or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › The Mindful Home › Pets › Deaf Dogs Automatically Euthanized
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Deaf Dogs Automatically Euthanized

post #1 of 131
Thread Starter 
I found out one of my teaching colleagues has been breeding dalmations for the last couple of years. She briefly mentioned to me that she frequently has deaf puppies and that she automatically has them euthanized.

How common is this? I was wondering as I actually knew someone growing up that had a deaf dog (born deaf). My cat who passed last year from kidney disease was deaf (the most notable symptom was that he didn't meow, he was loud and "screamed" at us instead of meowing like a normal cat).

I was just wondering about how common this is in dogs and if it is something that people can "breed out"...?
post #2 of 131
it's common in dalmations. "culling" is an awful practise supported by many animal breeders. Killing off the "imperfect" ones. very sad.

I have never had a "born" deaf animal. My 13 year old springer is 100% deaf as of about a year ago and he's adjusted so well. I'm glad that i taught him hand signals as a youngster because he has switched over to them w/ great ease.

I've known several blind dogs. One in particular stands out, her name is Molly and she's an akita. Her people got her a "sight dog" who wears a bell and Molly follows her everywhere and the other dog is actually trained to assist her!

Dogs make the most of what they've got. Hearing or not!
post #3 of 131
I know some people who do specifically deaf dog rescue. They get a lot of dalmations and danes. There seems to be some deafness gene or something...? The deaf danes are almost always white, too.
post #4 of 131
Thread Starter 
So, if some people have rescues devoted to deaf dogs, why are they automatically euthanized if people can find homes for them? I am just wondering, since I would think there must be some sort of problem with deaf dogs if they are automatically euthanized by some.
post #5 of 131
Well, deaf dogs can be kind of dangerous if they aren't cared for and trained properly. They are very easy to scare/sneak up on, and can be violent b/c of it. Or at least that is the rationale I've heard.
post #6 of 131
Thread Starter 
I can relate to some of what you said, because having my deaf kitty I actually used a few specific signs to get him to do things. I didn't intentionally teach him "sign language" but it just sort of happened . I had a sign for him to leave/move (which I used when he jumped on things) and another sign to call him. Of course, the limitation being that he had to see me to respond. But, honestly, he seemed to compensate in other ways for his deafness.

One vet once told me..."make sure he never gets outside" (duh, wouldn't be allowed outside anyhow) and I am sure that would be something for a deaf dog...the risk of getting hit by a car would be pretty elevated.
post #7 of 131
We had a Saint that was mostly deaf by age 4. I think his was mostly related to major ear problem/infections, but he did just fine. IF he was asleep, we would stomp on the ground near him to wake him up, becasue he would startle and snap if touched when he was asleep (but he never bit anyone).

My MIL has a 9 year mini daschund that suddenly went blind last year (she got an infection in the optic nerve). She is doing very well. She does get flustered when the girls are running and yelling, and occasional runs into things if somthing is moved, but does very well.
post #8 of 131
That is really sad. Makes me wish I could start a rescue.
post #9 of 131
Yea, it's common with Dalmatians. My friend's folks used to breed Dalmatians, but they never euthanized the deaf ones. They did have them fixed so they couldn't be bred though.
post #10 of 131
It's extremely common across all breeds where deafness is an issue, and it's not awful. Deaf dogs have a much lower successful placement rate, and they need special care their entire lives. Many of the causes of deafness are not confined to the ears; the dog will frequently have major eye problems as well, and are more prone to epilepsy. They are not what the reputable breeder is supposed to be producing, which is a healthy and happy family pet that acts and learns the way the breed should.

