She: Acknowledging a division amongst Lhasa breeders. During the early 1950’s and 1960’s, Lhasa breeders hurled charges and counter-charges against one another relating to the integrity of their unique bloodlines, resulting in damaged relationships, angry confrontations, and a solidification of position on the issue. Sixty years later, it seems little has changed!
Me: A whole lot has changed. Now the Hamilton people can be numbered on two hands, while hundreds of breeders of non Hamilton exist. Still the "Non"s seem threatened by this tiny minority.
She: The "Non’s" are not threatened, the Lhasa Apso breed is.
Me: How do 10 breeders threaten the breed? There must be a thousand of the majority.
She: What has caused this division? When the first Lhasas from England were imported into this country, a great hue and cry rose from the already established Lhasa breeders who said the imports were really Shih-Tzus. These established American breeders based this theory strictly on the basis of the British registrations, rather than the dogs themselves.
Me: This is not the position of the English Shih-Tzu club which was very angry about the registration of good English Shih-Tzu as Apsos. The dogs themselves were purebred English Shih-Tzus, English Shih-Tzu Champions, and proud of it! They are found in present day top Shih-Tzu pedigrees. I have several letters to that effect from the Shih-Tzu people. How else should people judge an import but on the basis of the British registration? All these dogs came originally from Peking, not Tibet, and were bred for at least 20 years in Britain as Shih-Tzu. By what theory do you designate a breed? Despite this, AKC’s John Neff allowed those dogs to be accepted into the registry as Lhasa Apsos. Whether or not he should have done this is a moot* point , it was done, it won’t be changed, and those import s were absorbed into the general Lhasa population.
She: Has this division harmed the Breed? There is no doubt in my mind that a great deal of animosity has been deliberately created , first among breeders in the United States, and now worldwide.
Me: How do you figure that? Only 10 breeders in the whole world! What are the rest of the thousands of breeders so afraid of?
She: Why do you persist in labeling other breeders fearful? It’s not a matter of fear, but rather damaged relationships amongst Lhasa breeders ... not being able to utilize all lines in the best interests of the Breed without censure from one group or another.
Me: What damaged relationships? If a relationship can be "damaged" by whether or not a person uses another’s dog , there was no relationship to damage. No-one can utilize all lines. Who is doing the censuring? Is there censure by the non-H group if one of them uses a Hamilton dog? I don’t know of any censure going the other way either. Anyone can use any line they like. Everyone exercises choice. Why should the choices of 10 people be so threatening??
She: Whenever a group of people set themselves apart as having the only correct bloodlines (the purists), they are falling into a dangerous trap.
Me: But nobody does that. There are no "correct bloodlines", and I never heard anyone say that. There are many bloodlines that one or another breeder will not use for one reason or another. There are many dogs not mixed with Eng. ST’s that I would not use either.
She: Their own research has proven that two of the original dogs used in their bloodlines are behind the original English imports.
Me: That is not true. Please re-read my article. The two dogs mentioned were from unknown origins in Shanghai. No present day Shih-Tzu are descended from these dogs - only Lhasa Apsos! They were registered in Shanghai (China Kennel Club) as "Tibetan Terriers". On the other hand, the three English Shih-Tzus registered here as Lhasas have both Champion Shih-Tzu and Lhasa Apso descendants. One of them was already an English Shih-Tzu Champion herself!.
She: If they then try to establish that only their Lhasas are correct according to the Standard for the Breed, they must fall back on several old standards written in the early 1900’s, or change the current Standard.
Me: Again, not true. In most countries, the standard has been changed to fit the current dogs in the ring, deviating from the original type. Please re-read my article on the English standard. We who are trying to conserve the original type have seen that the dogs now living in the Himalayas still conform to the old standards (1901, 1934) and the "New" type dogs do not conform even to the current standard. We have no interest in changing the standard for these New type dogs. In fact, a new standard could be written to fit the New dogs, and the "Old Fashioned" dogs left with their "Old Fashioned" standard (1934-’35). When the standard for the new type is finally adjusted to fit the type which is being shown and winning, then it will be abundantly clear that these are at least two different varieties of the breed and possibly have diverged enough to call them two different breeds.
