FOREFACE OF FAIR LENGTH. NOSE BLACK, ABOUT l-l/2 INCHES LONG, OR THE LENGTH FROM TIP OF NOSE TO EYE TO BE ROUGHLY ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF THE TOTAL LENGTH FROM NOSE TO BACK OF SKULL.

This whole section of the Standard is vague and ambiguous. "Heavy head furnishings with good fall over eyes." We all know that a Lhasa goes into the ring with a lot of hair all over, but what is meant by good? Here again, are we saying good when we mean long? "Good whiskers and beard." Good - long....and what is meant by "whiskers"? Some, you know, call a beard "whiskers," but here they are treated as two separate items. My dictionary gives three definitions of a whisker' (l) that part of the beard which grows on the sides of the face, or on the chin, or on both, (2) a hair of the beard, (3) one of the long projecting hairs of bristles growing near the mouth of a cat, bird or other animal. Are we then to take it that our Standard calls for the Lhasas to have good (long) whiskers such as those that a cat uses for a navigation aid?

"Skull narrow, falling away behind the eyes in a-marked degree"....when we ,, examine that phrase carefully, word by word, and try to picture such a creature so described, we lose the Lhasa entirely. We find an animal with a narrow head, with the eyes the highest point on that head since the bone falls off behind them in a marked degree. Without attempting to be the slightest bit facetious, the only creature that seems to fit this description would be a frog. Even a hippopotamus, whose eyes, and indeed, most of his face are on the top of his head does not fit the description, let alone the Lhasa.

"Nose. . . .about 1-1/2 inches long. . . ." When one encounters a definite figure such as this, in an otherwise variable sized dog, one is open to all kinds of abuses. A bitch that is slightly smaller than 10 inches, let us say, can be presented to an unsuspecting novice with a nose nearly 2 inches long. Also, think how an 11 inch dog with a one inch nose would look next to that same bitch in the winners class. Ask yourself how you would select the best of winners.

"Straight foreface of fair length," AKC defines foreface as: front part of the head before the eyes ; muzzle. What is this statement doing under head when there is a section on mouth and muzzle in which the medium length is already covered?

(Small nit to pick: I am sure that "not domed of apple-shaped" must offend English teachers, Should it not read "not domed nor apple-shaped"?)

EYES: DARK BROWN, NEITHER VERY LARGE AND FULL, NOR VERY SMALL AND SUNK.

Seems clear enough, except for the fact that sunk is a verb and not an adjective. It should read "sunken," but here again we must ask ourselves if this paragraph says all we want it to say about the Lhasa eye!

EARS PENDANT, HEAVILY FEATHERED.

Judges never seem to have trouble with this point of the standard, however, "feathered" is defined as the hair which is seen on the ears, legs, and tail of the cocker or a setter. Should this not read "furnished" instead?

LEGS' FORELEGS STRAIGHT BOTH FORELEGS AND HIND LEGS HEAVILY FURNISHED WITH HAIR.

These points are clear, but again, the feeling is that something essential to the overall picture of the Lhasa has been left out. It should be remembered, also, that when the Lhasa was recognized by the AKC, it was placed in the Terrier Group. We all can appreciate the lovely straight front of the terriers, but we find them so seldom in our breed. I think that most of us would dearly love to have a Lhasa with beautiful straight forelegs, but we so often find curvature to the bone, or a toeing in, or an elbowing out. What is wrong with our fronts? Perhaps I am even more ignorant than I feared, but I do not know of anyone who produces straight fronts consistently. We must ask ourselves if we are being saddled with an unreasonable feature in this aspect of our standard. I, for one, do try very hard to breed a Lhasa with straight forelegs, but I will be the first to admit that I consider those legs to be the weakest part-of my dogs, in that I cannot always claim them to be "straight." If others are experiencing the same difficulty, than we need to take a closer look at this part of our standard and face the fact squarely. For myself, I will continue to try to breed the "straight forelegs" but others may settle for a different approach. We must either define more accurately "straight forelegs," or face the prospect of accepting an entirely different look to the dog of today.

