Violations of The DCA Board of Governors’ Approved “Code of Ethics” 1994-2012?
Probable and possible violations of an important organization’s Board approved “Ethical Guidelines” (sic, Code of Ethics), that persisted in the DCA official publications for decades (1993-2012), raised legitimate questions about the integrity and competence of the organizations’ management.
Concerned members of the purebred dog owners’ community and owners of deaf dogs expressed reservations about the integrity of the DCA Board of Governors because of their continued approval and publication on the Internet of documents of which major parts seemed clearly in plain conflict with the DCA’s published “Ethics Guidelines”(e.g. published in the DCA Board of Governors approved Red Book, 1994- 2012).
Mandated Ethical practices included the following (which if violated deserved condemnation):
1. To ensure that all advertising is factual and not misleading. To never engage in malicious criticism and to separate fact from fiction before repeating comments heard from others. [sic, factually inaccurate and misleading advertising-marketing was apparently condemned. Malicious criticism based on fiction and repeating of fictional comments might be simply described and condemned as “gossip.”]
2. To ensure that all dogs in my care are provided adequate food, shelter, human companionship, and medical care.
To examine alleged apparent violations of the DCA Boards’ approved Ethics Practices code, a peer-review was undertaken of the DCA Board of Governors’ approved “Position on Deafness[1]”, officially published by the DCA on the Internet, from http://www.thedca.org/deaf1.html downloaded 18 January 2012.
The peer review group’s diverse experience and academic credentials: MA Animal behaviorist, Ph D scientist, multiple year ownership of several dog breeds, and personal experience of owning or training at least one deaf dog. Only points of probable violations of the DCA Board’s required ethics practices in the “Position on Dalmatian Deafness[i]” were discussed, following,
I. False and misleading information was presented by the year 2011 in the first item of the “Position ... ”; i.e. “With the rising popularity of the Dalmatian Breed, ...”. The Veterinarian News, of March 1, 2010 http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/article/articledetail.isp?id=658780 down-loaded 10 Feb 2012, Table 3 showed 93 percent decrease in AKC Dalmatian registrations from 1993 through 2008. In the AKC lists of breeds’ popularity the Dalmatians plummeted from about 9th (nine) near their fad peak[2] about 1992-93 to less than 69th by 2011.
Blaming Walt Disney for the Dalmatian fad prior to 1993, as claimed by various apologists of the Dalmatians breed was irrational excuse-making. The movie premiered in 1996, several years after the Dalmatian popularity fad that began about 1987 had peaked and begun to crash.
In the opinion of the review group, the false (non-factual and misleading) claim of “rising popularity” was unmistakable long before the year 2012, so the continued publication of the false and misleading advertising on the Internet through January 2012 appeared to be an obvious violation of the Board’s published Ethics practices.
By the year 2011 the information presented in the second paragraph item of the ‘Position’ was misleading and probably inaccurate i.e. “... It has been estimated that from 10% to 12% of the breed is deaf. ...” Strain, 2011 reported in contrast that the Dalmatians’ breed total deafness was about 28 percent (8 percent bi-ear and 22 percent uni-ear based on BAER tests), although so far as known to us, the procedural and statistical basis of Strain, 2011 Table 4.1’s Total Deafness was never provided to the general public.
Based on the science of Dr Strain’s “Deafness in Dogs and Cats”, 2011, Table 4.1, with the deaf dogs science of 2011 the accepted estimate of a breed’s “Total Deaf” is the sum of the bi-ear and uni-ear deaf. Thus the ‘Positions’ estimate of 10 to 12 percent meant bi-ear deaf, which was about all that breeders could easily test reliably through 1993. According to Strain, 2011’s illustrative calculations the Dalmatians’ uni-ear deafness about 1993 would likely have been about 3 (three) times the bi-ear rate, i.e. 30 to 36 percent of Dalmatian puppies were probably uni-ear deaf and not detected. Therefore the Dalmatians’ total deafness rate, when the ‘Position ...’ was initially published, was probably actually about 40 to 50 percent, i.e. nearly half of the Dalmatian purebred puppies were deaf- as understood with the dog science of 2011.
II. Misleading information was presented in the second item of the ‘Position ...’ in 2012, i.e. “... Recent [sic, 1993-94] discoveries in the genetics of deafness have made it possible to reduce the incidence of deafness, with the possibility of virtually eliminating it in the future. ...”
