Fairness - Benefits to deaf and or blind dogs and their owners by the Dalmatian Club of America (DCA) and the AKC
2011; Dr Eisenbart
Negative comments exist on the Web about the deaf dogs policies and actions of the Dalmatian Club of America (DCA) and the AKC. Because there are probable genetic links to dog genetic blindness, the policies and actions concerning deafness impact the lives of bind dogs, blind-deaf dogs and their owners.
Simple fairness, in our opinion, demands mention of the benefits to deaf dogs (and blind dogs) and their owners that flowed from the policies and actions of the DCA and the AKC, and the contrasting consequences for some breeds of dogs of what seemed to be deliberate questionable concealment and neglect of deafness and blindness among their own breeds.
1. The DCA reported that they recognized deafness as a concern by about 1980 and with the AKC apparently began US large scale financial investment in research of the causes (genetic, accidents, medical side-effects, and old age), frequency (percent that are uni [one]-ear and bi[two]-ear deaf in each breed) and severity (useful, partial, “total”).
[Ref. Galambos R and Hecox KE: Clinical applications of the auditory brain stem response. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 11: 709, 1978; and Strain, G.M., B.L. Tedford, and R.M. Jackson. 1991. Postnatal development of the brainstem auditory-evoked potential in dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 52:410-415, and Dr Strain; Presentation to Australian Cattle Dog Club, 2004; LSU-Dr Strain] If $200 per BAER test was the price on average at that time, excluding costs for general administration, travel, kenneling, PTS of deaf dog, then the BAER tests regime exceeded $1.2 Millions for roughly 6,000 Dalmatian deafness research tests reported to 2011by Dr Strain; [Ref. <www.lsu.edu/deafness/incidenc.htm and<www.thedca.org/deaf2.html>
2. “Transparency”: Unlike other Breed Clubs, apparently only the DCA published extensive data on the public Web about deafness of their Breed; (so far as we knew to 2011) [Ref. many URLs of Google (Strain+Deaf+Dog) and (Dog+hearing), etc; e.g. Dr Strain; Presentation to Australian Cattle Dog Club, 2004]
3. Remarkably, the DCA published on the Web its draconian, legal, “agricultural” [Ref. Paul de Kruif, “Microbe Hunters”, 1926, Harcourt-Brace] policy essentially that all dogs were consumable business products, advocating-demanding that all deaf dogs be Put to Sleep (PTS), i.e. killed. [Ref: http://www.thedca.org/deaf1.html, Feb2011]
4. When genetic science became available, the DCA shifted financial investments to investigate using genetics for a cure of dogs’ genetic deafness (potentially for ALL dog breeds)[Ref. www.thedca.org/deaf1.html; 2nd para.: “… Recent discoveries in the genetics … possibility of virtually eliminating it ...”
5. With regret, when it became apparent that identifying the key genes won’t cure genetic deafness while preserving the Dalmatian breed as we knew it in 2010, [Ref. www.steynmere.com/DALM_DEAFNESS.html ; THE DALMATIAN DILEMMA; Dr. Cattanach ] the DCA ceased further research regarding dog deafness and shifted resources to other topics such as LUA (so far as Web disclosures reveal).
6. By 2010 the DCA amended its Web-published policies to encourage the adoption of uni-(one) ear deaf Dalmatians, although the policy of “kill all deaf dogs” remained as their more accessible primary public “face.” [Ref. < www.thedca.org/unilateral.html>]
7. The DCA and AKC funding that clarified the genetic deafness (and blindness) in dog breeds encouraged research to reduce the birth rates of genetic deaf and-or blind puppies. [Ref: Google Search per dog breeds deafness and health data; numerous URLs]
8. The AKC policy banning bi (two)-ear deaf dogs lacking useful hearing from participating in their competitions, by late 2010, as posted on the Web permitted participation by dogs that had “useful” hearing – thus uni (one-ear) deaf dogs could participate, as well as those dogs that suffered partial losses of hearing from accidents or medical causes. The AKC according to Web-posted rules relied on the honesty and integrity of the owners that their dog or dogs had “useful hearing” – judges were instructed to NOT request veterinarian examinations, nor were BAER certificates required of all participating dogs. In certain competitions, the owners and dogs according to posted rules could use “gesture commands” rather than, or in parallel to, voice-sound commands; which would according the best scientific research available by 2004, permit well trained BAER-deaf dogs to compete; [Ref. Dr Stanley Coren, “How Dogs Think”; 2004; Free Press & also see “adapting to deafness” of this Site].
9. The AKC and DCA by continuing to prohibit participation of deaf dogs created publicity pressure on breeders to selectively breed litters to minimize the numbers of genetically deaf puppies (and blind) born each year and killed or dumped at rescues and shelters by owners and breeders. [Ref. <www.thedca.org/August2009Board.html>] DCA and others published genetic markers guidance to breeders and Clubs on selection methods to lower numbers of deaf and blind puppies. [Ref. Sample URLs < http://www.thedca.org/deafreference.html > and <http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/genetics.htm> September 8, 2005, download Sep 2010 ]
10. Deaf and blind dogs of other countries world-wide also benefited from the US research studies previously mentioned; [Ref. many URLs: Google (deaf+dog+Britain +UK+ Germany+Australia)]
Negative comments exist on the Web about the deaf dogs policies and actions of the Dalmatian Club of America (DCA) and the AKC. Because there are probable genetic links to dog genetic blindness, the policies and actions concerning deafness impact the lives of bind dogs, blind-deaf dogs and their owners.
