Major Flaws of LSU/BAER/DCA Dog Behavioral Research - Critique/Review
(such as mistaking ‘Correlation’ for ‘Cause and Effect’)
In a clear inexplicable violation of basic scientific research principles vital for credibility, the Strain, 2011, book relied on “correlation” as the sole basis for alleging that inherited and acquired by abuse deafness caused certain specified dangerous behaviors of dogs. The book didn’t noticeably consider, mention or admit awareness of more likely well known cause and effect explanations of their specific deaf dogs’ alleged behaviors. In another disparagement of their credibility about the alleged bad behavior of their deaf dogs, the book omitted any data whatsoever documenting the comparative rates of bad behavior by theirdeaf dogs as compared to theirhearing dogs. In yet a third “offense” the book in Box 4.1 and at other places astonishingly in an exercise bordering on a fantasy of academic omniscience generalized to the world-wide population of domestic dogs, without any cited data, their observations of their local deaf Dalmatians.
In an illustration of a prominent far more likely cause of dangerous behavior, as researched and described by Dr J Serpell, the DCA Board, 1994, recognized with apparent tacit approval the practice of withholding training and socialization from deaf Dalmatian puppies, while vigorously encouraging training and socialization of hearing Dalmatian puppies. They documented in the RED BOOK a known drastic far-reaching cause of differences of behavior between the LSU BAER test hearing Dalmatians and their deaf Dalmatians; “...These puppies, being of dubious pedigree to begin with, do not receive affectionate human contact in their early weeks of life (sic, no socializing). Handled like inert merchandise, they often have physiological and psychological problems which time cannot cure.”
Research that resulted in negative reports on the behavior of deaf dogs, that ignored abuse of deaf dogs as described by the 1994 Dalmatian Red Book approved by the DCA Board approached unethical scientific bias if undisclosed, and might have legal consequences if done with Federally or privately funded research during the BAER tests at LSU. The research reported in the book, 2011, attributed dangerous Dalmatian dog behavior predominately to Dalmatian deaf-biological differences from hearing dogs althoughthere was by 1994 awareness by the DCA Board of radical differences in the training and socialization of the respective sample groups. Such bias and non-disclosure of key flaws in scientific methodology, when the research became involved in DCA owner and breeder marketing of dogs, in our opinion violated the 1994 DCA Ethics Guidelines and to many owners of deaf dogs probably looked like fraud.
Background: The 2011 book “Deafness in Dogs ...” did not disclose the origins and acquisition methods of the LSU, NIH and DCA funded BAER tested Dalmatian dogs. Relevant information however was gradually released on the Internet publicly from various sources. Web reports disclosed through 2010 indicated that roughly 80 percent of the deaf dogs BAER tested at LSU by then were Dalmatians. Thus reports and books regarding deaf dogs were likely to be based on the alleged misbehaviors of the LSU deaf Dalmatians, whether the dogs were purchased by their project, borrowed from breeders or owners, provided directly or indirectly by the DCA, or provided of personal initiative by owners.
1994 DCA RED BOOK’s marketing, advertising and instructions about Deaf and Hearing Dogs’ Training and Socializing provided data about the accepted practices in breeding, training, socializing, euthanizing (killing) and ethics guidelines of Dalmatian Breeders and Owners. Significantly, the 1994 Book remained posted on the Internet through February 2012 as their documentation of the continuing official approved policies of the DCA Board of Governors.
The 2011 book, and particularly in Chapter eight, seemed to attribute (blame) inherited deafness of dogs as the usual sole-exclusive cause of numerous socially unacceptable domestic dog behaviors. By omission, hearing dogs were misrepresented as typically lacking the mentioned unsocial dog behaviors. As the author mentioned in Chapter eight, many thousands of owners of well behaved deaf dogs took strong exception to what they believed to be deliberate misrepresentation of their canine companions.
To critics reviewing the 2011 book, it seemed that several vital questions ought to be explored, even if they can’t be conclusively answered without detailed data about events at LSU concerning BAER testing from about 1990 to the present.
1) Were there credible reasons to believe that significant differences existed in the origins and pre-research training and socialization of the respective deaf and the hearing Dalmatians tested at LSU? Was the information probably available to responsible authorities of the DCA and LSU?
2) Was it plausible that Dalmatians BAER tested at LSU from 1990 onward behaved in the dangerous ways attributed to them in the book?
