BAER Concept Flaws and Abuse
1. The fundamental scientific flaw of BAER tests is the anthropomorphic assumption that dogs are human: so wrongly assuming that every dogs’ hearing abilities are in every way limited to those ordinarily used by humans day to day.
IF your dog is not a human in a dog-coat, your dog has and uses many ways to detect mechanical vibrations (sound), understand them and make decisions. In contrast, humans almost exclusively rely on their delicate inner-ear biology to detect vibrations (sound). But dogs are usually born with and can use as many as eight or nine ways to detect vibrations, for their use and fun. [S. Coren, 2004]
2. A probable fundamental LEGAL flaw of the BAER tests, at least in the US is the official position published by the DCA Board, Red Book, 1994-2011, and Dr Strain, 2011"Deafness in Dogs and Cats" whereby those two internationally recognized authorities about deaf dogs declared in print that any person who owns or harbors a dog that has failed its BAER test is guilty of possessing a DANGEROUS DOG.
Owners of deaf dogs were warned of severe legal risks by the DCA Board and Dr Strain. See the DCA Board's RED Book, 1994-2012, Pg 11, pgf 7-8 “DEAF DOGS ARE POTENTIALLY VERY DANGEROUS” and Pg 11, pgf 7; “..Too many children have faced the plastic surgeon's knife after innocently touching a sleeping, deaf dog...” and ...
Strain, "Deafness in Dogs ...", 2011, page 119: “...An owner who chooses to keep a deaf dog as a pet should recognize that in the event of a bite of a person from outside the household by that dog, there would be little legal recourse against a lawsuit due to the owner knowingly keeping an animal that could legally be considered 'dangerous,' ...”
A cautious person considering adoption of a deaf dog was seemingly very clearly warned of their legal risks by the DCA Board and Dr Strain; two internationally recognized US expert witnesses provided in book form testimony that might be used in courts that any person whose dog failed a BAER test was knowingly harboring a dangerous animal.
In some parts of the US owners of Dangerous dogs must buy dangerous dog insurance, post a warning sign in their yard and install a fence that can totally prevent escape by the dog(s). Lawsuites for dog bites were said to range to $2 M to $8M several years ago. IF you don't need a BAER certificate, according to Dr Strain legally probably you should NOT get one, because if you do his book can or might be used as the views of an expert witness against the owner of the deaf dog.
2. Procedure Technical Flaws
a. Frequency Range: Because dogs usually can hear frequencies twice higher in pitch than humans, and lower frequencies than most humans can hear, any test procedure designed just for humans will likely deliberately omit at least half of the frequencies-pitches that ordinary dogs hear. [A. Miklosi, 2007, S. Coren, 2004] Any testing of dogs that is limited to frequencies hearable by ordinary humans is fundamentally inadequate for assessing the full range of abilities of a dog to detect mechanical vibrations (sound).
b. Vibration(sound)Detection Dog-Verification: Because ordinary humans day to day almost exclusively rely on their inner-ear biology, whereas dogs do not, any procedure that is designed to verify exclusively the usability of a dog’s human-like cochlea portions of its inner ear biology fails to verify the effectiveness of its perhaps eight ways that dogs are born with that can detect mechanical vibrations (sound). [S. Coren, 2004]
As reported by Strain, 2011, the BAER test as designed and developed knowingly PREVENTS the detection and verification of each dog's ability to use its other hearing-modalities! That implementation of the technology was in agreement with the DCA Board's policy of the Red Book, 1994-2012, that all dogs who don't hear exclusively with inner ear cochlea exactly as though they were human ought die.
Many owners of bi-ear deaf dogs (such as the Canadian Gold Champian Holly Martin) observed and commented on instances when their dog's repeated behavioral response to certain types of mechanical vibrations (sounds) confirmed that their human-style-deaf dog had learned to use its other modalities in partial compensatory adaptive response to loss of human-like inner ear-cochlea hearing. By systematically neglecting the effectiveness of the other dog-hearing modalities and complying with the marketing directives of funding organizations, the DCA Board of Governors "Red Book", et al, the human originators of the BAER system possibly became participants quite directly in the potential deaths of over 400,000 puppies since the early 1980s.
c. Unconscious or sedated dog BAER Testing
Researchers in the earlier years reportedly anesthetized (knocked out) dogs possibly because they had difficulty in getting unhappy dogs to sit still while tiny loud-speakers (~like “ear-buds” kids use with iPods) were stuck into their sensitive ear channels. Owners who understood what was being done likely questioned the results or complained if they discovered that their unconscious or sedated dog sometimes didn’t hear well. Perhaps dogs died either from reactions to the drugs or-and researchers recommended that dogs failing their BAER tests should be killed. BAER tests more recently (December 2010) seemed to be advertised as “non-sedated” which ought to mean that the dog is wide awake when tested with loud-speakers in its ear channels. Excessive loudness of abrupt “explosion-like” test-sounds can cause permanent deafening of the tested dogs, as happens to some gun-dogs who are shot across, and reportedly happened to some teen -agers at Rock Concerts.
d. Life or Death Decision - One BAER Test per Lifetime per dog?