As usual in the US, popular journalism and some advertising of researchers in pursuit of funding, the possibilities offered by new advances in hard-science were greatly exaggerated. Properly, the Red Book, approved in 1994 by the Board, tended to discourage such optimism, by noting that deafness was prevalent in all Dalmatian lines. Dr Crannatch[3], 1999, “The Dalmatian Dilemma” suggested ways to reduce but none to virtually eliminate Dalmatian deafness, if the DCA Board, etc continued to approve blue-eyes, ban patches and deny backcrosses, etc. [Backcross was approved by 2012 to reduce the Dalmatian breeds' genetic vulnerability to sustained dangerous levels of uric acid. Killing puppies carrying the high uric acid gene was apparently never seriously considered as a DCA Board policy?]
In the opinion of the Reviewers, based on published research, the continued publication on the Internet of misleading information about the feasibility of using genetics to virtually eliminate Dalmatian deafness is inaccurate and misleading advertising about what new and future owners of Dalmatians should expect.
III. Probably misleading information in the third item of the ‘Position on Deafness’ was published in 2012, i.e. “... Many breeders have their deaf pups put down at three to four weeks, though some choose to wait a few weeks longer. Dalmatian pups normally start to hear at fourteen [sic, about two weeks] to sixteen days of age, and hear by five weeks of age if they are going to hear....”
Strain, 2011, page 102, reported that “... BAERs [sic, tests results] are fully mature by 40 days [sic, 5-7 weeks] in the dog (Strain, et al. 1991)...” Strain, 2011 also reported that puppies responded to loud sounds within days after being born; i.e and example of dogs’ possession of hearing modalities not used by typical male humans.
Reviewers speculated that the reduction from the 10 -12 percent bi-ear deafness reported about 1994, to the Strain, 2011 level of about 7.8 percent reflected compliance with the Red Book to kill deaf puppies as soon as guessed from their behavior and that the modern 7.8 reflected the bi-ear deaf puppies who had earlier escaped death by relying on their “other modalities”, as described repeatedly by Dr Strain, 2011 and that S Coren, 2004 described in detail.
Various reports and briefings and Strain, 2011 described dogs successfully using other modalities, as described by S. Coren, 2004, with “hard science tend to support descriptions by thousands of owners of deaf dogs on the Internet. Indeed the percentage of living dogs lacking useful hearing via its 8 to 10 modalities is probably extremely low; perhaps much less than the 2 per ten thousand dogs mentioned by Strain, 2011 seen at US veterinary hospitals.
IV. False and misleading information was published in 2012 in the 4th item of the ‘Position ...’ and also “To never engage in malicious criticism and to separate fact from fiction before repeating comments heard from others”; i.e. “Deaf Dalmatians are hard to raise, difficult to control (they are often hit by cars when they "escape") and often become snappish or overly aggressive, especially when startled.” Experience of thousands of owners world-wide of deaf dogs through the year 2011 demonstrated that for most deaf Dalmatians the information of the 4th item violated the DCA Board approved ethics practices.
The DCA Board approved Red Book, 1994-2012, http://www.thedca.org/redbook.html, downloaded 18 January 2012, made clear that ALL Dalmatians behaved similarly, whether hearing or deaf, that were born and raised without adequate training, socializing, human companionship, de-startling training and shelter - often living in their own excrement at poor breeders and puppy-mills until adopted or killed. Alleging in the “Position on Deafness” that only deaf Dalmatians rather than the factual ALL ABUSED Dalmatians showed unacceptable behaviors appeared to be deliberate fraud and a violation of the DCA Ethics code with the approval of the DCA’s Board of Governors, from 1994 continuing in publication through 2012.
V. Misleading because it diverted attention from other expensive and painful defects of Dalmatian: “ 11. ... With the enormous surplus of unwanted dogs in this country, there is no need to preserve dogs with problems such as deafness. ...” Inherited deafness, being often undetectable in behavior and incurable, caused no expenses compared to those of other known defects such as uric acid male difficulties. The Board’s approval of a pogrom to stigmatize and kill deaf puppies of ALL breeds (see Strain, 2011, Box 4.1 listed 92 breeds!) prbably for a long time mislead attention from other defects such as the uric acid problem of many Dalmatians.
VI. Other Violations of the Board’s Ethics: “ ... To ensure that all dogs in my care are provided adequate food, shelter, human companionship, and medical care. ...” identified merely by the item number of the “Position on Deafness ”, as follow:
Item 2. “...However, for the time being, it is important that deaf pups be dealt with in a responsible and HUMANE fashion.” Ah yes indeed, half the puppies were prescribed HUMANE medical death, indeed an adequate way to kill.
Item 3. The Board seemed uncertain whether it was adequate to humanly personally kill the puppies or if indispensable to rely on a veterinarian, or to kill each deaf puppy perhaps by age 3 weeks or let them all play and enjoy human companionship, food, shelter, medical care and life for five weeks before killing them for using more hearing modalities (see Strain, 2011 and S Coren, 2004) than typical members of the Board.