3) If such behaviors at LSU of BAER tested dogs were substantially different from the experience of thousands of caring owners of well trained and socialized deaf dogs of many Breeds, why did that difference happen? - - What were the origins, training and socializing differences between the LSU/DCA hearing Dalmatians and their deaf Dalmatians, and the differences of the LSU/DCA deaf Dalmatians from those of the typical US-wide (indeed world-wide) well cared for deaf dogs of many breeds?
Information sufficient for informed speculation by professionals in dog-behavior studies were on the Internet during 2009-2011. A review of a small part of the information, methodology and tentative conclusions follows.
I. ORIGINS
By 1994 it was probably obvious to the Board and seen among the DCA breeders that to maximize the sales price, and market value of show Dalmatians assets and return on investments (ROI), each dog should have a credible “Certificate” declaring their bi-ear hearing. That could eliminate those about 50 percent of Dalmatians of limited hearing ability, uni or no-ear hearing. Immediately the few certified-BAER human-like hearing dogs would command higher prices. Obviously only hearing dogs need be awarded BAER certificates if the others were stigmatized as dangerous legal liabilities to their owners and killed.
Advertising and marketing could allege uniquely (not shared by hearing dogs) dangerous behavior of all deaf dogs, which would support the marketing of hearing show and performance Dalmatians. That would also socially justify the DCA improved ROI. ROI was enhanced by eliminating the training, socializing, human contact and decent living conditions from deaf pups per the Board policy that all uni and bi-ear deaf dogs be killed as soon as practical .
As described in the Red Book, the consequent dangerous behavior by dogs were advertised, although resulting from deliberately reducing expenses by depriving dogs of training, socialization, human attention and decent living conditions in places like “puppy mills” where many thousands of Dalmatians were being produced annually about 1994 for the market booms.
When the DCA Board approved BAER testing to evaluate the deafness prevalence rates among Dalmatians, where would they get the dogs? It was probably obvious that the hearing dogs would be mainly DCA/AKC show-quality trained and socialized hearing dogs. For least cost to the DCA, the others would be the least expensive potentially deaf dogs; i.e. bi-ear deaf “throw-aways” from show-breeders and the rest from such as puppy-mills described in the Red Book.
Probably, in our opinion, information from the LSU BAER tests program was used to compare the behavior of well trained socialized hearing Dalmatian dogs versus abused badly injured deaf Dalmatians.
Failure to recognize and disclose major differences in the origins, training and socialization of the dogs compromised the credibility and potentially misrepresented as being only caused by deafness or hearing the behavioral differences of the two sorts of Dalmatian dogs tested at LSU.
II. Training and Socializing
Deaf: Systematic abuse of deaf Dalmatians was described in the DCA Board’s 1994 Red Book, as the board announced the BAER test project. Pg 4, pgf 2: “(sic, puppy mills, some ‘back yard breeders’ and irresponsible breeders) ... These animals are not bred carefully for temperament and correct type as are a private breeder's; they are bred strictly for profit. The pups receive minimal veterinary care, no real socialization, and are often shipped to the pet shops in packing crates of 8 or 10 puppies per crate. These pups are then divvied up among the regional pet shops and are subsequently housed as you see them in the stores: in metal cages where, among other things, they learn to urinate and defecate right where they eat and sleep. This habit can make them extremely difficult, if not impossible, to housebreak once they go to their new homes. These puppies, being of dubious pedigree to begin with, do not receive affectionate human contact in their early weeks of life (sic, no socializing). Handled like inert merchandise, they often have physiological and psychological problems which time cannot cure.”
Pg 11, pgf 6: “Deaf puppies should always be humanely euthanized by a veterinarian as soon as the condition is known and confirmed.” (Reviewer comment: Do breeders waste time and money training and socializing dogs they will kill?) Page one, 2nd paragraph of the “Dalmatian Club of America Position on Dalmatian Deafness”, (downloaded 28 Jan 2012) estimated the Breed deafness at 10-12 percent, which the Preface of the 2011 book indicated meant that about 50 percent of the puppy-mill Dalmatians probably were deaf, counting both uni-and bi-ear deaf.
