Back to the future!
by Dorothy Kendall, Orlane Lhasa Apsos
I’ve been asked to comment on the recent commentaries
proclaiming a “NEW” revelation in our little Lhasas …
the pure Hamilton Line being the only “true” source of the
“correct” Lhasa Apso; and the rest of us who don’t
have “pure” breeding stock maintaining the unfortunate inability
to avail ourselves of this “truth”.
Sorry, been there, done that! This controversy has
been around since the first Lhasas were imported into England and the
USA … and has been kept alive as a source of amusement to various
and sundry people, and as a platform to distinguish certain breeders
who have nothing else of substance to offer. It’s the same old
song, sung to a different tune, but the lyrics are the same …
“I have Pure Hamilton bloodlines; my dogs have long backs; hence,
long backed Lhasas are the correct type.” Or perhaps, “I
have Pure Hamilton bloodlines, my dogs temperaments are not very good;
thus, bad temperaments are to be desirable in this breed.”
Sound familiar? Frankly, this should be dismissed
as nonsense, and replying to such statements is a waste of your time
and mine … but, once again, I will give my opinion, for what it’s
worth.
I love Lhasas, and have owned them since the early
1960’s; they are a wonderful breed, and have given me much joy
and pleasure over the years, and will continue to do so. I think most
of us feel the same way, at least those of us that have been working
with the breed for any length of time. This is a long-term love affair,
and one not easily eradicated … they are like our “children”,
and we tend to rush to their defense at any provocation.
There’s no need for this defense … our
little dogs present themselves honestly, why can’t we do the same?
Sixty years down from those original imports, some of us look at the
past through rose-colored glasses, seeing things in an entirely different
light from what they were. We deplore the “Westernization”
of the Breed, and long for the “good old days” when Lhasas
were perfect, unblemished, and true to “type”. But - my
question, is this really true?
First of all, what is “true to type”?
Our Standard does not describe what a “dog” looks like,
but how a Lhasa differs from general canine type … and we would
suggest that the origins of the Breed would in many ways determine its
bodily structure and type. My friend, Dr. Catherine Marley (Kai-La-Sha
Lhasas) has written a wonderful article on the Lhasa, “Made In
Tibet”, that explains many of the points of structure that developed
naturally in that harsh Tibetan climate and terrain. Cathy has Lhasas
from the Everglo and Licos lines, NOT pure Hamilton, and while we disagree
on many points of “correct” type, we respect one another’s
opinions. This is as it should be, there’s plenty of room for
differing opinions in our Standard, without attacking one another with
false claims or exaggerated comments.
I would not want to go back to those old types of
Lhasas, riddled with health problems, many with nasty or vicious temperaments,
no matter how closely one thinks they conformed to the Standard. I competed
with many of them in the Sixties, and they were not smaller - nor did
they gait better - and that’s not to say that they didn’t
have some good qualifications, as well. In any event, I used some of
these bloodlines in my breeding program. The fact is, most of us have
used those dogs that we felt could improve our lines, regardless of
bloodlines.
I can’t help but remember the many criticisms leveled at Ch.
Everglo’s Spark of Gold, the founding sire of the Orlane Lhasa
Apsos … most of them by people who had never had their hands on
the dog! There was a perception of what this dog was, and it bore little
relation to his actual structure; rather fostered and encouraged by
those that had lost to him in the ring! Since I have never had a perfect
dog, I can only marvel at those breeders who have obviously been much
luckier than I!
Lhasa breeders show what they have; this does not
mean they think their dogs are “perfect”, but they are one
more step in their breeding program. I’m sure there are things
we would all change in our little dogs, and by breeding and selection,
we attempt to do this. This does not mean these dogs should be attacked
as “failures”, or suggesting that other bloodlines are far
superior!
One must ask why has this controversy been kept alive
for so long … there’s an old saying: “Follow the Money
Trail!” We see much of this talk of “keeping the old lines
from becoming extinct” as a purely altruistic motive … but
I sometimes wonder about that. There will always be those who claim
to have something “unique” or “special”, thereby
rendering themselves far superior to the rest of us; but regarding the
Lhasa Apso, is this really valid? I think not. There is no one particular
line that is far superior to any other, including my own … there
are faults and problems in each, and it’s up to each of us as
Breeders to continue to work for breed improvement with whatever lines
can be of use to us. May we all be successful, and true to the Lhasas
that we love.
|