Item 4. Anyone doubtful or unable to adequately kill all the puppy dogs in their care was advised NOT to permit their dogs to breed, [sic, receiving adequate food, shelter, medical care and human companionship until their hearts and brains were stopped.]
Item 11. With the enormous surplus of unwanted dogs in this country, there was said to be no need to preserve dogs with problems such as deafness. [sic, i.e. apparently it was NOT A PROBLEM for the dogs to suffer from the painful and expensive defects of excess uric acid (males); heritable dermatitis or Degenerative Myelopathy (DM) susceptibility] In simple compliance with the goal of reducing the excess dogs’ population 1 (one) LUA adult male for the US would be adequate, technically.
[1] A fundamental ‘hard-science- Physics’ flaw existed in the DCA Position on Deafness: The entire official Position of the Board was in gross scientific error with its false assumption that dogs are able to detect, analyze and response to mechanical vibrations (sound) only in the manner typical of most humans, i.e. using the inner-ear cochleae and nerves in the limited frequency range customary for adult humans: Strain, 2011 re “modalities”, and S Coren, 2004
The probably most dramatic flaw and violation of ethics took place when the DCA Board of Governors, Red Book, 1994-2012 approved falsely attributing specific misbehaviors of abused Dalmatians exclusively to the deaf members of the group, then urging repeatedly and in strong language killing ONLY the deaf abused dogs of most or all breeds, based on falsely implying that massive killing, perhaps of 140,000 since 1986, would cure dog deafness.
[2] page 87, “The Official Book of the Dalmatian” published for the DCA, undated but about 1995
[3] THE DALMATIAN DILEMMA, DR. BRUCE M CATTANACH, MRC Mammalian Genetics Unit, Harwell, Oxfordshire OX11 0JJ, UK; Jour. Small Anim. Pract. 40: 193-200, 1999
[i] The ‘Position on Deafness’ is an advertisement-marketing document as evidenced by the declaration: “...10. IF YOU ARE PLANNING TO PURCHASE A DALMATIAN, contact the Dalmatian Club of America, the closest regional Dal club, or an experienced local breeder who will guarantee that any pups offered for sale have normal (sic, human-like) hearing. ...”
Probable and possible violations of an important organization’s Board approved “Ethical Guidelines” (sic, Code of Ethics), that persisted in the DCA official publications for decades (1993-2012), raised legitimate questions about the integrity and competence of the organizations’ management.
Concerned members of the purebred dog owners’ community and owners of deaf dogs expressed reservations about the integrity of the DCA Board of Governors because of their continued approval and publication on the Internet of documents of which major parts seemed clearly in plain conflict with the DCA’s published “Ethics Guidelines”(e.g. published in the DCA Board of Governors approved Red Book, 1994- 2012).
Mandated Ethical practices included the following (which if violated deserved condemnation):
1. To ensure that all advertising is factual and not misleading. To never engage in malicious criticism and to separate fact from fiction before repeating comments heard from others. [sic, factually inaccurate and misleading advertising-marketing was apparently condemned. Malicious criticism based on fiction and repeating of fictional comments might be simply described and condemned as “gossip.”]
2. To ensure that all dogs in my care are provided adequate food, shelter, human companionship, and medical care.
To examine alleged apparent violations of the DCA Boards’ approved Ethics Practices code, a peer-review was undertaken of the DCA Board of Governors’ approved “Position on Deafness[1]”, officially published by the DCA on the Internet, from http://www.thedca.org/deaf1.html downloaded 18 January 2012.
The peer review group’s diverse experience and academic credentials: MA Animal behaviorist, Ph D scientist, multiple year ownership of several dog breeds, and personal experience of owning or training at least one deaf dog. Only points of probable violations of the DCA Board’s required ethics practices in the “Position on Dalmatian Deafness[i]” were discussed, following,
I. False and misleading information was presented by the year 2011 in the first item of the “Position ... ”; i.e. “With the rising popularity of the Dalmatian Breed, ...”. The Veterinarian News, of March 1, 2010 http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/article/articledetail.isp?id=658780 down-loaded 10 Feb 2012, Table 3 showed 93 percent decrease in AKC Dalmatian registrations from 1993 through 2008. In the AKC lists of breeds’ popularity the Dalmatians plummeted from about 9th (nine) near their fad peak[2] about 1992-93 to less than 69th by 2011.