Hearing: The hearing Dalmatians were provided special high-value training and socializing as described in the DCA Board’s 1994 Red Book. pg 4, pgf4: “...Once you have chosen your puppy, paid for it and received the papers from the breeder, the rest of its education is up to you. Training in the elementary niceties can begin right away, but remember that you have a baby in the house and his or her attention span is short. Housebreaking is the first order of business and you can help tremendously by taking your pup outside immediately after he eats and after he wakes up from a nap. ....”
Pg 7, pgf 4; “...some organizations even offer "kindergarten" classes for very young [sic, hearing] puppies...”, pgf 5: “... called "socialization". This means exposing your [sic hearing dog] youngster to new things, new people, and new situations. The dog who pines in the boarding kennel and refuses to eat when the family goes out of town, or the dog who snarls and backs away from strangers is often the dog that is poorly socialized Take your dog with you whenever possible, especially as a young puppy. Walk him on a leash through a shopping mall and have strangers pet him. Take him to the train station or the airport and acclimate him to the noise and human traffic. Expose him to as many unusual situations as possible to assure that he doesn't cower or hang back under stressful circumstances, and that he is confident and trustful that you will not let anything hurt him. [sic, startle prevention training for hearing pups only!] This is especially critical for a show dog because a self-confident "heads - up" kind of dog will carry the day every time over the skittish, frightened one.” Pg10, pgf 9: “... At this early age, of course, training ... does teach the puppy to stand still and allow itself to be handled as it will be later on in the show ring.” [sic, Only hearing puppies were to be trained NOT to startle. Dead deaf puppies wouldn’t need startle-prevention training for a judge’s safety.]
Pg 11, pgf 1-2; “...Some organizations have "kindergarten" classes for very young (2-4 months old) [sic hearing] puppies, which make use of the puppy's natural curiosity and retrieving instinct to prepare for more advanced obedience work......They are wonderful for socializing your puppy, too. Pgf next-> ...Bring your [sic hearing] Dalmatian along slowly and gently and never ask him to do something of which he is incapable, or which he does not understand. Do not lose your temper! Be firm and consistent in your training methods and lavish praise on your dog when he does it right. The result will be an eager, happy dog who looks forward to his work and wants to please you.” Pg 2-3; pgf1- 1st pgf: “... The dog should always be under some kind of control, either on a leash or behind a fence. The off-leash or unfenced [sic, hearing Dalmatian] dog is always in danger of running into the road at precisely the wrong time, or in the case of a farm residence, being caught in barbed wire or hurt by farm machinery or livestock....”
Pg 8, Question 2, “Is the [sic, hearing, trained and socialized] Dalmatian good with children? ... the average [sic, hearing, trained and socialized] Dalmatian is tolerant and affectionate with children...”
III. No other development differences of deaf or hearing dogs
Chp eight, pg 118, “... Bilaterally deaf animals show no evidence of other neurological dysfunction or diminished mental capacities, any more than the average deaf or blind human has diminished mental capacity. ... [pgf 3] Unilaterally deaf animals only exhibit a [sic, mechanical] deficit in localizing the source of a sound, ...”
IV. Review-Critique Response to the Initial Questions
1. Were there credible reason(s) to believe that significant differences existed in the origins and pre-research training and socialization of the respective deaf and the hearing Dalmatians tested at LSU? Was the information probably available to responsible authorities of the DCA and LSU? Yes and yes.
2. Was it plausible that Dalmatians BAER tested at LSU from the year 1994 onward behaved in the dangerous ways attributed to them in the book? Yes, based on the DCA Board approved Red Book, research reports and experience.
3. If such behaviors at LSU of BAER tested dogs were substantially different from the experience of thousands of caring owners of well trained and socialized deaf dogs of many breeds, why did that difference happen? What were the origins, training and socializing differences between the LSU/DCA hearing Dalmatians and their deaf Dalmatians, and the differences of the LSU/DCA deaf Dalmatians from those of the typical US-wide (indeed world-wide) well cared for deaf dogs of many breeds? See previous discussions and information.
V. Other Tentative Conclusions
1. Probably many of the untrained, unsocialized abused Dalmatians were treated as they were in the puppy-mills and some shelters: “...in metal cages where, among other things, they learn to urinate and defecate right where they eat and sleep. This habit can make them extremely difficult, if not impossible, to housebreak once they go to their new homes. These puppies, being of dubious pedigree to begin with, do not receive affectionate human contact in their early weeks of life (sic, no socializing). Handled like inert merchandise, they often have physiological and psychological problems which time cannot cure.” - probably such abused dogs would have behaved badly anywhere for BAER tests such as described in the 2011 book, and the DCA Board of Directors’ 1994 Red Book.
