Why Slaughter Puppies and Stigmatize Deafness?
(Probable Origin and Consequences of the DCA Board’s Red Book “Deaf Dogs Myths”?)
Summary of a Critque of parts of the "Milestone" DCA Board of Governors' Approved Red Book,1994
About 1994-1995 the elimination (killing) of deaf Dalmatians of puppy-mills, back yard-breeders (byb) and irresponsible purebred (irp) breeders apparently offered an estimated 60% reduction of deaf misbehaving dogs in the US.
The deaf Dalmatians elimination program was apparently anounced and described in the 1994 Dalmatian Club of America (DCA) Board approved Red Book, 1994. There the DCA Board of Governors apparently approved the euthanizing directive and the supporting published stigmatizing allegations that for almost all modern (about 2008-2012) readers seemed to cover ALL deaf dogs of ALL breeds in apparent violations of the Board’s approved Ethical Practices. To reduce the US totals of abused untrained unsocialized Dalmatians in the following years, it seemed highly likely that the stigma allegations and kill-directive together probably harmed deaf dogs of most breeds (possibly more than 92 breeds) and their owners.
By 2011 further elimination of puppy-mill genetically deaf Dalmatians offered little possibility of further reducing US risks from poorly trained and unsocialized abused deaf misbehaving US dogs.
BAER testing at NO point in the published reports obviously (based on the data posted on the Web) improved the Dalmatians bi-ear genetic deaf dogs statistics. Expenses for Dalmatians bi-ear BAER genetic deafness testing and testing of other breeds were probably for most owners a waste of the breeders’ or owners’ money, mostly benefiting owner-operators of BAER facilities.
Some key population estimated statistics were summarized in Table 1. The perceived main stigmatizing advertised ‘all-breeds’ Myths, by the year 2012 probably better called ‘lies or disinformation’, were paraphrased in Table 2. The alleged deaf-dogs myths probably in 1995 could have represented occasional behaviors of about 63 percent of the US bi-ear deaf-dogs, specifically the bi-ear deaf puppy-mill and backyard breeders’ Dalmatians.
(Probable Origin and Consequences of the DCA Board’s Red Book “Deaf Dogs Myths”?)
Summary of a Critque of parts of the "Milestone" DCA Board of Governors' Approved Red Book,1994
About 1994-1995 the elimination (killing) of deaf Dalmatians of puppy-mills, back yard-breeders (byb) and irresponsible purebred (irp) breeders apparently offered an estimated 60% reduction of deaf misbehaving dogs in the US.
The deaf Dalmatians elimination program was apparently anounced and described in the 1994 Dalmatian Club of America (DCA) Board approved Red Book, 1994. There the DCA Board of Governors apparently approved the euthanizing directive and the supporting published stigmatizing allegations that for almost all modern (about 2008-2012) readers seemed to cover ALL deaf dogs of ALL breeds in apparent violations of the Board’s approved Ethical Practices. To reduce the US totals of abused untrained unsocialized Dalmatians in the following years, it seemed highly likely that the stigma allegations and kill-directive together probably harmed deaf dogs of most breeds (possibly more than 92 breeds) and their owners.
By 2011 further elimination of puppy-mill genetically deaf Dalmatians offered little possibility of further reducing US risks from poorly trained and unsocialized abused deaf misbehaving US dogs.
BAER testing at NO point in the published reports obviously (based on the data posted on the Web) improved the Dalmatians bi-ear genetic deaf dogs statistics. Expenses for Dalmatians bi-ear BAER genetic deafness testing and testing of other breeds were probably for most owners a waste of the breeders’ or owners’ money, mostly benefiting owner-operators of BAER facilities.
Some key population estimated statistics were summarized in Table 1. The perceived main stigmatizing advertised ‘all-breeds’ Myths, by the year 2012 probably better called ‘lies or disinformation’, were paraphrased in Table 2. The alleged deaf-dogs myths probably in 1995 could have represented occasional behaviors of about 63 percent of the US bi-ear deaf-dogs, specifically the bi-ear deaf puppy-mill and backyard breeders’ Dalmatians.