Until recently it was widely believed that brain neurons were never replaced if damaged, new ones never grown, or that in animals extensive re-organization never could take place after one sense or another was lost. With the over-turning of such assumptions, reports of dogs adapting and demonstrating improved hearing over time, as described by owners of deaf dogs became more believable and worthy of detailed investigation by Veterinarian and ethology-researchers.
Despite advances in research of dogs and other animals among organizations relying upon or marketing BAER tests, often a failure of a BAER test seemed to be claimed or used to say that for the rest of its life afterward the tested dog because of alleged permanent nerve damage to its inner ear biology, would never be able to adapt and use other modes to detect and react to mechanical vibrations (sound).
For accidental deafness’s, medical reactions or illness reactions damage wasn’t always permanent. Furthermore, neurological research on humans and other species indicated an ability of animal brains to grow new neurons and significantly reorganize (plasticity). Consequently, anecdotal observations by deaf dogs’ owners about partial and useful hearing recovery ought in future be taken seriously.
Many owners of deaf dogs over years have described their deaf dogs becoming after months to years able to more effectively detect, and react to mechanical vibrations (sound.) Consequently, a policy of killing puppies who flunked a BAER test, with its multiple flaws, obviously may amount to killing for financial or social gain.
Published Internet information suggested that the BAER test procedures began from research on human hearing abilities and limitations. Expansion of such testing to dogs roughly corresponded to the years when scare stigmatizing stories probably mostly about abused untrained unsocialized laboratory research deaf dogs from puppy mills began to increasingly excite the anxiety of dog owners about unverified and statistically unsupported allegations of dubious risks of trained and socialized deaf dogs to themselves, other dogs and humans.
The DCA Board's policy and Red Book,1994, ".... DEAF DOGS ARE POTENTIALLY VERY DANGEROUS." made bluntly clear that some Dalmatians were dangerous: Accuracy in advertsing would have required a clearer warning that ALL abused untrained unsocialized dogs whether deaf or hearing can be a hazard. Instead the Board approved misleading text apparently in violation of the DCA Ethical practices Guidelines, that could be easily understood to say that allegedly all deaf dogs of all breeds (at least 92 breeds per Strain, 2011) were dangerous to humans and other animals and themselves, regardless of the cause of deafness or severity.
e. Observer Errors - A failure by false generalizing from behaviors of a small population of a genetically unusual breed of possibly untrained and unsocialized abused dogs in non-domestic research situations, and assuming all deaf dogs were untrained and unsocialized living in research-agricultural laboratories with limited human contact, - possibly practically equivalent to austere laboratories of the early large scale BAER tests - see following page about "Investigation of Scare-stories .."
IF your dog is not a human in a dog-coat, your dog has and uses many ways to detect mechanical vibrations (sound), understand them and make decisions. In contrast, humans almost exclusively rely on their delicate inner-ear biology to detect vibrations (sound). But dogs are usually born with and can use as many as eight or nine ways to detect vibrations, for their use and fun. [S. Coren, 2004]
2. A probable fundamental LEGAL flaw of the BAER tests, at least in the US is the official position published by the DCA Board, Red Book, 1994-2011, and Dr Strain, 2011"Deafness in Dogs and Cats" whereby those two internationally recognized authorities about deaf dogs declared in print that any person who owns or harbors a dog that has failed its BAER test is guilty of possessing a DANGEROUS DOG.
Owners of deaf dogs were warned of severe legal risks by the DCA Board and Dr Strain. See the DCA Board's RED Book, 1994-2012, Pg 11, pgf 7-8 “DEAF DOGS ARE POTENTIALLY VERY DANGEROUS” and Pg 11, pgf 7; “..Too many children have faced the plastic surgeon's knife after innocently touching a sleeping, deaf dog...” and ...
Strain, "Deafness in Dogs ...", 2011, page 119: “...An owner who chooses to keep a deaf dog as a pet should recognize that in the event of a bite of a person from outside the household by that dog, there would be little legal recourse against a lawsuit due to the owner knowingly keeping an animal that could legally be considered 'dangerous,' ...”
A cautious person considering adoption of a deaf dog was seemingly very clearly warned of their legal risks by the DCA Board and Dr Strain; two internationally recognized US expert witnesses provided in book form testimony that might be used in courts that any person whose dog failed a BAER test was knowingly harboring a dangerous animal.
In some parts of the US owners of Dangerous dogs must buy dangerous dog insurance, post a warning sign in their yard and install a fence that can totally prevent escape by the dog(s). Lawsuites for dog bites were said to range to $2 M to $8M several years ago. IF you don't need a BAER certificate, according to Dr Strain legally probably you should NOT get one, because if you do his book can or might be used as the views of an expert witness against the owner of the deaf dog.