2. We can assume that the LSU BAER-tested deaf dogs were disposed of (killed) per the DCA Board’s published policies. By testing a large fraction (perhaps 20%) of the existing [year 2012] Dalmatian US population and killing the deaf dogs, BAER testing at LSU might be technically expected to slightly reduce the deafness percent in the DCA registered dogs population.
3. Whether proper authorities were aware that the population of Dalmatians BAER tested at LSU was drastically different in training and socializing between the hearing dogs and the rest was not conclusively determined. However, it possibly required neglect to have been unaware of it, in view of the 1994 published DCA Board policies and the decades of complaints by owners of deaf dogs of other breeds. As reported by the book in Chapter eight, the US owners’ clamor and complaints by 2011 had become difficult to ignore. Still, to a near certainty misleading presentations of deafness prevalence data from LSU researchers continued to be widely misunderstood and misrepresented.
4. In hard science, inappropriately attributing results to coincidental events was a well known flawed science methodology - mistaking ‘correlation’ (does the rooster crowing really makes the sun come up?) for ‘cause and effect-results’. That sort of flaw appeared to be a major aspect of the Book’s misrepresentation of the usual behaviors of typical; trained socialized deaf dogs living with people.
Making the error worse by over-generalizing that “all dogs are the same” made the flaw’s consequences far more severe. For example, the book seemed to allege that because abused untrained unsocialized deaf Dalmatians had bad behaviors therefore so did also by correlation [not cause and effect!] all deaf dogs of at least 92 dog breeds worldwide [Box 4.1 of the book].
5. Was incoherence an explanation for misattribution of dog bad behaviors to a single factor (deafness rather than human abuse of rescued dogs and puppy mill dogs, et al)? As an example, please consider and contrast the Book’s assertions about dogs and children.
{Updated 13 April 2012}
[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 1 and2 ; Chapters 3 and 4 ; Chapter 5, 6 and 7 ; Chapter 8 and Notes ; Consequences ]
(such as mistaking ‘Correlation’ for ‘Cause and Effect’)
In a clear inexplicable violation of basic scientific research principles vital for credibility, the Strain, 2011, book relied on “correlation” as the sole basis for alleging that inherited and acquired by abuse deafness caused certain specified dangerous behaviors of dogs. The book didn’t noticeably consider, mention or admit awareness of more likely well known cause and effect explanations of their specific deaf dogs’ alleged behaviors. In another disparagement of their credibility about the alleged bad behavior of their deaf dogs, the book omitted any data whatsoever documenting the comparative rates of bad behavior by theirdeaf dogs as compared to theirhearing dogs. In yet a third “offense” the book in Box 4.1 and at other places astonishingly in an exercise bordering on a fantasy of academic omniscience generalized to the world-wide population of domestic dogs, without any cited data, their observations of their local deaf Dalmatians.
In an illustration of a prominent far more likely cause of dangerous behavior, as researched and described by Dr J Serpell, the DCA Board, 1994, recognized with apparent tacit approval the practice of withholding training and socialization from deaf Dalmatian puppies, while vigorously encouraging training and socialization of hearing Dalmatian puppies. They documented in the RED BOOK a known drastic far-reaching cause of differences of behavior between the LSU BAER test hearing Dalmatians and their deaf Dalmatians; “...These puppies, being of dubious pedigree to begin with, do not receive affectionate human contact in their early weeks of life (sic, no socializing). Handled like inert merchandise, they often have physiological and psychological problems which time cannot cure.”
Research that resulted in negative reports on the behavior of deaf dogs, that ignored abuse of deaf dogs as described by the 1994 Dalmatian Red Book approved by the DCA Board approached unethical scientific bias if undisclosed, and might have legal consequences if done with Federally or privately funded research during the BAER tests at LSU. The research reported in the book, 2011, attributed dangerous Dalmatian dog behavior predominately to Dalmatian deaf-biological differences from hearing dogs althoughthere was by 1994 awareness by the DCA Board of radical differences in the training and socialization of the respective sample groups. Such bias and non-disclosure of key flaws in scientific methodology, when the research became involved in DCA owner and breeder marketing of dogs, in our opinion violated the 1994 DCA Ethics Guidelines and to many owners of deaf dogs probably looked like fraud.