She: Just where was that "old fashioned standard" recognized in the US? You’ve dug it up from the far reaches, and "pushed" for it for 20 years, but I’ve never seen in any AKC literature.
Me: The 1935 standard was there before the present one. Plus I am not talking just about the USA. I didn’t dig it up - it has been circulating for all the time I have been in Lhasas. Ellie Bauman published it in the 60’s. The AKC would not likely advertise its fiascoes of the past, now would it?
She: This ostracizes all those many breeders striving to breed what they perceive as correct type as outlined in the currently accepted Standard, regardless of bloodlines.
Me: How does what 10 people believe ostracize any of the thousand or so others. You have to be a minority to be "ostracized".
She: That is patently untrue! os·tra·cize v. tr. os·tra·cized, os·tra·ciz·ing, os*tra·ciz·es. To exclude from a group. See Synonyms at blackball. To banish by ostracism , as in ancient Greece.
Me: Yes it was banishment of individuals by the majority. You can read about it in Plato’s "The Republic". A group is defined by its goals or beliefs. Ostracism is the active banishment of those who seek to be included in that group. It does not apply to those who voluntarily exclude themselves. A Muslim is excluded from a Christian religious fellowship because he chooses to be a Muslim. If he wanted to become a Christian, no one in the Christian camp would ostracize him.
We are merely a minority view - a group of antiquarians. Why is the majority so bent on destroying the minority voice. The majority has all the power, all the influence, and still they cannot leave the tiny minority alone to say whatever they want in defense of their opinions.
She: Destroying (the minority voice)" - ROTFL! That is funny, I just hate to see newcomers pulled into this ridiculous debate, and brainwashed by this pitiful "minority"! The "Minority" destroys lines of communication, and the "Majority" goes blithely on it’s way breeding dogs to the Standard currently accepted by the AKC.
Me: Fine.
That’s what everyone should be doing. Breeding according to
his own conscience and according to his most informed and educated
reading of the standard. With 1000 breeders, how can 10 destroy lines
of communication? That is patently impossible, and no amount of
repeating it can make it otherwise. All the power and all the influence
is with the 1000. And why is it
that the governing majority are so anxious that newcomers do not hear
the minority viewpoint? Is there some danger in their knowing the true
history?
"It is error
alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by
itself." Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia"
They
cannot
leave the tiny minority alone to say whatever they want in defense of
their opinions.
She: Say, speak, think whatever you want - my contributions are not directed at anyone except those with an open mind and a willingness to learn. The "theys" on the other hand should speak to one another, and stop trying to "brainwash" everyone else.
Me: "...should speak to one another, and stop trying to brainwash"? That does run counter to my ideas of free speech. (So long as we whisper among ourselves it is OK, but don’t speak in public, or the Lhasa opinion police will arrest you?) When did speaking what one considers the truth become brainwashing"? Do you think that standing on the street corner and preaching to passers by is brainwashing? I thought we had a constitutional right to do that. We have no captive audience. I put my ideas out in public, with the best arguments I have - arguments that convinced me - and I leave it to everyman to weigh my arguments and decide whether He agrees or not. And I will listen to other arguments as well. I will weigh what evidence they present against the evidence I have for my argument and I will go with the weight of the evidence. If you don’t believe that, try me!
She: You know Cathy, I’ve admired many of your dogs over the years. Now I would not fall into the trap of seeking improvement or change, or whatever they might offer because that would be giving a bone to a Pit Bull! You see what the "minority" is doing? Just keep breeding within your own lines, we’re doing just fine, thanks!" And I have never insinuated that what you are doing was "divisive" or any of the other pejoratives you have used in this article. If what you do, and what you have, pleases you, God bless! Who am I to make decisions for you? I have enough trouble making my own. You have to live with yours, and I with mine. If consistent winning in the ring is not a criterion of excellence, then we as American breeders must base our ideas of what constitutes quality on the American Standard and its interpretation.
Me: But is winning in the U.S. show ring the sole criterion of excellence for a Tibetan dog?