DISCUSSION
As indicated in Table 1, if US deaf dogs about 1995 were a significant physical and legal risk to dog owners, other adults, children and themselves it was probably obvious to the DCA Board of Governors and lawyers that the Dalmatian breed as the suddenly 9th most popular registered breed AND the US breed with the most severe deafness rates was probably financially deeply at risk. Allegedly the major suppliers of the deaf Dalmatians were puppy-mills, back yard breeders and irresponsible purebred breeders.
Table 1. US Bi-ear Deaf Dogs Population Estimated Statistics
Bi-ear Deafness US Estimated Statistics ~1995 ~2011
US Deaf Dogs Totals 27,000 15,000
Dalmatians bi-ear Deaf Dogs 17,000 1,700
Purebred Dalmatians Bi-ear Deaf 2,000 1,500
Dalmatian Puppy- mill+ Registered Deaf of US Total => ~63% 11%
Registered Dalmatians Deaf of US Total => ~19% 10%
The DCA Board about 1993-1994 was probably faced with at least three technical options:
1) with advertising and marketing, teach US adopters of Dalmatians to train, socialize, de-startle, etc the nearly 50 percent of the Dalmatians on the market who were deaf
2) violate the DCA Ethical practices guidelines[1] “...- To ensure that all dogs in my care are provided adequate food, shelter, human companionship, and medical care...” by declaring an official policy to promptly kill (euthanize) deaf puppies. With BAER tests uni-deaf puppies after 1993 could be easily detected and killed, which was difficult before BAER tests were widely available.
3) violate the DCA Ethical practices guidelines “- 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 ...” by advertising and marketing to stigmatize deaf dogs of ALL breeds! Effectiveness of stigmatizing was potentially shown by the post-1994 rapid increase in the monthly reported numbers of Dalmatians abandoned to rescues and shelters.
4) fund research into the causes of Dalmatian and other dog breeds deafness (see page "For DCA&AKC") Possibly dogs of all breeds and their owners worldwide are indebted to the research done with DCA and AKC funding and the additional research but public and private that was stimulated by desires to replicate the research results, or if the facts so warranted supercede it. Early phases of the research and experimental programs were mentioned in the Red Book, and probably in Strain, 2011, as well as in many places in other books and the Internet by 2012.
Seen “in the rear view mirror” of history with the aid of the DCA Boards’ approved Red Book,1994, other publications and the book Strain, 2011 the DCA Board probably chose apparently exclusively the options Return on Investment (ROI) financially most profitable and least expensive to themselves – the second, third and fourth options exclusively. ‘Stigmatizing’ advertising and marketing slogans were illustrated in Table 2 where the reference page and paragraphs were of the DCA Red Book, 1994, printed for critique and research after download 18Jan2012.
