DALMATIAN MYTHS
Ethics: Understanding the difference between right and wrong.
Morals: Behaving right or wrong.

Myth #1: All Dalmatians are deaf.
About 8% of Dals are bilaterally deaf (both ears). Another 22% are unilaterally deaf (one ear.) Deafness in Dals is caused by a gene mutation of the piebald gene and affects 80 breeds such as English Setters, Sheepdogs, Beagles, Collies, Samoyeds, Greyhounds and more. This gene is responsible for the white fur of these dogs and is related to the gene that causes albinoism in other species. Blue-eyed Dals are more likely to be affected by the defect. Once the gene mutates and is installed in a dog, it then becomes a heritable genetic factor; that is, it can be passed on to offspring. It is not contagious! The likelihood of passing the defect occurs with the same frequency of any other genetic factor. Spaying or neutering a deaf dog insures that the particular dog will not pass the gene. However, ANY dog at ANY time can fall victim to a new mutation. Ergo: killing deaf puppies does not eradicate deafness! See myth # 4.

Myth #2: Dals make good fire dogs because they are deaf. Deafness was bred into them intentionally.
Dalmatians became mascots of firefighters because they possess great stamina and work well with the horses that pulled the original fire vehicles. It has absolutely nothing to do with deafness! More importantly, deafness was NOT intentionally bred into the dogs, that is patently false!

Myth #3:Deaf Dals are more dangerous, aggressive and prone to accidents than hearing Dals.
Deaf dogs of all breeds regularly lead productive peaceful lives with proper care. There is absolutely no research to support that deaf Dals (or any deaf dogs) are responsible for any higher percentage of bites or accidents than hearing dogs. None, zero, zilch. With proper care and training a deaf Dal, or any deaf dog can lead a safe productive life. Animals adapt SO much better than humans to dsisabiities and do so without the abilility to "reason" that humans are credited with having to the exclusion of other beings! For those of you who don't believe this just visit Faith and see for yourself! Or visit El Dorado Park in Long Beach, CA and see the blind duck and his seeing-eye duck friends!

Dals are high energy dogs....ALL of them, deaf or hearing! They have been described as "aggressive" and "high-strung". Personally, I prefer to describe them as very high energy and possessing a strong dedication to territory like many other breeds: chows, akitas, german shepherds, pomeranians, chihuahas etc. Like ALL other breeds, they need to be trained properly and cared for responsibly. They are a breed whose general personality demands that owners choose wisely and be capable of handling the challenge of owning a high energy dog. No matter what breed of dog you choose, you should always make sure you are willing and able to provide him with the requirements needed to fit his personality. Just as important, be sure that the dog fitsyour abilities and requirements for a pet. If you can't take time EVERY day to actively exercise your dog for at least two 30 minute sessions....don't get a Dal, or a dobie, or any herding dog, etc. A Dal needs more supervision and care than a golden retriever, without, even hearing dogs can be "aggressive". It has little to do with the ability to hear and much to do with responsible care and environment. Agressiveness is a behavior, there are few patent organic "causes" for behavior, excluding brain damage. As in all social sciences, there may some correlation (that is a propensity, but not a cause or guarantee) between variables, but that means that there are many who are affected by the variable that never exhibit the bahavior. In this case remember that there is NO research that even suggests significant correlation! A well trained, well exercised Dal that is treated with love is an incredibly loving and loyal pet, deaf or not, just like any other breed.

That deaf Dals are more prone to being hit by cars because they can't hear the horns is just the most LUDICROUS accusation I have ever heard! Now, tell me, if a driver honks his horn to warn the dog and then proceeds to drive into the dog if it does not get out of his way...WHOSE FAULT IS THAT? The driver's with the abilty to reason and apply the brakes... or the dog's? Much, much more importantly, the real blame lies with the dog's owner who put the animal in the position to be in the street to begin with!!!!!! WE are visiting the issue of RESPONSIBILITY again here, folks. If Fido has ever slipped his collar while on leash, get one he can't get out of. If he digs under the fence, install a concrete footing he can't dig through. If the gate was left open, LOCK it and don't give anyone the key! If you have to use the gate, put the dog inside the house or in a run! If he gets out the front door, install a self-closer on an iron security screen or install a "catch" fence that will stop him. Put a fence around your front yard! There is just no excuse for a dog to get out more than once! See the on-going list of information on the Health & Safety page or hazard info on the AIHA page. Bottom line, I have found no data that proves any higher incidence of deaf dogs of any breed being hit by cars than hearing dogs. You have only to check with your local pound or shelter to verify the tremendous amount of hearing animals that are hit by vehicles every year. That horn didn't save them!

