A Deaf and Blind Dogs’ Declaration
Do you think that informed "ordinary" dog owning humans of the world agree with the deaf dogs and blind dogs human community that: "Ocassional Genetic deafness or blindness is a feature (trait) of healthy dogs of all recognized dog breeds, just as are color-blindness and varieties of such features as coat color or hair length and ear shape" ?
This declaration rests on documented observations from over 8,000 humans owning deaf dogs, blind dogs and some blind-deaf dogs world-wide that when trained, socialized and treated well the dogs were capable of all activities of other dogs of all breeds, excepting that they do not hear with ordinary inner-ears or see with ordinary eyes, as likewise black dogs aren't brown or red, and so forth.
Just a few of the concerned breeds are the Danes, Setters, Spaniels, Terriers, Collies, Aussies, Dachshunds, Chiahuahuas, and others of the AKC registered breeds.
Further we can assert with documented modern scientific confidence that deafness is benign, - not a genetic disease like diabetes or epilepsy requiring medical treatment - for healthy happy domestic dogs living with caring humans, no more than is color-blindness of dogs and some humans [me].
Genetic blindness at birth or later in life (SARDS, PRA, ...) was not yet a medically treatable trait. Those dogs also had a very good record of adapting to nearly normal life with people domestically. Some blindness was related to old age and treatable to a degree for a good life with their people.
The rational alternative: A few Organized groups, who have a financial conflict of interest, assert that deafness or blindness is a contagious sexually transmitted sort of defect warranting elimination (killing) of the puppies and adult dogs that have the ‘defect’ - - and they insist that for consistentent “equal treatment” ALL such dogs ought be "put down", "put to sleep" (PTS); euthanized; killed". PTS-for-profit organizations with profoundly deliberately misleadingly charts suggested as late as 2011 that in all breeds of dogs there were dangerous deafness genes easily transmitted to other breeds by sexual contact.
The <www.thedca.org/deaf2.html> severe “kill deaf puppies” policy begun by 1994 was too late and too weak to purify the genes of all registered dogs: < www.thedca.org/survey.html> about 13% surveyed were partially or totally deaf, of about 763 dogs.” The Survey in calendar year 2001 may have reflected a residual high percentage perhaps of those remaining alive caused by non-compliance of members with the published Club Board policy of killing all identified deaf puppies.
Quantitatively, the CY 2010 genetic scientific research data and other documents about dog populations reported on the Internet suggest certain breeds or a specific breed were probably a main source of puppies killed each year in the US as a matter of a rational quasi-agricultural stock raising economic policy; [Ref. www.thedca.org/deaf2.html, et al.] Recent reports of genetic research suggest that some of the current breeders were selecting for (causing) the deafness of a high percentage of the puppies that were killed annually in the US: “<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_(dog)#Deafness>; Research showed that dogs with large patches of color present at birth had fewer deaf puppies, and breeders accepting patches can reduce the deafness. Blue eyes often coincided with deafness and breeding to avoid blue eyes will reduce deafness rates, as done in some European countries.
<www.steynmere.com/DALM_DEAFNESS.html>; One of the leading reasons patches were a disqualifying factor was to preserve the much prized coat. And also see: <answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080824033443AANa0A5>. By the year 2010, DCA management approved < www.thedca.org/unilateral.html> the adoption and almost inevitably breeding of uni-deaf (single-ear deaf) dogs. Because the current population of deaf dogs was probably mostly a result of deliberate selection by breeders who were seeking financial gain or other goals, there was no evident additional harm done by permitting deaf dogs to participate in AKC events, as they currently permit any other dogs to compete who weren’t obviously deaf (i.e. had useful hearing according to the owners) but who could produce deaf puppies that ought by the published public policy be put to sleep (PTS), or “put-down – i.e. killed. :AKC Positions and Regulations, etc [as of 22 Aug, 2010; from AKC text posted on the Internet]:
1.) Deaf dogs may not participate in any activities (such as agility, obedience, etc). Deafness was inversely defined as lacking ‘a useful degree of hearing’; i.e. dogs with unihearing (one ear) may participate. [sic: the term "deaf" was not defined in measurable technical terms, - it was left as a subjective trait, in the documents.]
2.) “Hearing” was Not apparently defined in the official texts. On the common US legal position that anything not officially prohibited is permissible that leaves open speculation that any dog that used uni-ear or some other sensory "modality" of non-inner-ear hearing may participate in approved activities. Incidentally, “attachments” were banned, so dogs with hearing-aids seemed to be banned. Commonly 'useful hearing' probably usig secondary detection modes to some extent was reported among many owners of deaf dogs after several years when "melan-based' dark-spots in their dog's coats became very black indeed - initially mentioned by Susan Becker in her book.
3.) “Simulated Deaf-Dog” participation by hearing-dogs was apparently permitted in most activities. Hearing dogs were permitted to pretend-simulate deafness by responding to silent signals in competitions exclusively based upon training. Ear-deaf dogs conceivably might out-perform hearing dogs taught to pretend to be deaf, as the truly ear-deaf dogs might be less distracted by the noises of the crowds, their owner’s and the judges. The AKC having given permission for uni-deaf deaf dogs with useful hearing to compete in events such as agility and obedience trials, the DCA Board was possibly misunderstood as objecting to equal opportunities for other breeds according to “www.thedca.org/August2009Board.html" Board of Governors Meeting Minutes; August, 2009, Bloomington, MN.
DCA - Dalmatian Club of America
AKC - American Kennel Club
Disclosure: A human who is color-blind, a parent of a deaf child, an owner of a deaf dog and a hearing dog, may have a personal interest and knowledge of the ethics and realities of "being different," among highly intelligent creatures.