Table 2. "Myths" apparently declared or implied in the Officially Approved By DCA Board of Governors’ Red Book, 1994-2012 [The "myths" after 1994 appeared with increasing frequency in public literature after 1994, in words often quite similar. Comparisons of texts strongly indicated a common origin of key "myth" concepts]
( DCA Red Book, 1994, page 6 of 19, page 11, pgf 5 about 12 % bi-ear and thus 36% uni-ear total to about 50 percent deaf of puppy mill and back yard breeders Dalmatians)
ALL Deaf Dogs Startled-Aggressive; fear-aggressive [RB page (pg) 11, paragraphs (pgf) 7-8]
ALL Deaf Dogs maim children [RB pg 11, pgf 7]
ALL Deaf Dogs try to suicide by vehicles [RB pg 2-3; pgf 1,etc; pg 11, pgf 4]
ALL Old Deaf Dogs are explosively vicious [RB pg 11; pgf 9]
Most US people are unable to train deaf Dalmatians [RB pg 6, pgf 4; pg 11, pgf 7]
Only Special US Owners for Deaf Dalmatians [RB pg 6, pgf 4; pg 11, pgf 4]
ALL Deaf Dogs must be always confined or leashed [RB pg 3, pgf 1]
Many Owners, handlers, breeders of deaf Dalmatians prevent training and socializing” [see RB pg 7]
***
[1] As described earlier there were multiple apparent violations of DCA Board of Governors Approved Ethical Practices [RB page 12 of 19] - To ensure that all dogs in my care are provided adequate food, shelter, human companionship, and medical care. - - -- In conflict with the Board’s demanded ‘Ethical practices’ for the deaf nearly 50 percent of the pups: - To ensure that all bilaterally deaf puppies ... are humanely euthanized (sic, killed) as soon as the condition is detected and confirmed. [1] [see also page 6, pgf1] AND - 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
As indicated in Table 1, if US deaf dogs about 1995 were a significant physical and legal risk to dog owners, other adults, children and themselves it was probably obvious to the DCA Board of Governors and lawyers that the Dalmatian breed as the suddenly 9th most popular registered breed AND the US breed with the most severe deafness rates was probably financially deeply at risk. Allegedly the major suppliers of the deaf Dalmatians were puppy-mills, back yard breeders and irresponsible purebred breeders.
Table 1. US Bi-ear Deaf Dogs Population Estimated Statistics
Bi-ear Deafness US Estimated Statistics ~1995 ~2011
US Deaf Dogs Totals 27,000 15,000
Dalmatians bi-ear Deaf Dogs 17,000 1,700
Purebred Dalmatians Bi-ear Deaf 2,000 1,500
Dalmatian Puppy- mill+ Registered Deaf of US Total => ~63% 11%
Registered Dalmatians Deaf of US Total => ~19% 10%
The DCA Board about 1993-1994 was probably faced with at least three technical options:
1) with advertising and marketing, teach US adopters of Dalmatians to train, socialize, de-startle, etc the nearly 50 percent of the Dalmatians on the market who were deaf
2) violate the DCA Ethical practices guidelines[1] “...- To ensure that all dogs in my care are provided adequate food, shelter, human companionship, and medical care...” by declaring an official policy to promptly kill (euthanize) deaf puppies. With BAER tests uni-deaf puppies after 1993 could be easily detected and killed, which was difficult before BAER tests were widely available.
3) violate the DCA Ethical practices guidelines “- 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 ...” by advertising and marketing to stigmatize deaf dogs of ALL breeds! Effectiveness of stigmatizing was potentially shown by the post-1994 rapid increase in the monthly reported numbers of Dalmatians abandoned to rescues and shelters.
4) fund research into the causes of Dalmatian and other dog breeds deafness (see page "For DCA&AKC") Possibly dogs of all breeds and their owners worldwide are indebted to the research done with DCA and AKC funding and the additional research but public and private that was stimulated by desires to replicate the research results, or if the facts so warranted supercede it. Early phases of the research and experimental programs were mentioned in the Red Book, and probably in Strain, 2011, as well as in many places in other books and the Internet by 2012.
Seen “in the rear view mirror” of history with the aid of the DCA Boards’ approved Red Book,1994, other publications and the book Strain, 2011 the DCA Board probably chose apparently exclusively the options Return on Investment (ROI) financially most profitable and least expensive to themselves – the second, third and fourth options exclusively. ‘Stigmatizing’ advertising and marketing slogans were illustrated in Table 2 where the reference page and paragraphs were of the DCA Red Book, 1994, printed for critique and research after download 18Jan2012.
