A Critique-Review of Dr G M Strain's "Deafness in Dogs and Cats", 2011,
Publisher CABI, UK; Available as hardcover ($150) and soft, also from Amazon.com, et al
A peer critique-review of the book was done in January 2012. Comments were posted chapter by chapter and overall, as they became available from the reviewers. The reviewers included holders of advanced academic degrees with personal hands-on research experience with deaf and ordinary dogs and who had published in the field. Page numbers, et al refer to the soft-cover version of the book. Few review comments were offered about the cat portions of the text.
The book in our opinion should NOT be purchased by most owners of deaf dogs. The medical science of the book seemed reputable but “junk” dog behavior Marketing for killing deaf dogs was mingled with the medical science, in the opinion of reviewers. The erratic behavoral text was damaging to the author’s public appearance of honesty: 1) The book left unexplained the role and responsibility of the Louisiana State University (LSU) and the Dalmatian Club of America (DCA) in what appeared to be systematic misrepresentations of information about deaf dogs' behaviors other than abused untrained unsocialized deaf Dalmatians, e.g. Dalmatians apparently represented about 80 percent of the BAER tested deaf dogs’ pre-2010 behavior sample. Recently obtained information from the DCA appeared to describe their apparent bias and misguided policies which 20 years later are accurately seen as extremely unwise, especially in view of recent science advances. Refusal to modernize the DCA Board's 1994 policies is terribly damaging to the Dalmatian Breed, financially as well as otherwise; to the AKC also; and damaging to other breeds of dogs.
2) The DCA Board publicly disclosed urging that training and socializing were provided only to hearing Dalmatians, including training against the startle reflex. The DCA Board through 2011 urged that NO deaf Dalmatian dogs were to be trained or socialized, thus deliberately leaving their deaf dogs Dalmatians dangerous to themselves and others, which Dr Strain described as typical of the deaf majority (80 percent) of LSU BAER tested deaf dogs, i.e. Dalmatians. In the opinion of the reviewers it was likely that the Red Book violated the DCA Code of ethics clause that prohibited providing misleading or false information in marketing and advertsing, as well as apparent failure to separate fact from fiction regarding causes of bad behaviors of deaf Dalmatians and hearing Dalmatians.
3) New Expert Witness support of Legal Threats against owners of Deaf odgs were posed by Dr Strain, that expanded on the DCA Board's 1994 warnings. In what seems a new, threatening addition to the traditional DCA "scare-storeis" against deaf dogs, Dr Strain, 2011"Deafness in Dogs and Cats" added to the warning of the DCA Board, Red Book, 1994-2011, - and made available to prosecuters and persecutors testimony of expert witnesses of these two internationally recognized authoritieas about deaf dogs - that any person who owns or harbors a dog that has failed a BAER test is guilty of knowingly possessing a DANGEROUS DOG. - - - - 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 available at least in book form for testimony 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's legal advice probably you should NOT get one, because if you do his book can be used as the views of an expert witness against the owner of the deaf dog.
*** *** ***
Chapter One, “Anatomy of the Auditory System”; C.K. Stevens-Sparks; pages 1-22
The chapter was a valuable description of the biological physical features of the typical human’s only notion of the canine systems for human-like detecting of acoustic mechanical vibrations (sound) in air. The chapter was well done, clear and brief.