FEET WELL FEATHERED, SHOULD BE ROUND AND CATLIKE, WITH GOOD PADS.

"Good" again. Here, however, we cannot assume that the word "good" should read "long" for we generally see oval shaped pads rather than long ones on our dogs. Are they referring to the pigmentation of those pads, and if so, why is it not stated, black pads? Clearly this term is meaningless and should be deleted entirely....

"Well feathered"...No--this is not a cocker or a setter. We need well furnished, not well feathered....

And...I personally am not sure what is meant by "feet" in this case. We see hairy leg endings whose hair can be trimmed to a rounded appearance. This seems to satisfy the judges for I have not seen a judge pick up a Lhasa foot to look for the roundness it is supposed to show. As for catlike as applied to the foot of a dog, it is conceded that a catlike foot is one which has shorter third digits. How many judges have you seen examine the third digits in your Lhasa's feet to make sure he has the correct "catlike" foot?

TAIL AND CARRIAGE: WELL FEATHERED, SHOULD BE CARRIED WELL OVER BACK IN A SCREW; THERE DAY BE A KINK AT THE END. A LOW CARRIAGE OF STERN IS A SERIOUS FAULT.

The mature, dominant, and secure dog who has been exposed to much handling and many people, who is at ease with himself and the situation will carry his tail high in the show ring and elsewhere. A low carriage of stern often reflects nothing but the insecurity and temerity of its owner. Junior and Senior puppies will often drop their tails in the ring and with a rain-swept unmowed field in which to show, even the most assertive dog (and his exhibitor) will begin to droop and drag. It is a credit to the courtesy of judges that they consistently request the handler to try again with the Lhasa who will not carry his tail high instead of simply dismissing the animal for failing to comply with the present Standard....

On the other hand, when we look at this section of the Lhasa Standard, we find that the only mention of carriage (defined as manner of carrying one's body or self) pertains to the tail alone. Either the section should be retitled "TAIL AND ITS CARRIAGE" or we must include something in the Standard about the carriage of the Lhasa self or body. Or perhaps the Standard did not feel that the Lhasa needed to move....

On the whole, however, the above is a generally positive Standard. It attempts to set up the picture of what the dog should be, not to define the many things that it is not.

Furthermore, the heritage of the dog from its Eastern pacifistic origins, is maintained--the dog is not required to hunt, hound, or herd or work. His mission in life is that of companionship and there is nothing in the above Standard that would saddle it with unnecessary qualities for such a career. He need not have the soft mouth for fetching game, nor the vision of a coursing hound. He is a lively animated house animal, and the only thing extreme about him is the length of his magnificent coat. In all other aspects, the Lhasa is--or should be--a sound, healthy, sturdy, natural-appearing dog. Even the "classic" Lhasa head has a natural appearance.

Breeders of toy dogs will tell you how difficult it is to breed a good small dog. They miss the boat when their puppies grow too large, but rejoice in the smallest of their puppies for they present the more desirable appearance in the ring.

On the contrary, breeders of giant dogs will tell how difficult it is to breed a good large dog. Giant breeders are distressed when a promising puppy never reaches the desired size of the massive breed--the bigger the better for their show ring.

Both the toy breeder and the giant breeder have only one dimension of failure in the size of their respective breeds. The breeder of the medium-sized dog, however, is caught in the middle. His margin of error is so much the greater because it extends in both directions. If one pup is too small, he has lost out. If one Is too large, he has lost out also. The Lhasa breeder, knows how difficult is to breed the good medium-sized dog....

It is to the credit of the breed, its breeders, and the above Standard, that the Lhasas shown in rings around the country exhibit so many easily identifiable similarities, rather than glaringly obvious differences. As breeders have developed and expanded their lines, they have done the same with their consciousness: they have constantly striven to produce BETTER --coats, movements, rears, fronts, tail sets, temperaments, heads, bites, muscle tone, condition, health, soundness--and every area and aspect of the breed. That they will continue to strive for the perfect dog is indicative of their sense of the esthetic and their devotion to the charming personality and presence of the dogs we all love--the Lhasa Apso.