She: Our
current Standard is short, and does not define a "dog", but rather
those characteristics that differentiate the Lhasa Apso from other
purebred dogs. This Standard was arrived at by consensus of the parent
club (The American Lhasa Apso Club) and its members.
The
English
Lhasa Apso Standard has already been changed considerably from the
American Standard, and is currently accepted by the FCI. Now we have a
proposal to change the FCI Standard. It would seem the "purists" do not
welcome our American exports overseas! (This may be one way to avoid
competition, and keep the status quo.)
Me: This would be the assumption of those who believe that "winning" is important. I believe that the prevalent attitude among the "conservationists" is that showing our dogs is similar to what publishing is in Science. In Science, one publishes papers on one’s research so that other scientists can learn of your progress and try to repeat your work, thus validating it. We are not showing our dogs so much to "compete" as to validate their quality with our peers. What a judge, who knows less about the breed than do our peers, thinks of our dogs does not really matter. Those who believe that winning in the show ring is the measure of quality will never understand the conservationist viewpoint and will always try to eradicate this tiny minority voice. We are not the intolerant ones.
She: I know I’m not the brightest bulb in the lot, but will you please tell me of one person that is trying to destroy, eradicate, or intimidate this tiny, helpless group? :o) I’m one who speaks out for reason, tolerance of other’s ideas, and perseverance ... but just who are these other Bullies? Let me at’m, I’ll show ‘em a thing or two!
Me: Hi there Bully! Let me quote you from a few paragraphs ago: "The "theys" on the other hand should speak to one another, and stop trying to "brainwash" everyone else."
She: What keeps this argument going? Since those early American breeders had established their bloodlines on imports from Tibet and some of the same dogs behind the English imports,
Me: Not true. Get facts straight please.
She: Why was there so much hostility and vilification towards the new dogs and their owners? Most of us can understand the basic premise of "pure breeding" and why any dilution of bloodlines that could seriously impair the quality of the breed would be unwarranted.
Me: You obviously have never really read the correspondence I sent you years ago if you do not know the true answer to that. The hostility was directed to the AKC, and from the AKC to the breeders who complained to AKC. These people were threatened by AKC for speaking out.
She: I think this can be answered rather easily by understanding the necessity felt by many for "control", and the advantage of having been "there" first without much competition.
Me: Again, competition. It seems that is the problem for the Majority. The fact that the minority does not bow down and worship the WINNERS. We do not want to use them to breed to even though they are WINNERS. That sticks in the craw of those who think that winning is the vindication of quality. As for CONTROL, THE MAJORITY HAS ALL THE POWER AND ALL THE CONTROL. The minority just does not want to be controlled.
She: Right! They want to control! Nor do most breeders ever fee l the need to be jealous of this "minority" or WANT to use their dogs! At least that is rapidly becoming the case as far as I feel! Has nothing to do with competition in the show ring, but competition for CONTROL! A marketing tool, also.
Me: No one wants to control the majority. The very fact that they want to SEPARATE from the majority means they want no further engagement with the majority. If we have two separate varieties or breeds there is no issue of control whatsoever. Your argument would have it both ways. So which is it? Do we want to diverge from the majority, actually create a separate breed from them, or do we want to control them. If we leave, we leave control behind as an issue. You can’t have it both ways, because they are opposites. Make up your mind which criticism you are leveling.
She: If the new dogs had not been competitive, I doubt any more complaints would have been heard from all those concerned.
Me: You really seem not to understand, and evidently have not read the literature I gave you a long time ago. Tibetan history, culture, religion, art, and tradition are wrapped up in these dogs and are far more important than what some individual licensed to award ribbons by AKC thinks. There are real people in the world still who set a higher value on these dogs than that. Do you imagine that the queen Mother of Bhutan, who raises these dogs cares one bit about WINNING. She would chuckle at the thought: "These poor Westerners, with their foolish ideas!"
She: Competition being what it is, the "generic" show dog seemed to catch the judges eye early on , consider the two dogs that competed with great success in the 70’s; BIS Ch. Karma Frosty Knight O’ Everglo and BIS C h. Kyi-Chu Friar Tuck. These two were quite dissimilar in type, with Frosty being from the "pure" lines, and Tuck being the Americanized version.