Myth #4: Deaf puppies should be euthanized.
In a paper that explains the genetics of deafness in dogs, Dr. George Strain says "there is no question that many people have successfully raised deaf dogs. For every story of a problem deaf dog there seems to be a story of one that was successfully raised. Unfortunately, there is no way to predict how a deaf puppy will turn out." Oddly enough, he then goes on to say that deaf puppies should then be euthanized as a matter of protocol. I am not alone in viewing this as not only hypocritical, but completely ridiculous and unethical for a supposed man of science! Ethical scientists DO NOT support views that cannot be supported by valid research data! First, he states that it is impossible to predict the outcome of a dog and then justifies death "just in case". One should note that the Dalmatian CLub of America, (DCA, a club that advocates, no, seems to require euthanasia as breeding protocol for deaf pups)funded Dr.Strain's research. Hmmmmmm! In the scientific sector, ethical researchers take great care to make sure that their findings do not support the view/opinions of their funding sources unless there is substantial data and valid experiment design to support the findings. What is laughable, is that Dr. Strain offers absolutely no viable research or data to support that deaf dogs are more dangerous or invovled in more accidents. When I asked him if he personally supported the euthanasia of deaf pups; he said that he did. When I asked him why spaying/neutering was not a sufficient solution to prevent genetic transfer of deafness; he refused to answer. When I asked him if he could provide any research that supported his statements regarding aggression or accidents in deaf dogs; he refused to answer. What does this all mean? It means that even the illustrious professor who was literally paid by people who want to kill deaf dogs, and admits that there are at least as many success stories as failure stories, cannot provide any proof that deaf dogs are more dangerous or involved in more accidents.

Further: In 2004 a survey was conducted of Cocker Spaniel breeders concerning dog health and behavior. The surveys were completed on over 3000 dogs by AKC breeders. The data reported that 3% of the dogs were deaf and that only 1% of all the dogs (NOT just 1% of the 3% deaf dogs) showed agression to humans. I contacted one of the researchers, Addi Pittman, and for confirmation of the data and asked if she could tell me what the ratio of aggression was with respect to hearing vs. deaf dogs. I received a long dissertation citing Dr. Strain's research and protocol on euthanizing deaf pups. She danced around the issue a bit and claimed that deaf pups were dangerous are usually euthanized. She says: "We have BAER clinics at our National Specialties . Dr. George Strain does the testing. (Oh, how biased and convenient is that?) Breeders/owners do support these clinics and the vast majority of our stats on this trait are derived from these annual clinics. That said, dogs attending a National are presumed to be bilaterally hearing and most owners are very surprised to learn their dog is unilaterally deaf. Very few bilaterally deaf dogs have been presented for testing at these clinics which started in 1993...perhaps two or three." So.....she even admits that only two or three bilaterally deaf dogs have ever tested at these clinics.... how do you decide that all deaf dogs are dangerous from that small number? She then goes on to say "There isn't any information that shows stats on aggressive deaf to hearing...Bilaterally deaf dogs generally (in any breed) do become aggressive.." So...we are to accept and believe that we KNOW these dogs are aggressive and dangerous without any information to prove it? How silly is that? This still seems to be an issue of domination over "property" rather than humanity and responsibility. If breeders wish to "cleanse" their breeds they have only to sterilize the "defective" pups so they won't produce offspring and then make an effort to adopt them out to people or groups that are WILLING to raise a deaf dog rather than killing them as a matter of protocol. Breeding dogs, any business, should be responsible for ethical and proper handling of problem issues....you will notice I said ethical and proper and not the cheapest and easiest.

Perhaps what angers me most is that these dogs are being intentionally bred..for profit...and the imperfect ones killed. Breeders should be held responsible for the lives they intentionally create...even if they are not "profitable" entities.

On a personal note: I have owned/fostered hundreds of animals in my lifetime, expensive purebreds and rescued mutts. I can honestly say, without reservation, that my best pets have been those that are disabled. They have not been the most trouble-free, in fact they usually require more care and energy. But the depth of my relationships with them, the enrichment they have given me is far superior to the healthy and/or purebred pets. No dog has ever filled my heart with the inspiration and desire to forge ahead and succeed that Rosie has. The zeal with which she approaches every day and every obstacle in her life has often kept me strong when I was weak. She has filled my heart with admiration and appreciation and helped me to overcome pain and illness that no "perfect" animal ever has. Her unmitigated bravery and resilience is something I rarely see in humans. Yet, for some reason, humans seem to think that they are the superior species and animals are expendable at their whim. HA! I say!