Blaming Walt Disney for the Dalmatian fad prior to 1993, as claimed by various apologists of the Dalmatians breed was irrational excuse-making. The movie premiered in 1996, several years after the Dalmatian popularity fad that began about 1987 had peaked and begun to crash.
In the opinion of the review group, the false (non-factual and misleading) claim of “rising popularity” was unmistakable long before the year 2012, so the continued publication of the false and misleading advertising on the Internet through January 2012 appeared to be an obvious violation of the Board’s published Ethics practices.
By the year 2011 the information presented in the second paragraph item of the ‘Position’ was misleading and probably inaccurate i.e. “... It has been estimated that from 10% to 12% of the breed is deaf. ...” Strain, 2011 reported in contrast that the Dalmatians’ breed total deafness was about 28 percent (8 percent bi-ear and 22 percent uni-ear based on BAER tests), although so far as known to us, the procedural and statistical basis of Strain, 2011 Table 4.1’s Total Deafness was never provided to the general public.
Based on the science of Dr Strain’s “Deafness in Dogs and Cats”, 2011, Table 4.1, with the deaf dogs science of 2011 the accepted estimate of a breed’s “Total Deaf” is the sum of the bi-ear and uni-ear deaf. Thus the ‘Positions’ estimate of 10 to 12 percent meant bi-ear deaf, which was about all that breeders could easily test reliably through 1993. According to Strain, 2011’s illustrative calculations the Dalmatians’ uni-ear deafness about 1993 would likely have been about 3 (three) times the bi-ear rate, i.e. 30 to 36 percent of Dalmatian puppies were probably uni-ear deaf and not detected. Therefore the Dalmatians’ total deafness rate, when the ‘Position ...’ was initially published, was probably actually about 40 to 50 percent, i.e. nearly half of the Dalmatian purebred puppies were deaf- as understood with the dog science of 2011.
II. Misleading information was presented in the second item of the ‘Position ...’ in 2012, i.e. “... Recent [sic, 1993-94] discoveries in the genetics of deafness have made it possible to reduce the incidence of deafness, with the possibility of virtually eliminating it in the future. ...”
As usual in the US, popular journalism and some advertising of researchers in pursuit of funding, the possibilities offered by new advances in hard-science were greatly exaggerated. Properly, the Red Book, approved in 1994 by the Board, tended to discourage such optimism, by noting that deafness was prevalent in all Dalmatian lines. Dr Crannatch[3], 1999, “The Dalmatian Dilemma” suggested ways to reduce but none to virtually eliminate Dalmatian deafness, if the DCA Board, etc continued to approve blue-eyes, ban patches and deny backcrosses, etc. [Backcross was approved by 2012 to reduce the Dalmatian breeds' genetic vulnerability to sustained dangerous levels of uric acid. Killing puppies carrying the high uric acid gene was apparently never seriously considered as a DCA Board policy?]
In the opinion of the Reviewers, based on published research, the continued publication on the Internet of misleading information about the feasibility of using genetics to virtually eliminate Dalmatian deafness is inaccurate and misleading advertising about what new and future owners of Dalmatians should expect.
III. Probably misleading information in the third item of the ‘Position on Deafness’ was published in 2012, i.e. “... Many breeders have their deaf pups put down at three to four weeks, though some choose to wait a few weeks longer. Dalmatian pups normally start to hear at fourteen [sic, about two weeks] to sixteen days of age, and hear by five weeks of age if they are going to hear....”
Strain, 2011, page 102, reported that “... BAERs [sic, tests results] are fully mature by 40 days [sic, 5-7 weeks] in the dog (Strain, et al. 1991)...” Strain, 2011 also reported that puppies responded to loud sounds within days after being born; i.e and example of dogs’ possession of hearing modalities not used by typical male humans.
Reviewers speculated that the reduction from the 10 -12 percent bi-ear deafness reported about 1994, to the Strain, 2011 level of about 7.8 percent reflected compliance with the Red Book to kill deaf puppies as soon as guessed from their behavior and that the modern 7.8 reflected the bi-ear deaf puppies who had earlier escaped death by relying on their “other modalities”, as described repeatedly by Dr Strain, 2011 and that S Coren, 2004 described in detail.
Various reports and briefings and Strain, 2011 described dogs successfully using other modalities, as described by S. Coren, 2004, with “hard science tend to support descriptions by thousands of owners of deaf dogs on the Internet. Indeed the percentage of living dogs lacking useful hearing via its 8 to 10 modalities is probably extremely low; perhaps much less than the 2 per ten thousand dogs mentioned by Strain, 2011 seen at US veterinary hospitals.