Table 2. "Myths" apparently declared or implied in the Officially Approved By DCA Board of Governors’ Red Book, 1994-2012 [The "myths" after 1994 appeared with increasing frequency in public literature after 1994, in words often quite similar. Comparisons of texts strongly indicated a common origin of key "myth" concepts]
( DCA Red Book, 1994, page 6 of 19, page 11, pgf 5 about 12 % bi-ear and thus 36% uni-ear total to about 50 percent deaf of puppy mill and back yard breeders Dalmatians)
ALL Deaf Dogs Startled-Aggressive; fear-aggressive [RB page (pg) 11, paragraphs (pgf) 7-8]
ALL Deaf Dogs maim children [RB pg 11, pgf 7]
ALL Deaf Dogs try to suicide by vehicles [RB pg 2-3; pgf 1,etc; pg 11, pgf 4]
ALL Old Deaf Dogs are explosively vicious [RB pg 11; pgf 9]
Most US people are unable to train deaf Dalmatians [RB pg 6, pgf 4; pg 11, pgf 7]
Only Special US Owners for Deaf Dalmatians [RB pg 6, pgf 4; pg 11, pgf 4]
ALL Deaf Dogs must be always confined or leashed [RB pg 3, pgf 1]
Many Owners, handlers, breeders of deaf Dalmatians prevent training and socializing” [see RB pg 7]
***
[1] As described earlier there were multiple apparent violations of DCA Board of Governors Approved Ethical Practices [RB page 12 of 19] - To ensure that all dogs in my care are provided adequate food, shelter, human companionship, and medical care. - - -- In conflict with the Board’s demanded ‘Ethical practices’ for the deaf nearly 50 percent of the pups: - To ensure that all bilaterally deaf puppies ... are humanely euthanized (sic, killed) as soon as the condition is detected and confirmed. [1] [see also page 6, pgf1] AND - 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
Table 3. Estimated Probable Dalmatian Demographics (Red Book, 1994-2012; Strain, 2011)
Hearing Dogs (probably mostly from DCA?) Deaf (mostly puppy-mills, back yard breeders, irpbreeders?)
Almost all: Highly socialized, well trained Few probably were trained, socialized, cared about
Few probably were poorly socialized and trained Almost all:Abused, untrained, unsocialized, unwanted, et al
***
Because Dalmatians were about 80 % of all dogs BAER tested through 2010 per Web reports of LSU/Dr Strain, the deaf dogs’ behaviors described by Strain,2011, were probably almost all behaviors of abused unsocialized untrained Dalmatians; a judgment-opinion based on information of the DCA Board approved Red Book, as illustrated in the demographics Table 3. See also a prior independent analysis discussed at the linked ["scare-stories " page.]
From the Red Book commentary, very probably the hearing dogs were mainly DCA registered and the deaf were probably mainly from puppy mills, i.e. because the DCA breeders to save money training and socializing, likely disposed of ‘useless’ bi-ear deaf puppies promptly. They probably could have killed almost all of the easily detected bi-ear deaf Dalmatian puppies as soon as detected, per DCA Board Ethical Guidelines published from 1994 through 2012.
Puppy mill deaf Dalmatians, as suggested in the Red Book, 1994-2012, were likely to get no training, no socializing, little human contact, abused and living in their own excrement. In contrast, the registered Dalmatians were intentionally and deliberately given excellent training, socializing, lots of human attention and medical treatment as mandates of the DCA Board.
By 1994 and certainly by 2011 any competent breeder, animal behaviorist or scientist ought have recognized (in our opinion based on personal experience) that the behaviors of puppy mill and byb Dalmatians contrasted with those of the registered Dalmatians primarily because the registered Dalmatians got enormously superior training, socializing, care, et al, rather than the abuse, non-training, non-socializing and almost no human contacts of the deaf nearly 50 percent of the puppy-mill and back yard breeders’ pups.