Simple fairness, in our opinion, demands mention of the benefits to deaf dogs (and blind dogs) and their owners that flowed from the policies and actions of the DCA and the AKC, and the contrasting consequences for some breeds of dogs of what seemed to be deliberate questionable concealment and neglect of deafness and blindness among their own breeds.
1. The DCA reported that they recognized deafness as a concern by about 1980 and with the AKC apparently began US large scale financial investment in research of the causes (genetic, accidents, medical side-effects, and old age), frequency (percent that are uni [one]-ear and bi[two]-ear deaf in each breed) and severity (useful, partial, “total”).
[Ref. Galambos R and Hecox KE: Clinical applications of the auditory brain stem response. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 11: 709, 1978; and Strain, G.M., B.L. Tedford, and R.M. Jackson. 1991. Postnatal development of the brainstem auditory-evoked potential in dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 52:410-415, and Dr Strain; Presentation to Australian Cattle Dog Club, 2004; LSU-Dr Strain] If $200 per BAER test was the price on average at that time, excluding costs for general administration, travel, kenneling, PTS of deaf dog, then the BAER tests regime exceeded $1.2 Millions for roughly 6,000 Dalmatian deafness research tests reported to 2011by Dr Strain; [Ref. <www.lsu.edu/deafness/incidenc.htm and<www.thedca.org/deaf2.html>
2. “Transparency”: Unlike other Breed Clubs, apparently only the DCA published extensive data on the public Web about deafness of their Breed; (so far as we knew to 2011) [Ref. many URLs of Google (Strain+Deaf+Dog) and (Dog+hearing), etc; e.g. Dr Strain; Presentation to Australian Cattle Dog Club, 2004]
3. Remarkably, the DCA published on the Web its draconian, legal, “agricultural” [Ref. Paul de Kruif, “Microbe Hunters”, 1926, Harcourt-Brace] policy essentially that all dogs were consumable business products, advocating-demanding that all deaf dogs be Put to Sleep (PTS), i.e. killed. [Ref: http://www.thedca.org/deaf1.html, Feb2011]
4. When genetic science became available, the DCA shifted financial investments to investigate using genetics for a cure of dogs’ genetic deafness (potentially for ALL dog breeds)[Ref. www.thedca.org/deaf1.html; 2nd para.: “… Recent discoveries in the genetics … possibility of virtually eliminating it ...”
5. With regret, when it became apparent that identifying the key genes won’t cure genetic deafness while preserving the Dalmatian breed as we knew it in 2010, [Ref. www.steynmere.com/DALM_DEAFNESS.html ; THE DALMATIAN DILEMMA; Dr. Cattanach ] the DCA ceased further research regarding dog deafness and shifted resources to other topics such as LUA (so far as Web disclosures reveal).
6. By 2010 the DCA amended its Web-published policies to encourage the adoption of uni-(one) ear deaf Dalmatians, although the policy of “kill all deaf dogs” remained as their more accessible primary public “face.” [Ref. < www.thedca.org/unilateral.html>]
7. The DCA and AKC funding that clarified the genetic deafness (and blindness) in dog breeds encouraged research to reduce the birth rates of genetic deaf and-or blind puppies. [Ref: Google Search per dog breeds deafness and health data; numerous URLs]
8. The AKC policy banning bi (two)-ear deaf dogs lacking useful hearing from participating in their competitions, by late 2010, as posted on the Web permitted participation by dogs that had “useful” hearing – thus uni (one-ear) deaf dogs could participate, as well as those dogs that suffered partial losses of hearing from accidents or medical causes. The AKC according to Web-posted rules relied on the honesty and integrity of the owners that their dog or dogs had “useful hearing” – judges were instructed to NOT request veterinarian examinations, nor were BAER certificates required of all participating dogs. In certain competitions, the owners and dogs according to posted rules could use “gesture commands” rather than, or in parallel to, voice-sound commands; which would according the best scientific research available by 2004, permit well trained BAER-deaf dogs to compete; [Ref. Dr Stanley Coren, “How Dogs Think”; 2004; Free Press & also see “adapting to deafness” of this Site].
9. The AKC and DCA by continuing to prohibit participation of deaf dogs created publicity pressure on breeders to selectively breed litters to minimize the numbers of genetically deaf puppies (and blind) born each year and killed or dumped at rescues and shelters by owners and breeders. [Ref. <www.thedca.org/August2009Board.html>] DCA and others published genetic markers guidance to breeders and Clubs on selection methods to lower numbers of deaf and blind puppies. [Ref. Sample URLs < http://www.thedca.org/deafreference.html > and <http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/genetics.htm> September 8, 2005, download Sep 2010 ]
10. Deaf and blind dogs of other countries world-wide also benefited from the US research studies previously mentioned; [Ref. many URLs: Google (deaf+dog+Britain +UK+ Germany+Australia)]