IV. False and misleading information was published in 2012 in the 4th item of the ‘Position ...’ and also “To never engage in malicious criticism and to separate fact from fiction before repeating comments heard from others”; i.e. “Deaf Dalmatians are hard to raise, difficult to control (they are often hit by cars when they "escape") and often become snappish or overly aggressive, especially when startled.” Experience of thousands of owners world-wide of deaf dogs through the year 2011 demonstrated that for most deaf Dalmatians the information of the 4th item violated the DCA Board approved ethics practices.
The DCA Board approved Red Book, 1994-2012, http://www.thedca.org/redbook.html, downloaded 18 January 2012, made clear that ALL Dalmatians behaved similarly, whether hearing or deaf, that were born and raised without adequate training, socializing, human companionship, de-startling training and shelter - often living in their own excrement at poor breeders and puppy-mills until adopted or killed. Alleging in the “Position on Deafness” that only deaf Dalmatians rather than the factual ALL ABUSED Dalmatians showed unacceptable behaviors appeared to be deliberate fraud and a violation of the DCA Ethics code with the approval of the DCA’s Board of Governors, from 1994 continuing in publication through 2012.
V. Misleading because it diverted attention from other expensive and painful defects of Dalmatian: “ 11. ... With the enormous surplus of unwanted dogs in this country, there is no need to preserve dogs with problems such as deafness. ...” Inherited deafness, being often undetectable in behavior and incurable, caused no expenses compared to those of other known defects such as uric acid male difficulties. The Board’s approval of a pogrom to stigmatize and kill deaf puppies of ALL breeds (see Strain, 2011, Box 4.1 listed 92 breeds!) prbably for a long time mislead attention from other defects such as the uric acid problem of many Dalmatians.
VI. Other Violations of the Board’s Ethics: “ ... To ensure that all dogs in my care are provided adequate food, shelter, human companionship, and medical care. ...” identified merely by the item number of the “Position on Deafness ”, as follow:
Item 2. “...However, for the time being, it is important that deaf pups be dealt with in a responsible and HUMANE fashion.” Ah yes indeed, half the puppies were prescribed HUMANE medical death, indeed an adequate way to kill.
Item 3. The Board seemed uncertain whether it was adequate to humanly personally kill the puppies or if indispensable to rely on a veterinarian, or to kill each deaf puppy perhaps by age 3 weeks or let them all play and enjoy human companionship, food, shelter, medical care and life for five weeks before killing them for using more hearing modalities (see Strain, 2011 and S Coren, 2004) than typical members of the Board.
Item 4. Anyone doubtful or unable to adequately kill all the puppy dogs in their care was advised NOT to permit their dogs to breed, [sic, receiving adequate food, shelter, medical care and human companionship until their hearts and brains were stopped.]
Item 11. With the enormous surplus of unwanted dogs in this country, there was said to be no need to preserve dogs with problems such as deafness. [sic, i.e. apparently it was NOT A PROBLEM for the dogs to suffer from the painful and expensive defects of excess uric acid (males); heritable dermatitis or Degenerative Myelopathy (DM) susceptibility] In simple compliance with the goal of reducing the excess dogs’ population 1 (one) LUA adult male for the US would be adequate, technically.
[1] A fundamental ‘hard-science- Physics’ flaw existed in the DCA Position on Deafness: The entire official Position of the Board was in gross scientific error with its false assumption that dogs are able to detect, analyze and response to mechanical vibrations (sound) only in the manner typical of most humans, i.e. using the inner-ear cochleae and nerves in the limited frequency range customary for adult humans: Strain, 2011 re “modalities”, and S Coren, 2004
The probably most dramatic flaw and violation of ethics took place when the DCA Board of Governors, Red Book, 1994-2012 approved falsely attributing specific misbehaviors of abused Dalmatians exclusively to the deaf members of the group, then urging repeatedly and in strong language killing ONLY the deaf abused dogs of most or all breeds, based on falsely implying that massive killing, perhaps of 140,000 since 1986, would cure dog deafness.
[2] page 87, “The Official Book of the Dalmatian” published for the DCA, undated but about 1995
[3] THE DALMATIAN DILEMMA, DR. BRUCE M CATTANACH, MRC Mammalian Genetics Unit, Harwell, Oxfordshire OX11 0JJ, UK; Jour. Small Anim. Pract. 40: 193-200, 1999
[i] The ‘Position on Deafness’ is an advertisement-marketing document as evidenced by the declaration: “...10. IF YOU ARE PLANNING TO PURCHASE A DALMATIAN, contact the Dalmatian Club of America, the closest regional Dal club, or an experienced local breeder who will guarantee that any pups offered for sale have normal (sic, human-like) hearing. ...”