GENERAL APPEARANCE ­ Well balanced, sturdy, heavily coated.

CHARACTERISTICS ­ Gay and assertive.

TEMPERAMENT ­ Alert, steady but somewhat aloof with strangers.

HEAD & SKULL ­ Heavy head furnishings with good fall over eyes, good whiskers and beard. Skull moderately narrow, falling away behind the eyes, not quite flat, but not domed or apple headed. Straight foreface with medium stop. Nose black. Muzzle about 4cm (1 ½ inches) but not square; length from tip of nose roughly one third total length from nose to back of skull.

EYES ­ Dark, Medium size, frontally placed, oval, neither large nor full, nor small and sunk. No white showing at base or top.

EARS ­ Pendant, heavily feathered.

MOUTH ­ Upper incisors close just inside lower, i.e. reverse scissor bite. Incisors in a broad and as straight a line as possible. Rill dentition desirable.

NECK ­ Strong and well arched.

FOREQUARTERS ­ Shoulders well laid back. Forelegs straight, heavily furnished with hair.

BODY ­ Length from point of shoulders to point of buttocks greater than height at withers Well ribbed. Level topline. Strong loin. Balanced and compact.

HINDQUARTERS ­ Well developed with good muscle. Good angulation. Heavily furnished with hair. Hocks when viewed from behind parallel and not too close together.

FEET ­ Round, cat­like with firm pads. Well feathered.

GAIT/MOVEMENT ­ Free and jaunty.

TAIL ­ High set, carried well over back but not like a pot­hook. Often a kink at the end, Well feathered.

COAT ­ Top coat long, heavy, straight, hard neither woolly nor silky. Moderate undercoat.

COLOUR ­ Golden, sandy, honey, dark grizzle, slate, smoke, parti­colour, black, white or brown. All equally acceptable.

SIZE ­ Ideal height: 25.4cm (10 inches) at shoulder for dogs; bitches slightly smaller.

FAULTS ­ Any departure from the foregoing points should be regarded as a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree.

NOTE: ­ Male animals should have two apparently normal testicles fully descended into the scrotum.

It may come as a shock to the Lhasa Apso clubs in England to learn that the Lhasa Apso Club in Australia has requested the Australian National Kennel Council NOT TO APPROVE THE NEW ENGLISH KENNEL CLUB BREED STANDARD for use in Australia. The Lhasa Apso people here prefer to stick to the old one..

Perhaps I should explain that in the past Australia has always used the English breeds standards [with the exception of course of the Australian breeds] . This has been the practice for a number of years. Therefore, the decision to ask the ANKC not to adopt the new Lhasa Apso standard was not taken lightly.

When copies of the new standard arrived here there was a great deal of unease on the part of several of the established breeders, and as a result the Club's committee discussed the matter at length, members all over Australia were circulated, and asked for their comments. Their opinion was unanimous.

Why was the new standard rejected? Perhaps some of the reasons submitted by the Club and expressed by individuals may help to explain.

In general, it was felt that the new standard omitted a number of breed characteristics, some of which may be minor, but are nevertheless factors which add up to the individuality of the breed itself. For instance, the omission of the reference to Dark tips on the ear furnishings.

However, there were a number of major changes which it was felt completely alter the breed. One of these was a change in the description of the Lhasa Apso temperament. "Chary of strangers" is replaced by "Alert, steady but somewhat aloof with strangers". At the meeting, everyone produced their dictionaries..

The word "aloof" was defined in many terms such as: "distant, unsympathetic, supercilious in manner, attitude or feeling" The word "chary" defines as: "careful , choosy, finicky ". We'd rather keep "chary!

The use of the word "sturdy" was felt to give the impression of a heavy built dog. I personally have never liked the word "solid" either.