Chapter Two, “Physiology of the Auditory System”; Dr Strain; pages 23 - 39
2nd Chapter’s technical content overlaps some with that of Chapter One; After a quick review of how hearing in general works, on page 23, 2nd paragraph, last sentence; the author usefully mentioned that “.. Auditory reflexes, which include those protective against loud noises, do not require cortical involvement. ...” Page 27, last sentence of the 1st paragraph of the text mentioned that canine inner-ear reflexive protection against loud noises responds in 50-100 milliseconds (1 millisecond is 0.001 second), which fails to protect against shock waves such as those of nearby gun-shots (shock waves have an extremely quick pressure rise rate of less than a half millisecond) that can cause trauma damage to dog-hearing biology. Comment: Dogs who have visual access to the outdoors scenes can by learned involuntary reflex minimize harm from loud thunder following somewhat distant lightning-bolts, but dogs who can’t see the lightning flashes before the shock waves arrive are vulnerable and understandably because of anticipated ear-pain can become anxious when hearing and feeling the pressure waves (thunder-sound) of approaching thunder-storms. Further, from Web reports of experience, when dogs use that mechanism to automatically protect their inner-ears from their own loud barks (as for example coon-hounds do), it is chronically ineffective against sharp barks of adjacent dogs; which can cause pain revealed by head-shaking and eventually maybe hearing loss to the “victims.” A very reliable observer reported that a mother Border Collie learned to use a special painfully loud impulsive-shock-like bark detectable by human skin-contact (vibrotactile hearing) to get the attention of her deaf daughter, and to get the attention of her people.
Page 35, 36, 37: Sound Localization ... The author correctly identified amplitude (loudness), time difference of arrival (TDOA) and multipath or shadowing by body parts (e.g. ears) as physics principals that dogs and cats use to figure out (localize) the direction of sound sources relative to themselves. However without any discernible data or scientific basis, he seemed to believe that dogs and cats use different principals for vertical elevation (height) localizing and use TDOA and loudness only for horizontal (parallel to the horizon) localizing. Owners of the over 77 million dogs (and many cats) who have seen their pet look up at them with its head tilted perhaps 45 degrees to one side or the other, quizzically as though inquiring, saw them doing both elevation and horizontal localizing with a single set of physics principals! The implication from expecting different horizontal and elevation physics principals for localizing was that there existed an unwarranted, to an owner of companion dogs, unscientific belief that unlike humans, dogs can’t rotate their heads significantly on the axis of their neck as people and cats do when looking to one side or the other, or looking upward. It was disappointed for a Ph D author to seemingly err in both 1) understanding of physics of sounds, and 2) an elementary aspect of the kinesthetic biological features and abilities of dogs and cats. For background, we mention that owls can rotate their head almost all the way around on their neck – an amazing sight when they look almost exactly behind their back!
A technical error that can happen to a person who neither understands live deaf dogs nor Physics happened when the author indicated that a unilateral deaf dog will 'always' look in the direction indicated by its good ear. Actually a uni-ear deaf dog is often unable to determine immediately whether a given brief sound is arriving from a place in front it or from about 180 degrees opposite, such as behind it entirely. A normal-hearing human observer who sees a dog look in the direction opposite to the actual source of a sound can (and many have) immediately conclude that the dog has uni-hearing. Contrary to the assertions that detecting uni-hearing is nearly impossible, it can be simple if the human observer understands the physics.
Page 37, 2nd paragraph, cogently mentioned the use of reflected sound by bats for sonar-like localization. We assume omission was inadvertent of the credible reports of owners certainly observing many of the probably over 5,000 blind dogs doing much the same. Such use of sound by blind dogs would seem to correlate with Dr Strain’s valuable comments concerning brain function plasticity in cats and some humans, page 38-39.
Valuable text: Page 37, 38 and 39; in the text section labeled “Central Projection” presented useful information not widely understood by the general public about the complex redundant nerve systems and processing of hearing signals. It was clearly stated that much of the book’s discussion was based on analogies to processing of visual information, despite the vastly higher number of modalities dogs probably possess for sensing and responding to mechanical vibrations (sound), see also S. Coren, 2004 for an overview. An excellent brief survey mentioned research illustrating brain organization plasticity among deaf cats and mentioned blind humans. Relevant research not mentioned was available on the Internet, regarding humans, birds and possibly other animals. Synesthesia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia downloaded 5 Jan 2012) although potentially a vital aspect of brain plasticity was not mentioned. Anyone seriously interested in deafness of dogs and cats in our opinion ought to energetically explore the recent and on-going research in brain-neurological processing.