Me: So??? What is the point of that statement? We reject the generic showdog problem in all breeds. And we are not alone.
She: Things have changed since those early days , the bitter anger and hostility of those first early breeders has been reborn into a cold hard logic based on "Breed Type". The idea of a breeding program striving for any "improvement" has been struck down, and replaced with regression rather than progression.
Me: If "improvement" means any change in type from the original first described in 1900, and from the photos we have of the imports, yes it should be "struck down". The Conservationists in this breed and many others feel that the breed, perfected as it was by millennia in the Himalayas was just fine, and needs no "improvement" or "progression". Since there are still "unimproved" models still in the Himalayas, there is no "retrogression" involved - only conservation. Nothing has been "reborn" except the anxiety of those who must maintain control and squelch all differing ideas.
She: Some of the early dogs from both backgrounds have been defamed and cast as "villains" by those considering themselves "authorities"2).
Me: That statement is just inflammatory. Just who are these dogs and how were they cast as villains. Unless you give examples, this statement does nothing but attempt to offend.
She: Ch. Everglo’s Spark of Gold, and Ch. Karma Frosty Knight O’Everglo
Me: Thank you, but I have heard all the remarks for 30 years, and I never heard either called a villain. Carolyn Herbel, although she greatly admired the type and beauty of the dog, became firmly convinced that Frosty was the sole source of "rage" syndrome, which has been found to be a form of temporal lobe epilepsy, and has nothing to do with temperament. I do not offer any excuses for her opinions or how she arrived at them. She wears her shoes, and I mine. I never heard anything about Sparky except from Gloria, who said he was a very nice little dog. And as the breeder, she had the right to say anything she wanted.
She: What
would result by dividing the breed into two registries? First,
who
would determine which criteria upon which to base the
division?
One
proponent of this division, when asked the question "What
criteria
are you using to split the breed?" answered "Head, eyes, bite,
neck,
body, front, rear, angulation, coat, size and movement." Well,
I guess
that’s pretty inclusive, isn’t it?
Me: Yes, and these points are points of difference between the original type and the deviations from it. Examples : Proportions incorrect, head and nose shorter, skull domed, eyes round and prominent, bite quite undershot, teeth missing and scrambled, neck excessive in apparent length, front too narrow, placed too anteriorly, with vertical shoulder blades and short upper arms, body too narrow, too short, lacking substance, rear tipped up, (pelvic angle unsound for any canine), back lordotic, coat soft, size excessive, movement unbalanced, exaggerated, and inefficient. . .Just a long litany of faults found in every line since the Breed’s inception.
She: Right. Found in no particular line.
Me: Thank you, that is what we have been saying from the beginning, but some people will not let the "line" business go.
She: You are the ones that keep insisting it is a pedigree thing and not a type thing. It is a type that breeders are breeding and judges are putting up. Not just in the US, but around the world. The "line" has nothing to do with it.
Me: Neck, front, rear, angulation and movement are all related to structure, not type. These are generic qualities not addressed in our current Standard, assuming that "dog people" understand how these relate to normal canine structure. The length of neck, for instance, depends on placement and angles of the shoulder , and while length of body depends on pelvic placement and structure, the Standard calls for more length than height. When considering type, however, we are dealing with a look, rather than bone structure. Consider the two Cocker Spaniels shown today , the English Cocker and the American Cocker.
She: The original English Cocker today remains quite similar to its early foundations in the US. The American version is somewhat different, but as you can see from the photos of American and English Cockers, much of the difference is how the dogs are posed and groomed.
Me: Nonsense. The English Cockers have the typical hard coats of sporting dogs, and the head structure in the skull and foreface that a bird dog needs to scent game. They are longer in body and constructed quite differently from the American. If people cannot see the differences between a true sporting type dog, (the English), and the caricature of it, (the American), that itself is testimony about how the show mentality has corrupted the true appreciation of dogs. This is the same statement I hear over and over about Apsos: "the difference between the original dogs and "new" type is just stacking and grooming". Arrant nonsense. I have gone over the imports from Asia. The only commonality is long hair. Cut down they look like two different breeds.