[i]Note : [DCA] Position on Dalmatian Deafness: From the Board of Governors of the Dalmatian Club of America;
This declaration rests on documented observations from over 8,000 humans owning deaf dogs, blind dogs and some blind-deaf dogs world-wide that when trained, socialized and treated well the dogs were capable of all activities of other dogs of all breeds, excepting that they do not hear with ordinary inner-ears or see with ordinary eyes, as likewise black dogs aren't brown or red, and so forth.
Just a few of the concerned breeds are the Danes, Setters, Spaniels, Terriers, Collies, Aussies, Dachshunds, Chiahuahuas, and others of the AKC registered breeds.
Further we can assert with documented modern scientific confidence that deafness is benign, - not a genetic disease like diabetes or epilepsy requiring medical treatment - for healthy happy domestic dogs living with caring humans, no more than is color-blindness of dogs and some humans [me].
Genetic blindness at birth or later in life (SARDS, PRA, ...) was not yet a medically treatable trait. Those dogs also had a very good record of adapting to nearly normal life with people domestically. Some blindness was related to old age and treatable to a degree for a good life with their people.
The rational alternative: A few Organized groups, who have a financial conflict of interest, assert that deafness or blindness is a contagious sexually transmitted sort of defect warranting elimination (killing) of the puppies and adult dogs that have the ‘defect’ - - and they insist that for consistentent “equal treatment” ALL such dogs ought be "put down", "put to sleep" (PTS); euthanized; killed". PTS-for-profit organizations with profoundly deliberately misleadingly charts suggested as late as 2011 that in all breeds of dogs there were dangerous deafness genes easily transmitted to other breeds by sexual contact.
The <www.thedca.org/deaf2.html> severe “kill deaf puppies” policy begun by 1994 was too late and too weak to purify the genes of all registered dogs: < www.thedca.org/survey.html> about 13% surveyed were partially or totally deaf, of about 763 dogs.” The Survey in calendar year 2001 may have reflected a residual high percentage perhaps of those remaining alive caused by non-compliance of members with the published Club Board policy of killing all identified deaf puppies.
Quantitatively, the CY 2010 genetic scientific research data and other documents about dog populations reported on the Internet suggest certain breeds or a specific breed were probably a main source of puppies killed each year in the US as a matter of a rational quasi-agricultural stock raising economic policy; [Ref. www.thedca.org/deaf2.html, et al.] Recent reports of genetic research suggest that some of the current breeders were selecting for (causing) the deafness of a high percentage of the puppies that were killed annually in the US: “<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_(dog)#Deafness>; Research showed that dogs with large patches of color present at birth had fewer deaf puppies, and breeders accepting patches can reduce the deafness. Blue eyes often coincided with deafness and breeding to avoid blue eyes will reduce deafness rates, as done in some European countries.
<www.steynmere.com/DALM_DEAFNESS.html>; One of the leading reasons patches were a disqualifying factor was to preserve the much prized coat. And also see: <answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080824033443AANa0A5>. By the year 2010, DCA management approved < www.thedca.org/unilateral.html> the adoption and almost inevitably breeding of uni-deaf (single-ear deaf) dogs. Because the current population of deaf dogs was probably mostly a result of deliberate selection by breeders who were seeking financial gain or other goals, there was no evident additional harm done by permitting deaf dogs to participate in AKC events, as they currently permit any other dogs to compete who weren’t obviously deaf (i.e. had useful hearing according to the owners) but who could produce deaf puppies that ought by the published public policy be put to sleep (PTS), or “put-down – i.e. killed. :AKC Positions and Regulations, etc [as of 22 Aug, 2010; from AKC text posted on the Internet]:
1.) Deaf dogs may not participate in any activities (such as agility, obedience, etc). Deafness was inversely defined as lacking ‘a useful degree of hearing’; i.e. dogs with unihearing (one ear) may participate. [sic: the term "deaf" was not defined in measurable technical terms, - it was left as a subjective trait, in the documents.]
2.) “Hearing” was Not apparently defined in the official texts. On the common US legal position that anything not officially prohibited is permissible that leaves open speculation that any dog that used uni-ear or some other sensory "modality" of non-inner-ear hearing may participate in approved activities. Incidentally, “attachments” were banned, so dogs with hearing-aids seemed to be banned. Commonly 'useful hearing' probably usig secondary detection modes to some extent was reported among many owners of deaf dogs after several years when "melan-based' dark-spots in their dog's coats became very black indeed - initially mentioned by Susan Becker in her book.
3.) “Simulated Deaf-Dog” participation by hearing-dogs was apparently permitted in most activities. Hearing dogs were permitted to pretend-simulate deafness by responding to silent signals in competitions exclusively based upon training. Ear-deaf dogs conceivably might out-perform hearing dogs taught to pretend to be deaf, as the truly ear-deaf dogs might be less distracted by the noises of the crowds, their owner’s and the judges. The AKC having given permission for uni-deaf deaf dogs with useful hearing to compete in events such as agility and obedience trials, the DCA Board was possibly misunderstood as objecting to equal opportunities for other breeds according to “www.thedca.org/August2009Board.html" Board of Governors Meeting Minutes; August, 2009, Bloomington, MN.
DCA - Dalmatian Club of America
AKC - American Kennel Club
Disclosure: A human who is color-blind, a parent of a deaf child, an owner of a deaf dog and a hearing dog, may have a personal interest and knowledge of the ethics and realities of "being different," among highly intelligent creatures.
[i]Note : [DCA] Position on Dalmatian Deafness: From the Board of Governors of the Dalmatian Club of America;