2. Procedure Technical Flaws
a. Frequency Range: Because dogs usually can hear frequencies twice higher in pitch than humans, and lower frequencies than most humans can hear, any test procedure designed just for humans will likely deliberately omit at least half of the frequencies-pitches that ordinary dogs hear. [A. Miklosi, 2007, S. Coren, 2004] Any testing of dogs that is limited to frequencies hearable by ordinary humans is fundamentally inadequate for assessing the full range of abilities of a dog to detect mechanical vibrations (sound).
b. Vibration(sound)Detection Dog-Verification: Because ordinary humans day to day almost exclusively rely on their inner-ear biology, whereas dogs do not, any procedure that is designed to verify exclusively the usability of a dog’s human-like cochlea portions of its inner ear biology fails to verify the effectiveness of its perhaps eight ways that dogs are born with that can detect mechanical vibrations (sound). [S. Coren, 2004]
As reported by Strain, 2011, the BAER test as designed and developed knowingly PREVENTS the detection and verification of each dog's ability to use its other hearing-modalities! That implementation of the technology was in agreement with the DCA Board's policy of the Red Book, 1994-2012, that all dogs who don't hear exclusively with inner ear cochlea exactly as though they were human ought die.
Many owners of bi-ear deaf dogs (such as the Canadian Gold Champian Holly Martin) observed and commented on instances when their dog's repeated behavioral response to certain types of mechanical vibrations (sounds) confirmed that their human-style-deaf dog had learned to use its other modalities in partial compensatory adaptive response to loss of human-like inner ear-cochlea hearing. By systematically neglecting the effectiveness of the other dog-hearing modalities and complying with the marketing directives of funding organizations, the DCA Board of Governors "Red Book", et al, the human originators of the BAER system possibly became participants quite directly in the potential deaths of over 400,000 puppies since the early 1980s.
c. Unconscious or sedated dog BAER Testing
Researchers in the earlier years reportedly anesthetized (knocked out) dogs possibly because they had difficulty in getting unhappy dogs to sit still while tiny loud-speakers (~like “ear-buds” kids use with iPods) were stuck into their sensitive ear channels. Owners who understood what was being done likely questioned the results or complained if they discovered that their unconscious or sedated dog sometimes didn’t hear well. Perhaps dogs died either from reactions to the drugs or-and researchers recommended that dogs failing their BAER tests should be killed. BAER tests more recently (December 2010) seemed to be advertised as “non-sedated” which ought to mean that the dog is wide awake when tested with loud-speakers in its ear channels. Excessive loudness of abrupt “explosion-like” test-sounds can cause permanent deafening of the tested dogs, as happens to some gun-dogs who are shot across, and reportedly happened to some teen -agers at Rock Concerts.
d. Life or Death Decision - One BAER Test per Lifetime per dog?
Until recently it was widely believed that brain neurons were never replaced if damaged, new ones never grown, or that in animals extensive re-organization never could take place after one sense or another was lost. With the over-turning of such assumptions, reports of dogs adapting and demonstrating improved hearing over time, as described by owners of deaf dogs became more believable and worthy of detailed investigation by Veterinarian and ethology-researchers.
Despite advances in research of dogs and other animals among organizations relying upon or marketing BAER tests, often a failure of a BAER test seemed to be claimed or used to say that for the rest of its life afterward the tested dog because of alleged permanent nerve damage to its inner ear biology, would never be able to adapt and use other modes to detect and react to mechanical vibrations (sound).
For accidental deafness’s, medical reactions or illness reactions damage wasn’t always permanent. Furthermore, neurological research on humans and other species indicated an ability of animal brains to grow new neurons and significantly reorganize (plasticity). Consequently, anecdotal observations by deaf dogs’ owners about partial and useful hearing recovery ought in future be taken seriously.
Many owners of deaf dogs over years have described their deaf dogs becoming after months to years able to more effectively detect, and react to mechanical vibrations (sound.) Consequently, a policy of killing puppies who flunked a BAER test, with its multiple flaws, obviously may amount to killing for financial or social gain.
Published Internet information suggested that the BAER test procedures began from research on human hearing abilities and limitations. Expansion of such testing to dogs roughly corresponded to the years when scare stigmatizing stories probably mostly about abused untrained unsocialized laboratory research deaf dogs from puppy mills began to increasingly excite the anxiety of dog owners about unverified and statistically unsupported allegations of dubious risks of trained and socialized deaf dogs to themselves, other dogs and humans.
The DCA Board's policy and Red Book,1994, ".... DEAF DOGS ARE POTENTIALLY VERY DANGEROUS." made bluntly clear that some Dalmatians were dangerous: Accuracy in advertsing would have required a clearer warning that ALL abused untrained unsocialized dogs whether deaf or hearing can be a hazard. Instead the Board approved misleading text apparently in violation of the DCA Ethical practices Guidelines, that could be easily understood to say that allegedly all deaf dogs of all breeds (at least 92 breeds per Strain, 2011) were dangerous to humans and other animals and themselves, regardless of the cause of deafness or severity.
e. Observer Errors - A failure by false generalizing from behaviors of a small population of a genetically unusual breed of possibly untrained and unsocialized abused dogs in non-domestic research situations, and assuming all deaf dogs were untrained and unsocialized living in research-agricultural laboratories with limited human contact, - possibly practically equivalent to austere laboratories of the early large scale BAER tests - see following page about "Investigation of Scare-stories .."