Background: The 2011 book “Deafness in Dogs ...” did not disclose the origins and acquisition methods of the LSU, NIH and DCA funded BAER tested Dalmatian dogs. Relevant information however was gradually released on the Internet publicly from various sources. Web reports disclosed through 2010 indicated that roughly 80 percent of the deaf dogs BAER tested at LSU by then were Dalmatians. Thus reports and books regarding deaf dogs were likely to be based on the alleged misbehaviors of the LSU deaf Dalmatians, whether the dogs were purchased by their project, borrowed from breeders or owners, provided directly or indirectly by the DCA, or provided of personal initiative by owners.
1994 DCA RED BOOK’s marketing, advertising and instructions about Deaf and Hearing Dogs’ Training and Socializing provided data about the accepted practices in breeding, training, socializing, euthanizing (killing) and ethics guidelines of Dalmatian Breeders and Owners. Significantly, the 1994 Book remained posted on the Internet through February 2012 as their documentation of the continuing official approved policies of the DCA Board of Governors.
The 2011 book, and particularly in Chapter eight, seemed to attribute (blame) inherited deafness of dogs as the usual sole-exclusive cause of numerous socially unacceptable domestic dog behaviors. By omission, hearing dogs were misrepresented as typically lacking the mentioned unsocial dog behaviors. As the author mentioned in Chapter eight, many thousands of owners of well behaved deaf dogs took strong exception to what they believed to be deliberate misrepresentation of their canine companions.
To critics reviewing the 2011 book, it seemed that several vital questions ought to be explored, even if they can’t be conclusively answered without detailed data about events at LSU concerning BAER testing from about 1990 to the present.
1) Were there credible reasons to believe that significant differences existed in the origins and pre-research training and socialization of the respective deaf and the hearing Dalmatians tested at LSU? Was the information probably available to responsible authorities of the DCA and LSU?
2) Was it plausible that Dalmatians BAER tested at LSU from 1990 onward behaved in the dangerous ways attributed to them in the book?
3) If such behaviors at LSU of BAER tested dogs were substantially different from the experience of thousands of caring owners of well trained and socialized deaf dogs of many Breeds, why did that difference happen? - - What were the origins, training and socializing differences between the LSU/DCA hearing Dalmatians and their deaf Dalmatians, and the differences of the LSU/DCA deaf Dalmatians from those of the typical US-wide (indeed world-wide) well cared for deaf dogs of many breeds?
Information sufficient for informed speculation by professionals in dog-behavior studies were on the Internet during 2009-2011. A review of a small part of the information, methodology and tentative conclusions follows.
I. ORIGINS
By 1994 it was probably obvious to the Board and seen among the DCA breeders that to maximize the sales price, and market value of show Dalmatians assets and return on investments (ROI), each dog should have a credible “Certificate” declaring their bi-ear hearing. That could eliminate those about 50 percent of Dalmatians of limited hearing ability, uni or no-ear hearing. Immediately the few certified-BAER human-like hearing dogs would command higher prices. Obviously only hearing dogs need be awarded BAER certificates if the others were stigmatized as dangerous legal liabilities to their owners and killed.
Advertising and marketing could allege uniquely (not shared by hearing dogs) dangerous behavior of all deaf dogs, which would support the marketing of hearing show and performance Dalmatians. That would also socially justify the DCA improved ROI. ROI was enhanced by eliminating the training, socializing, human contact and decent living conditions from deaf pups per the Board policy that all uni and bi-ear deaf dogs be killed as soon as practical .
As described in the Red Book, the consequent dangerous behavior by dogs were advertised, although resulting from deliberately reducing expenses by depriving dogs of training, socialization, human attention and decent living conditions in places like “puppy mills” where many thousands of Dalmatians were being produced annually about 1994 for the market booms.
When the DCA Board approved BAER testing to evaluate the deafness prevalence rates among Dalmatians, where would they get the dogs? It was probably obvious that the hearing dogs would be mainly DCA/AKC show-quality trained and socialized hearing dogs. For least cost to the DCA, the others would be the least expensive potentially deaf dogs; i.e. bi-ear deaf “throw-aways” from show-breeders and the rest from such as puppy-mills described in the Red Book.