As pointed out in Strain, 2011, Chapters 3, 4, 5, among a wide variety of breeds of similarly trained, socialized and well cared for dogs of all sorts, the adverse “Mythic” deaf behavior was exclusively blamed in Strain, 2011 on white-pigmentation and-or “noise-trauma.” But no reported research showed that pigment-deaf or noise-trauma deafened dogs possessed detectable neurological differences that would probably directly cause the Red Book 3d edition’s “Mythic” alleged adverse behaviors. For example, Strain, 2011 did NOT attribute adverse “Mythic” behaviors to dogs whose deafness was caused by many other instances, see Table 4 following; (Strain,2011; Chapter 3, etc).
Table 4. Dog Deafness Causes that Did NOT Induce “Mythic” Behaviors per Strain, 2011
- Perinatal anoxia - Dystocia - Intrauterine ototoxin
- Ototoxin exposure -Otitis interna - Presbycusis
- Undetermined (sic,!) -Conduction deafness -ear canal atresia
-Primary secretory otitis media -Otitis externa -Otitis media
-Cerum impaction - ear canal inflammation - ear canal foreign bodies
-Middle ear polyps - Otosclerosis - Anesthetia associated deafness
*** *** ***
By 1994 and certainly by 2011 any competent breeder, animal behaviorist or scientist ought have recognized (in our opinion based on personal experience) that the behaviors of puppy mill and byb Dalmatians contrasted with those of the registered Dalmatians primarily because the registered Dalmatians got enormously superior training, socializing, care, et al, rather than the abuse, non-training, non-socializing and almost no human contacts of the deaf nearly 50 percent of the puppy-mill and back yard breeders’ pups.
As pointed out in Strain, 2011, Chapters 3, 4, 5, among a wide variety of breeds of similarly trained, socialized and well cared for dogs of all sorts, the adverse “Mythic” deaf behavior was exclusively blamed in Strain, 2011 on white-pigmentation and-or “noise-trauma.” But no reported research showed that pigment-deaf or noise-trauma deafened dogs possessed detectable neurological differences that would probably directly cause the Red Book 3d edition’s “Mythic” alleged adverse behaviors. For example, Strain, 2011 did NOT attribute adverse “Mythic” behaviors to dogs whose deafness was caused by many other instances, see Table 4 following; (Strain,2011; Chapter 3, etc).
Table 4. Dog Deafness Causes that Did NOT Induce “Mythic” Behaviors per Strain, 2011
- Perinatal anoxia - Dystocia - Intrauterine ototoxin
- Ototoxin exposure -Otitis interna - Presbycusis
- Undetermined (sic,!) -Conduction deafness -ear canal atresia
-Primary secretory otitis media -Otitis externa -Otitis media
-Cerum impaction - ear canal inflammation - ear canal foreign bodies
-Middle ear polyps - Otosclerosis - Anesthetia associated deafness
*** *** ***
TECHNICAL NOTE: Infrequently Asked Questions
Does puppy-slaughter change domestic dog behavior if deafness is clinically cosmetic?
Answer: Events demonstrated conclusively, after the DCA Board’s Red Book 3d edition, 1994 issued directions, that killing puppies as soon as possible after birth does indeed prevent later their unwanted behaviors, as well as their juvenile or adult learning-acquisition of useful hearing by the use of compensatory adaptive sensory modalities abilities that were extremely briefly mentioned or implied at several places of Strain, 2011. General US public disgust were reported by the Veterinarian News, down-loaded 10 Feb 2012, <veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=658780> [omit www.]
Does puppy-slaughter change domestic dog behavior if deafness is clinically cosmetic?
Answer: Events demonstrated conclusively, after the DCA Board’s Red Book 3d edition, 1994 issued directions, that killing puppies as soon as possible after birth does indeed prevent later their unwanted behaviors, as well as their juvenile or adult learning-acquisition of useful hearing by the use of compensatory adaptive sensory modalities abilities that were extremely briefly mentioned or implied at several places of Strain, 2011. General US public disgust were reported by the Veterinarian News, down-loaded 10 Feb 2012, <veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=658780> [omit www.]