[Please go to the TOP of the page, under "Book Reviews" to reach the next Weeblycritique-review of the book's other Chapters or use the Links: Chapters 3 and 4 ; Chapters 5,6 and 7 ; Chapter 8 and Notes ; Major Behavior Flaws ; Consequences ]
Publisher CABI, UK; Available as hardcover ($150) and soft, also from Amazon.com, et al
A peer critique-review of the book was done in January 2012. Comments were posted chapter by chapter and overall, as they became available from the reviewers. The reviewers included holders of advanced academic degrees with personal hands-on research experience with deaf and ordinary dogs and who had published in the field. Page numbers, et al refer to the soft-cover version of the book. Few review comments were offered about the cat portions of the text.
The book in our opinion should NOT be purchased by most owners of deaf dogs. The medical science of the book seemed reputable but “junk” dog behavior Marketing for killing deaf dogs was mingled with the medical science, in the opinion of reviewers. The erratic behavoral text was damaging to the author’s public appearance of honesty: 1) The book left unexplained the role and responsibility of the Louisiana State University (LSU) and the Dalmatian Club of America (DCA) in what appeared to be systematic misrepresentations of information about deaf dogs' behaviors other than abused untrained unsocialized deaf Dalmatians, e.g. Dalmatians apparently represented about 80 percent of the BAER tested deaf dogs’ pre-2010 behavior sample. Recently obtained information from the DCA appeared to describe their apparent bias and misguided policies which 20 years later are accurately seen as extremely unwise, especially in view of recent science advances. Refusal to modernize the DCA Board's 1994 policies is terribly damaging to the Dalmatian Breed, financially as well as otherwise; to the AKC also; and damaging to other breeds of dogs.
2) The DCA Board publicly disclosed urging that training and socializing were provided only to hearing Dalmatians, including training against the startle reflex. The DCA Board through 2011 urged that NO deaf Dalmatian dogs were to be trained or socialized, thus deliberately leaving their deaf dogs Dalmatians dangerous to themselves and others, which Dr Strain described as typical of the deaf majority (80 percent) of LSU BAER tested deaf dogs, i.e. Dalmatians. In the opinion of the reviewers it was likely that the Red Book violated the DCA Code of ethics clause that prohibited providing misleading or false information in marketing and advertsing, as well as apparent failure to separate fact from fiction regarding causes of bad behaviors of deaf Dalmatians and hearing Dalmatians.
3) New Expert Witness support of Legal Threats against owners of Deaf odgs were posed by Dr Strain, that expanded on the DCA Board's 1994 warnings. In what seems a new, threatening addition to the traditional DCA "scare-storeis" against deaf dogs, Dr Strain, 2011"Deafness in Dogs and Cats" added to the warning of the DCA Board, Red Book, 1994-2011, - and made available to prosecuters and persecutors testimony of expert witnesses of these two internationally recognized authoritieas about deaf dogs - that any person who owns or harbors a dog that has failed a BAER test is guilty of knowingly possessing a DANGEROUS DOG. - - - - 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 available at least in book form for testimony 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's legal advice probably you should NOT get one, because if you do his book can be used as the views of an expert witness against the owner of the deaf dog.
*** *** ***
Chapter One, “Anatomy of the Auditory System”; C.K. Stevens-Sparks; pages 1-22
The chapter was a valuable description of the biological physical features of the typical human’s only notion of the canine systems for human-like detecting of acoustic mechanical vibrations (sound) in air. The chapter was well done, clear and brief.
Chapter Two, “Physiology of the Auditory System”; Dr Strain; pages 23 - 39
2nd Chapter’s technical content overlaps some with that of Chapter One; After a quick review of how hearing in general works, on page 23, 2nd paragraph, last sentence; the author usefully mentioned that “.. Auditory reflexes, which include those protective against loud noises, do not require cortical involvement. ...” Page 27, last sentence of the 1st paragraph of the text mentioned that canine inner-ear reflexive protection against loud noises responds in 50-100 milliseconds (1 millisecond is 0.001 second), which fails to protect against shock waves such as those of nearby gun-shots (shock waves have an extremely quick pressure rise rate of less than a half millisecond) that can cause trauma damage to dog-hearing biology. Comment: Dogs who have visual access to the outdoors scenes can by learned involuntary reflex minimize harm from loud thunder following somewhat distant lightning-bolts, but dogs who can’t see the lightning flashes before the shock waves arrive are vulnerable and understandably because of anticipated ear-pain can become anxious when hearing and feeling the pressure waves (thunder-sound) of approaching thunder-storms. Further, from Web reports of experience, when dogs use that mechanism to automatically protect their inner-ears from their own loud barks (as for example coon-hounds do), it is chronically ineffective against sharp barks of adjacent dogs; which can cause pain revealed by head-shaking and eventually maybe hearing loss to the “victims.” A very reliable observer reported that a mother Border Collie learned to use a special painfully loud impulsive-shock-like bark detectable by human skin-contact (vibrotactile hearing) to get the attention of her deaf daughter, and to get the attention of her people.