Probably, in our opinion, information from the LSU BAER tests program was used to compare the behavior of well trained socialized hearing Dalmatian dogs versus abused badly injured deaf Dalmatians.
Failure to recognize and disclose major differences in the origins, training and socialization of the dogs compromised the credibility and potentially misrepresented as being only caused by deafness or hearing the behavioral differences of the two sorts of Dalmatian dogs tested at LSU.
II. Training and Socializing
Deaf: Systematic abuse of deaf Dalmatians was described in the DCA Board’s 1994 Red Book, as the board announced the BAER test project. Pg 4, pgf 2: “(sic, puppy mills, some ‘back yard breeders’ and irresponsible breeders) ... These animals are not bred carefully for temperament and correct type as are a private breeder's; they are bred strictly for profit. The pups receive minimal veterinary care, no real socialization, and are often shipped to the pet shops in packing crates of 8 or 10 puppies per crate. These pups are then divvied up among the regional pet shops and are subsequently housed as you see them in the stores: in metal cages where, among other things, they learn to urinate and defecate right where they eat and sleep. This habit can make them extremely difficult, if not impossible, to housebreak once they go to their new homes. These puppies, being of dubious pedigree to begin with, do not receive affectionate human contact in their early weeks of life (sic, no socializing). Handled like inert merchandise, they often have physiological and psychological problems which time cannot cure.”
Pg 11, pgf 6: “Deaf puppies should always be humanely euthanized by a veterinarian as soon as the condition is known and confirmed.” (Reviewer comment: Do breeders waste time and money training and socializing dogs they will kill?) Page one, 2nd paragraph of the “Dalmatian Club of America Position on Dalmatian Deafness”, (downloaded 28 Jan 2012) estimated the Breed deafness at 10-12 percent, which the Preface of the 2011 book indicated meant that about 50 percent of the puppy-mill Dalmatians probably were deaf, counting both uni-and bi-ear deaf.
Hearing: The hearing Dalmatians were provided special high-value training and socializing as described in the DCA Board’s 1994 Red Book. pg 4, pgf4: “...Once you have chosen your puppy, paid for it and received the papers from the breeder, the rest of its education is up to you. Training in the elementary niceties can begin right away, but remember that you have a baby in the house and his or her attention span is short. Housebreaking is the first order of business and you can help tremendously by taking your pup outside immediately after he eats and after he wakes up from a nap. ....”
Pg 7, pgf 4; “...some organizations even offer "kindergarten" classes for very young [sic, hearing] puppies...”, pgf 5: “... called "socialization". This means exposing your [sic hearing dog] youngster to new things, new people, and new situations. The dog who pines in the boarding kennel and refuses to eat when the family goes out of town, or the dog who snarls and backs away from strangers is often the dog that is poorly socialized Take your dog with you whenever possible, especially as a young puppy. Walk him on a leash through a shopping mall and have strangers pet him. Take him to the train station or the airport and acclimate him to the noise and human traffic. Expose him to as many unusual situations as possible to assure that he doesn't cower or hang back under stressful circumstances, and that he is confident and trustful that you will not let anything hurt him. [sic, startle prevention training for hearing pups only!] This is especially critical for a show dog because a self-confident "heads - up" kind of dog will carry the day every time over the skittish, frightened one.” Pg10, pgf 9: “... At this early age, of course, training ... does teach the puppy to stand still and allow itself to be handled as it will be later on in the show ring.” [sic, Only hearing puppies were to be trained NOT to startle. Dead deaf puppies wouldn’t need startle-prevention training for a judge’s safety.]
Pg 11, pgf 1-2; “...Some organizations have "kindergarten" classes for very young (2-4 months old) [sic hearing] puppies, which make use of the puppy's natural curiosity and retrieving instinct to prepare for more advanced obedience work......They are wonderful for socializing your puppy, too. Pgf next-> ...Bring your [sic hearing] Dalmatian along slowly and gently and never ask him to do something of which he is incapable, or which he does not understand. Do not lose your temper! Be firm and consistent in your training methods and lavish praise on your dog when he does it right. The result will be an eager, happy dog who looks forward to his work and wants to please you.” Pg 2-3; pgf1- 1st pgf: “... The dog should always be under some kind of control, either on a leash or behind a fence. The off-leash or unfenced [sic, hearing Dalmatian] dog is always in danger of running into the road at precisely the wrong time, or in the case of a farm residence, being caught in barbed wire or hurt by farm machinery or livestock....”