If I personally produced a deaf puppy, if it was ONLY deaf and had no eye issues I would not have a problem placing it (for free) in a pet home if one was begging for him. But MANY of my friends in various breeds disagree. They see too many failed placements, too many dogs left neglected and forever confused in a world that doesn't make sense to them, to risk a placement. So they will humanely euthanize.
post #11 of 131
Culling is part of breeding and if someone cant cull, as in euthanize a dog they bred, IMO they shouldnt be breeding. There are lots of reasons to cull, poor temperment, weakness, blindness, deafness, deformity etc. It is not like people beat down breeders doors for a dog that is deaf, ill tempered, deformed, blind etc. People complain there is "pet overpopulation" but when breeders are responsible and cull, alot of these same people (no one in general) rant and rave about how horrible it is to cull, you cant have it both ways.
post #12 of 131
Actually, you can have it both ways--don't breed.
post #13 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by APBTLuv View Post
Culling is part of breeding and if someone cant cull, as in euthanize a dog they bred, IMO they shouldnt be breeding. There are lots of reasons to cull, poor temperment, weakness, blindness, deafness, deformity etc. It is not like people beat down breeders doors for a dog that is deaf, ill tempered, deformed, blind etc. People complain there is "pet overpopulation" but when breeders are responsible and cull, alot of these same people (no one in general) rant and rave about how horrible it is to cull, you cant have it both ways.
Seriously? Poor temperment causes breeders to kill their puppies?!? I find many of those reasons shocking and sad. It feels oxymoronic to say that one loves dogs so much that one breeds them yet finds the puppies so disposible so one can kill them for these reasons...
post #14 of 131
Ok so you dont breed and in 15 years or so there will be no dogs : I suppose if you are AR that is great, and if so then this board really is not for you since it is called "PETS", as in companion animals, that a good percentage of the population like to keep around.
post #15 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by APBTLuv View Post
Culling is part of breeding and if someone cant cull, as in euthanize a dog they bred, IMO they shouldnt be breeding. There are lots of reasons to cull, poor temperment, weakness, blindness, deafness, deformity etc. It is not like people beat down breeders doors for a dog that is deaf, ill tempered, deformed, blind etc. People complain there is "pet overpopulation" but when breeders are responsible and cull, alot of these same people (no one in general) rant and rave about how horrible it is to cull, you cant have it both ways.
oh my!

Well, I sat here trying to think of what I wanted to reply to this charming response... but I'm coming up totally speechless. just YUCK
post #16 of 131
Poor temperament is the MOST IMPORTANT reason to consider culling. APBTLuv isn't talking about a dog who doesn't like thunderstorms; she's talking about dogs that show ingrained human aggression. What on earth should we do with those dogs (thankfully, not a problem in corgis, but it was certainly something that happened in Danes and it absolutely happens in the breeds that APBTLuv deals with)? Dogs that are demonstrably dangerous and unpredictable with humans and who are large enough to do real damage should go to heaven. Leaving them on this earth requires management (total isolation, caging, etc.) that are miserable for any dog.

And AO, this is an issue that many rescues must deal with as well. It's a lot more likely that a random-bred or poorly bred dog would be sold without BAER testing, and would end up at a shelter. Does the shelter adopt it out, knowing that the placement will be many times more likely to fail?
post #17 of 131
I disagree with you, so this board is not for me? That seems harsh.
post #18 of 131
Oh my gosh, how horrible! My parents have a deaf dachshund that is the best dog EVER, and my childhood sister-dog (a toy poodle) was deaf for the last 4 years of her life and still had a really good quality of life.
post #19 of 131
I'm not sure I understand your question, Johanna. But regarding adopting out deaf dogs, I think the responsible thing to do would be to only adopt them to people who are able/prepared to deal with a the special needs of a deaf dog.
post #20 of 131
This is slightly ot, but I tend to agree with thekimballs that death is not the worst thing that could happen to a dog. Living a life of suffering or neglect is, imo, far worse. This is something I'm thinking a lot about at this point.

Of course, the ideal would be for the deaf dogs to go to happy homes that would treat them right.

On a related note- there was a deaf dog on petfinder recently, and he was gone QUICK! (they said in his profile: think of the benefits- no dogs barking when the mailman comes) lol.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Pets
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › The Mindful Home › Pets › Deaf Dogs Automatically Euthanized