She: The American Cocker has a heavier coat, and slightly different head type. Is this what we want to do with the Lhasa Apso?
Me: It has been done already. The American Show Lhasa is already the equivalent of the American Cocker.
She: The "Original Lhasa" would derive its type from some of the old Standards and articles on the breed, such as quoted below: "like a Skye with a Scotch Terrier head"
Me: Written 1900 when the Scottish Terrier had a head much like the modern day Cairn, and the Skye had drop ears.
She: "The
terrier type (though all Tibetan dogs have the tail curling
strongly over the
back), strongly resembles the Skye Terrier."
"In size they
vary but smaller are considered the more valuable." "The size
varies a good deal, but the really small ones, though up to
recently
rarely bred in this country are most valued on their own
and fetch long
prices in the East."
"Tommo, which is so like his imported and much lamented dam (which died when giving birth to her second litter), is, I think, the most typical Lhasa in this country, with his short legs, immense paws, heavy coat, lovely shape, and massive head. "
Me: Tommo 1895, when compared to long legged terriers, would be properly described that way.
She: This sounds very interesting to me - a long, low Terrier-type smaller-the-better dog (with a massive head) about 8-10 inches or so in height! Yes, I can live with that, it conflicts in no way with our present American Standard!
Me: Irony notwithstanding, it does not conflict with the 1934 standard. When you understand the context, and the fact that your excerpts do not represent the majority of the writers of that time, this is a very accurate description of the breed. That dog, and the one still living in the Himalayas was and is a relatively short legged, terrier headed dog, 9 to 10 inches in height. You just do not happen to like that original breed, but prefer the American version, up on leg, with a small, short head. The conservationists think since that is the case, those who like the new rendition should go their way and leave the old breed alone.
She: "I do not
know if the Indian Kennel
Club’s decision to separate the Lhasa Terriers
into two distinct
breeds, calling the 14-15 inch dog the
Tibetan Terrier, and
the 8 inch dog the Lhasa Terrier, will have any bearing on the
Lhasa breed in this country or affect our
Lhasa
classification in any way "
Me: This was the only author who ever described the dog as 8 inches - all the rest said it was between 9 and 11. History does not depend on one statement from one author, but a consensus from many sources.
She: You mean those you have searched out from every available source to prove your own viewpoint?
Me That is quite frankly an insult. Why do you assume I started with the viewpoint, and then picked the things I wanted to prove it? Is it so unbelievable that I read these things years ago, collected them and these things formed my viewpoint? I am a student. I do not start with a prejudice and then set out to pick and choose things to bolster my prejudice. I would think that if alternate viewpoints are equally represented in the early writings on the breed, that you would be just as able as I to find them to support your viewpoint. You have the same access as I do to all of the historical writings on the breed. I sought out any old descriptions I could find from every source available to me. I started collecting them in the early 70’s when I still had my Sparky line bitch. And I published them all on my web page. I did not pick and choose - (as you did). Where did you get the quotes that you mocked from then, if not from my page?
If you can find some that refute the ones I have published, send them to me and I will publish them along with the others. If you cannot find any, there are two possible reasons: 1.They do not exist. or 2. you would rather argue off the top of your head rather than from facts
She: But I have come to know the "purists" over time, and their next step would be to qualify these descriptions to bring their Standard closer to the American Standard! They want it both ways, you see , and it’s hard to argue logic with them.
Me: Especially when you are excerpting things out of context, which is a logical fallacy, and would be rejected as a valid form of argument by any logician!
She: Next, who would make the division, and how would it be managed? As we can see, poor specimens could fit in either category. Would it be like the Beagles, where if a dog grows over 12", he could be shown in the larger size Beagle ring? Or could a puppy from parents registered as an American Lhasa only be shown in the American Lhasa class, in any country? Certainly these are questions to think about, and discuss rationally without hyperbole and emotional rantings.