Page 35, 36, 37: Sound Localization ... The author correctly identified amplitude (loudness), time difference of arrival (TDOA) and multipath or shadowing by body parts (e.g. ears) as physics principals that dogs and cats use to figure out (localize) the direction of sound sources relative to themselves. However without any discernible data or scientific basis, he seemed to believe that dogs and cats use different principals for vertical elevation (height) localizing and use TDOA and loudness only for horizontal (parallel to the horizon) localizing. Owners of the over 77 million dogs (and many cats) who have seen their pet look up at them with its head tilted perhaps 45 degrees to one side or the other, quizzically as though inquiring, saw them doing both elevation and horizontal localizing with a single set of physics principals! The implication from expecting different horizontal and elevation physics principals for localizing was that there existed an unwarranted, to an owner of companion dogs, unscientific belief that unlike humans, dogs can’t rotate their heads significantly on the axis of their neck as people and cats do when looking to one side or the other, or looking upward. It was disappointed for a Ph D author to seemingly err in both 1) understanding of physics of sounds, and 2) an elementary aspect of the kinesthetic biological features and abilities of dogs and cats. For background, we mention that owls can rotate their head almost all the way around on their neck – an amazing sight when they look almost exactly behind their back!
A technical error that can happen to a person who neither understands live deaf dogs nor Physics happened when the author indicated that a unilateral deaf dog will 'always' look in the direction indicated by its good ear. Actually a uni-ear deaf dog is often unable to determine immediately whether a given brief sound is arriving from a place in front it or from about 180 degrees opposite, such as behind it entirely. A normal-hearing human observer who sees a dog look in the direction opposite to the actual source of a sound can (and many have) immediately conclude that the dog has uni-hearing. Contrary to the assertions that detecting uni-hearing is nearly impossible, it can be simple if the human observer understands the physics.
Page 37, 2nd paragraph, cogently mentioned the use of reflected sound by bats for sonar-like localization. We assume omission was inadvertent of the credible reports of owners certainly observing many of the probably over 5,000 blind dogs doing much the same. Such use of sound by blind dogs would seem to correlate with Dr Strain’s valuable comments concerning brain function plasticity in cats and some humans, page 38-39.
Valuable text: Page 37, 38 and 39; in the text section labeled “Central Projection” presented useful information not widely understood by the general public about the complex redundant nerve systems and processing of hearing signals. It was clearly stated that much of the book’s discussion was based on analogies to processing of visual information, despite the vastly higher number of modalities dogs probably possess for sensing and responding to mechanical vibrations (sound), see also S. Coren, 2004 for an overview. An excellent brief survey mentioned research illustrating brain organization plasticity among deaf cats and mentioned blind humans. Relevant research not mentioned was available on the Internet, regarding humans, birds and possibly other animals. Synesthesia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia downloaded 5 Jan 2012) although potentially a vital aspect of brain plasticity was not mentioned. Anyone seriously interested in deafness of dogs and cats in our opinion ought to energetically explore the recent and on-going research in brain-neurological processing.
[Please go to the TOP of the page, under "Book Reviews" to reach the next Weeblycritique-review of the book's other Chapters or use the Links: Chapters 3 and 4 ; Chapters 5,6 and 7 ; Chapter 8 and Notes ; Major Behavior Flaws ; Consequences ]