Perhaps Dr Strain should raise a disabled pet, it does wonders for the humility gene, but only if the arrogance and donimance genes have not grown to monsterous proportions and mutated severely. Too bad there is no genetic marker for arrogance, morality and inhumanity.

Please visit The Deaf Dog Education Fund for more info and read "Living With a Deaf Dog" by Susan Cope Becker to experience a well-rounded look into deafness in dogs.

A word on ethics and morals: There is no magic book, list, standard or guide to right and wrong. Ethics in general, at best, is a subject that will aways be a matter of debate. There are, there shoud be, some basic tenents of right and wrong.... that are widely held....that can and should be used as guidlines. After starting at that point, each person must examine the pros and cons, the supporting and condeming information and the particulars surrounding each case in debate. You must examine the impact of the item in question. You must consider the impact of the solutions offered. You must consider the validity of the arguments for and against as well. And this is just the beginning.

For the issues on this site, I offer some insight to my conclusions and therefore the development of my viewpoints. Remember, there is no magic answer or a standard solution that you can apply to every case, but there are some guidlines you can use:

Disabled animals: While there is no magic formula or answer to direct ethical thinking or moral behavior you can begin to assess the situation in this way:

1. Is the animal wild or intentionally bred and engineered by humans? I give "extra points" (lets call them "EP" to dogs and those animals bred intentionally by humans because I consider humans to automatically be completely responsible for their well being). If wild, are they an animal that is either a keystone species or endangered?...EP
2. Is the disability caused by humans? Definitely EP!
3. Is the animal suffering? WIll it continue to suffer if helped? By this I mean will it be in constant pain or just some discomfort? Would the animal compensate for the discomfort naturally? (ie: three-legged dogs and cats surely suffer some issues, but they seem to get along nicely and forge ahead despite the loss of a leg) Is there sufficient reason to believe that the animal might have an improved and productive life if helped.
4. Are you willing to do what is neccessary to facilitate the rehabilitation neccessities? Are you willing to act in the animal's best interest if those efforts fail?

Deafness: I can't impliment a checklist here. I can only offer these thoughts:

Think that a deaf dog just can't keep up with a hearing dog? Think again: Deaf Dalmatian saves girl from drowning.

Deaf dogs adapt just as deaf people do.

Humans have designed and engineered domestic dogs through intentional selective breeding from wild dogs/ wolves. For that reason alone, humans should (ethics, here) be completely responsible for their well being. Add to that the fact that the deaf dogs being killed by breeders are not accidental births, but the products of planned breeding. I need nothing else to convince me that breeders should be responsible for the lives, not deaths, of those pups. I find it immoral and downright reprehensible that a breeder should intentionally mate two dogs, and then kill the pups that he/she does not think are perfect!

If those pups have an undesirable trait, then they should be taken out of the breeding lines by spaying and neutering. If they have a defect that is contagious and incurable, that could infect and kill other dogs or humans simply by contact; euthanasia might be a proper solution... if it was the ONLY way to stop the spread of the deffect/disease. This is not the case with deafness. Breeders often get pups that do not conform to "show' standards. They deal with these dogs by requiring that they be spayed or neutered and then sell them as "pet quality" animals. It is true that a breeder may not be able to sell a deaf dog, but it should be a moral responsibility of being in the business of breeding living things to deal fairly with ALL of the offspring from the litters they breed. There are many groups and individuals that specialize in rescuing and adopting out deaf dogs. Bottom line: Breeders CHOOSE to breed. Domestic dogs are engineered by humans. There are other, more humane options that solve the problems. Morally, these dogs should receive treatment that is more responsible...TO THEM!

As said perviously, there is no research or data to prove, much less infer that there is any REAL relationship between deafness and aggression or accident. Even the so called "experts" admit such in the same breath that they advocate death as the proper solution. A more rational, and indeed, more ethical and moral solution is to make an effort to put the animals in the hands of those individuals and groups that are willing and capable of dealing with such a dog. Should an individual dog prove to be aggressive and dangerous even after capable training and rescue attempts, euthanasia might become a reasonable solution. But, let's remember that this applies to many hearing dogs as well! There are those that say any dog can be handled/trained to be safe and happy. This may or may not be true, the truth lies only in whether or not that dog can be put into the right person's care. At the very least we owe these animals a chance, and to those with disabilities we owe a little extra effort.