WHERE DO WE GO PROM HERE, BOYS, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Now that we have all whetted our appetites for standard revision, let us take an analytical approach to our efforts and see how we can further improve, both our observations and our efforts to put into clear writing what we want to say.....

A couple of the standards sent in by the contributing clubs had ideas about what they wanted to say, but somehow the clearness of the thought did not come through. It is not enough to state what is wrong about something; one must make clear how it could be made right. Thus, we had one club stating the "movement should be in a straight line and be smooth and free-flowing with a definite rear kick." I would like to know how it is possible to move forward and yet give a "definite rear kick at the same time." Also, in one club "everyone (almost) favored the use of some control short of a top knot or other obvious means" as "some sort of restraint on the headfall to improve vision in the show ring." The one thing that came immediately to mind was Elmer's Glue, which is of little practical use as far as coat condition is involved. What is definitely needed is a discipline that will enable Lhasa owners and breeders to go over the Standard point by point and analyze each word in its general and its detailed meaning. Remember that it takes very little effort to find an error; it is another thing, however, to correct it.

So often, in any area, in any topic, discussion assumes that everyone is talking about the same thing that all words mean the same to everyone involved. Please make sure that this is so. We all know what the sound v-e-t means, to us it means a Veterinarian, to the VFW or the American Legion, it means a person who has served in the military, to a car buff it is short for Corvette. In your discussions, please make sure that you are indeed all talking about the same thing, even if it means a session in which you do nothing but define the terms involved....

What is the next step in revising the Standard? As far as we know, all 27 Clubs across the country received a copy of the revised standard put out by the ALAC. Only fifteen clubs have responded....ALAC Board of Directors is to meet again on the 20th of November and on the 18th of December to put together the whole can of worms. What will happen at these meetings in anybody's guess, but three avenues of action seem open. They can (1) present the original revision in ballot form for all ALAC members to vote on, (2) they can agree to make no changes at all, and so we would all go on with the old 1935 Standard, or (3) they can take the great volume of suggestions and start all over again which will put the revision off until next year at least.

If the first course of action is followed, I see a very close vote. If they follow the second course, I see interest continuing among Lhasa owners with different clubs publishing their own revisions, etc., and with possible coalitions being formed between different clubs who seek support of favored items in their club proposals. I also see that more interest and analysis will be encouraged by various owners and breeders who can then set forth in more clear and precise language exactly where they stand on the various points in the Lhasa Standard.

We must make use of the Standard as a teaching tool so that any one who Judges or assesses our dogs will have a clear pattern by which to measure the animal. The Memphis Club took a sound stand in their approach and are to be congratulated on their astuteness ; their comments state that "an effort should be made to educate judges..."

They hit the nail squarely on the head again in a different section, using the front legs as their frame of reference and stating "WE FEEL WE SHOULD TRY TO IMPROVE THE BREED TO FIT THE STANDARD RATHER THAN CHANGE THE STANDARD TO FIT THE DOG." I say, right on, Memphis, but lets make sure that we have a clear cut Standard to begin with...

I know that it will be slow, but if I were to make a suggestion, I would suggest that the Standard Committee proceed item by item in the present Standard and try to reach an overall agreement on each one before they proceed to the next. It must be a cooperative effort;' reflecting the contributions of all seriously concerned and not an arbitrary decision handed down from on high. And if the Standards Committee settles down to rework and reword another proposed revision, we can easily recognize that this is going to be a long campaign and that it will also be a hard fought one. We wish them well. It was before, and still remains, a monumental task. If they can fulfill the objectives expressed by so many clubs, and so many individual owners, and find acceptance among the majority of Lhasa owners, they will have justly earned the gratitude of the entire Lhasa constellation...