Pg 8, Question 2, “Is the [sic, hearing, trained and socialized] Dalmatian good with children? ... the average [sic, hearing, trained and socialized] Dalmatian is tolerant and affectionate with children...”
III. No other development differences of deaf or hearing dogs
Chp eight, pg 118, “... Bilaterally deaf animals show no evidence of other neurological dysfunction or diminished mental capacities, any more than the average deaf or blind human has diminished mental capacity. ... [pgf 3] Unilaterally deaf animals only exhibit a [sic, mechanical] deficit in localizing the source of a sound, ...”
IV. Review-Critique Response to the Initial Questions
1. Were there credible reason(s) to believe that significant differences existed in the origins and pre-research training and socialization of the respective deaf and the hearing Dalmatians tested at LSU? Was the information probably available to responsible authorities of the DCA and LSU? Yes and yes.
2. Was it plausible that Dalmatians BAER tested at LSU from the year 1994 onward behaved in the dangerous ways attributed to them in the book? Yes, based on the DCA Board approved Red Book, research reports and experience.
3. If such behaviors at LSU of BAER tested dogs were substantially different from the experience of thousands of caring owners of well trained and socialized deaf dogs of many breeds, why did that difference happen? What were the origins, training and socializing differences between the LSU/DCA hearing Dalmatians and their deaf Dalmatians, and the differences of the LSU/DCA deaf Dalmatians from those of the typical US-wide (indeed world-wide) well cared for deaf dogs of many breeds? See previous discussions and information.
V. Other Tentative Conclusions
1. Probably many of the untrained, unsocialized abused Dalmatians were treated as they were in the puppy-mills and some shelters: “...in metal cages where, among other things, they learn to urinate and defecate right where they eat and sleep. This habit can make them extremely difficult, if not impossible, to housebreak once they go to their new homes. These puppies, being of dubious pedigree to begin with, do not receive affectionate human contact in their early weeks of life (sic, no socializing). Handled like inert merchandise, they often have physiological and psychological problems which time cannot cure.” - probably such abused dogs would have behaved badly anywhere for BAER tests such as described in the 2011 book, and the DCA Board of Directors’ 1994 Red Book.
2. We can assume that the LSU BAER-tested deaf dogs were disposed of (killed) per the DCA Board’s published policies. By testing a large fraction (perhaps 20%) of the existing [year 2012] Dalmatian US population and killing the deaf dogs, BAER testing at LSU might be technically expected to slightly reduce the deafness percent in the DCA registered dogs population.
3. Whether proper authorities were aware that the population of Dalmatians BAER tested at LSU was drastically different in training and socializing between the hearing dogs and the rest was not conclusively determined. However, it possibly required neglect to have been unaware of it, in view of the 1994 published DCA Board policies and the decades of complaints by owners of deaf dogs of other breeds. As reported by the book in Chapter eight, the US owners’ clamor and complaints by 2011 had become difficult to ignore. Still, to a near certainty misleading presentations of deafness prevalence data from LSU researchers continued to be widely misunderstood and misrepresented.
4. In hard science, inappropriately attributing results to coincidental events was a well known flawed science methodology - mistaking ‘correlation’ (does the rooster crowing really makes the sun come up?) for ‘cause and effect-results’. That sort of flaw appeared to be a major aspect of the Book’s misrepresentation of the usual behaviors of typical; trained socialized deaf dogs living with people.
Making the error worse by over-generalizing that “all dogs are the same” made the flaw’s consequences far more severe. For example, the book seemed to allege that because abused untrained unsocialized deaf Dalmatians had bad behaviors therefore so did also by correlation [not cause and effect!] all deaf dogs of at least 92 dog breeds worldwide [Box 4.1 of the book].
5. Was incoherence an explanation for misattribution of dog bad behaviors to a single factor (deafness rather than human abuse of rescued dogs and puppy mill dogs, et al)? As an example, please consider and contrast the Book’s assertions about dogs and children.
{Updated 13 April 2012}
[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 1 and2 ; Chapters 3 and 4 ; Chapter 5, 6 and 7 ; Chapter 8 and Notes ; Consequences ]