Me: The "emotional rantings" seem to be coming from the majority, who are quite interested in silencing the minority voice any way it can. They have the numbers and the power to change the breed any way they want to. Ten or so individuals in the world want to point to the native breed and say to the world, "Please don’t change our beautiful little breed, or if you must change the dogs you control, at least let we few leave this road which has turned in the wrong direction, and let us have our original breed back again. You folks follow your star wherever it leads, and good luck to you, but don’t force us to go with you if we do not want to."
She: Yes, every discussion, argument, article winds up with this little (scuse me while I choke) reversal of the roles of the two groups. The majority have no intention of forcing anything on anyone, they’re doing their thing. On the other hand ... oh well, what’s the use! Sigh
Me: How is this a role reversal? I never heard the other side ask for a split in the breed? And I for one will continue to put forth my message to the world to be heard by anyone who wants to listen. It is a message of conservation of an ancient breed, a message that resists change for change’s sake, or for the sake of winning in a showring, and tries to promote education among breeders. I will not, although it would be so easy to do, breed for the showring. Don’t you think that with my experience I could have bred a pile of "winners" if that is what I was trying to do? Obviously that is NOT what I am trying to do. And at the same time, anyone who wants to do that has my blessing. I just don’t consider that a goal I want to pursue.
So long as the original type is overwhelmed by the others, it is in danger of becoming extinct. There are two ways of trying to ward off that possibility. One is to try to attract fanciers to the original type, and the other is to attempt escape to a less hostile environment, where the original type can be it’s own breed or variety, and can flourish, with the input of what additional Asian imports we can find to add to its ranks. We are an ethnic minority, and will l be persecuted as such until we find a "country" of our own.
I choose the former role - trying to preach the idea of return to correct type as embodied in the original and more recent imports from the Himalayas. (They are different, whether you believe that or not) Others have advocated the latter course of seeking a separate status. What we will not accept is the absorption into the great majority mix. That means the extinction of the Lhasa Apso as a Himalayan dog imbued with all the characteristics of its ancient and physiologically unique past..
She: Moot - *Adj. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. a. Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
1) Even though these imports brought in much needed diversity, excellent health and temperament, they were immediately categorized as mongrels by the purists.
2) How does one become an "authority" on the Lhasa Apso?
Frankly, I would question that designation if only based on longevity in the breed. Many of these so-called authorities have only bred one specific line of dogs; much less other breeds, and cannot consider themselves authorities on the entire breed. Others that have done extensive research have done so mainly with the idea of proving their own specific ideas, rather than an unbiased look at the various bloodlines.
Me: Research always starts somewhere. Mine started with a Sparky great- granddaughter, my first apso. I looked, I read, I formed my judgements after serious study of the breed! I was forced to change my ideas as the result of my study, not justify my opinions based on what I started with. I became convinced, and adopted my present ideas, based on my research, and not, as you suggest, the other way round. Others have formed the same opinions in much the same way.
She: The Hamilton Farms in New Jersey certainly did not stamp any particular "type" on the dogs they bred and exhibited; Dorothy Cohen who bought out the Hamilton Farms Lhasa Apsos looked for a particular "type" that appealed to her, and not necessarily that of the original imports.
Me: That is your opinion, and based on neither written record, nor first hand experience. You saw very few Hamilton farms dogs out in Iowa in the 60’s and 70’s. Never having been to Hamilton farms, it might be instructive to talk to those who have been or at least read what they wrote. I have talked to many who had been there - Grace Licos, and others. It was their opinion that Ham. Farms did try to breed the same type as the dogs they imported, and even more importantly, were quite successful at it.
I am sure all the "threatened" and aggrieved majority will love this essay, because it reinforces their feelings of righteous indignation at being "dissed" by a handful of people who want their Lhasa Apsos "straight up". However I find it based on personal feeling more so than fact, and am disappointed you wrote something based more on emotion than fact, and not an essay more worthy of your talents and intellect.
She:This sounds like Clinton, he always had the opposition on the "defense", because he always turned their arguments back on them bigger and better! Very skillful politician! I’m not falling into that trap any more!
Me: "You sound like that lying no good bastard" is not an effective argument. - it is an ad hominem, sort of "Your mother wears Army shoes" - something ordinarily resorted to when all real debate fails. But I understand your dilemma.