The change to the mouth, adding "incisors in a broad and as straight a line as possible." would do justice to a Shih Tzu mouth! It has always been noticeable that in the Lhasa the four middle incisors in the lower jaw are straight with the two outer ones set fractionally back ­ and the same with the upper jaw. All in a straight line usually brings with it a bite that is too undershot, with prominent "eye" incisors in the top jaw, tending to be more to a Shih Tzu bite.

The Club members objected strongly to the deletion of the "dense mane". Even though it is invariably stripped out for the showing, they felt it was an important breed characteristic. In addition they could see judges and novice exhibitors looking for swan necks with the addition of the word ".well arched". It was pointed out that Boxers have well arched necks ­ and a Boxer neck is not a Lhasa neck !

But the paragraph which has sent everyone crazy is the one on body. In my opinion, and I have already stated this in print, the change alone is grounds for rejecting the new standard. The term "Well ribbed up" has been changed to "Well ribbed".

When I first read this, I thought, there must be a mistake, they've left out a word. How could anyone who knows anything about dogs change that term?

The term "Well ribbed up" has a specific meaning. It means the ribs are carried well back. It means the Lhasa Apso has a long rib cage, which is the very point that gives it the body length that is desirable ["Length from point of shoulders to point of buttocks greater than height at withers"] because a "strong loin" is required, not a long, slack loin creating a long coupled dog.

What does "well ribbed" mean? We all know that it will be taken as meaning round barrelly ribs ­ like a Shih Tzu! The Club members here are of the opinion that the change will cause a complete change in the shape of the body.

The other point that was strongly objected to was the change from "dense undercoat" to "moderate undercoat". Moderate now and no undercoat in ten years time!!!! The dense undercoat is a climatic need in the country of origin. If the phrase had been changed to "dense and LONG undercoat" which is what the correct Lhasa undercoat is, it would have been right.

As one of our older breeders here has said: "Although it is a good idea to standardize the format of breed standards as part of an internationalization process, I am not in favour of the changes in wording which have been slipped in the process I do not think the full implications of the changes in wording can have been appreciated by those who proposed the changes, as many would have the effect of reducing the distinction between Lhasas and Shih Tzu - a distinction which is hard enough to preserve anyway.

Lhasa occupy a special place for people who want a big dog personality in a small size, not a toy, but a dog who is small enough to pick up while you are talking to a friend, and who fits in terrace gardens, car seats, on beds, etc., a real extra person in the household." It is the specialness, the uniqueness of the Lhasa that we all love, and this standard makes it just any old dog as long as it has lots of long coat [preferably with no tiresome undercoat to be stripped out!]

I might add some further comments. These could have a great bearing on the future bonds between UK and Australia. The Lhasa Apso Club here is not alone in their low opinion of the new breed standard. A great many other breed clubs have made similar requests to ANKC regarding the new standards. It is not so much the new paragraphing format which is objected to as the tampering with unique breed characteristics. This attitude in Australia could have important implications for British breeders. The vast majority of imports have in the past' come from Britain, so have many of the judges. Not any more. More dogs are being imported from North America and Europe, despite the long quarantine period imposed. But now dogs can come direct from Hawaii, and quarantine has been made easier so we can import direct from Scandinavia and Japan [both rabies free] . It is on the cards that some easing of quarantine may in the future apply to importing from the USA. WE have had several Lhasa Apsos, including an American Champion, come from USA via Hawaii, and more are planned.

So the reliance on imports from UK is lessening, and with it a lucrative source of income ­ and an opportunity all too often to dump second­rate stock ­ for British breeders, and a lessening of British influence. I'm not saying it's a good thing. But I beg you to seriously look at your situation. Is Britain losing its reputation as the world's best, most knowledgeable dog breeders?

FOOTNOTE. We are not all backwoodsmen here. In 28 [twenty­eight] breeds there are more registrations annually than in Britain [not counting the Australian breeds] per capita of population [16m as against 66m] more people are involved in dog breeding and showing than in Britain. Melbourne Royal show attracts an entry of 7,000 dogs. Think about it.

FRANCES SEFTON