Deaf Dogs Automatically Euthanized - Page 3

[hanno]

Originally Posted by avengingophelia

Actually, you can have it both ways--don't breed.

:

[hanno]

Originally Posted by APBTLuv

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.

I promise that there will still be dogs in 15 years, even if every breeder went out of business today.

ETA: This thread has just been making me so, so sad. Breeders and supporters of breeding should be very grateful for us 'AR' people because we're the ones who are often here to clean up their messes by caring for these special needs critters.

[ZephyrBlue]

Even if a breeder didn't cull a dog with a major abnormality (and I absolutely concur with Joanna- ask any vet and they will tell you that most dogs born deaf will develop eye problems and some neuro issues, whether they are mild or severe is impossible to predict), and they place that dog with a great, responsible person who is totally commited to that dog- things happen. I just read a story on one of the Mastiff forums about a breeder who went to retrieve a puppy of hers (now a young adult) whose owner had died in his home. The dogs were there over a week, their dead owner in the bedroom, before anyone went inside. That guy didn't plan on dying in his forties and leaving dogs behind, but things happen. I cannot imagine the hell those dogs went through during those days. And a completely deaf dog would have had it even worse- those dogs rely SO much on their owner's touch, scent, and guidance. It is not irresponsible for breeders to responsibly cull. What's irresponsible is to let animals leave your breeding program whose quality of life is already compromised, and gambling that nothing bad is going to happen in the life of that animal that will make it's disability unbearable.

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by thekimballs

though experienced dog handlers really have no interest in adopting a special-needs dog

?????

[jkpmomtoboys]

Originally Posted by Jessmcg

As a livestock breeder, I completely understand and support culling. And as much as I love my cows, we are in it for the money, as well as bettering the breed, therefore I have to cull a cow when she does not have a good enough calf, or breed back soon enough, as well as when they have problems.

I guess it's hard for me to understand that it seems that breeders care more about the breeds than the individual dogs. I think that breeders have to be responsible for all the dogs they bring into the world.

If you say you treat your dogs like your kids, well, you wouldn't kill your baby if it required special care, would it?

And can we please call it "kill" rather than "cull"? Let's call a spade a spade...

[Girl In The Fire]

promise that there will still be dogs in 15 years, even if every breeder went out of business today.

ETA: This thread has just been making me so, so sad. Breeders and supporters of breeding should be very grateful for us 'AR' people because we're the ones who are often here to clean up their messes by caring for these special needs critters.

If every breeder stopped breeding right this second and never bred another dog in the US, in 15 years all the dogs would be dead or too old to breed. In 20 they would all be gone, no more dogs period end of story.

Yes AR people clean up messes, PETA euthanizes the messes left behind and dumps them in dumpsters behind grocery stores.

[ZephyrBlue]

I guess it's hard for me to understand that it seems that breeders care more about the breeds than the individual dogs. I think that breeders have to be responsible for all the dogs they bring into the world.

If you say you treat your dogs like your kids, well, you wouldn't kill your baby if it required special care, would it?

And can we please call it "kill" rather than "cull"? Let's call a spade a spade...

Good breeders, ones that are totally commited to their breed, do care about every single puppy that they produce. And sometimes you care enough about a dog to realize that death is not the worst option. And I believe that is true about babies as well- I am someone who would carefully consider not using heroic measures on a child of mine who had no hope of a fulfilling life- with kids it's a bit easier though- they don't have one "owner" that is the end all and be all of their safety and care. Even if someone is "sure" that they will keep a dog with a major disability, things change, sometimes those things are people's minds.

And I'm happy to use kill. Euthanize, kill, cull...all can be done in a humane way for a humane reason.

[Irishmommy]

Originally Posted by APBTLuv

Yes AR people clean up messes, PETA euthanizes the messes left behind and dumps them in dumpsters behind grocery stores.

Huh?

[hanno]

Originally Posted by APBTLuv

If every breeder stopped breeding right this second and never bred another dog in the US, in 15 years all the dogs would be dead or too old to breed. In 20 they would all be gone, no more dogs period end of story.

Yes AR people clean up messes, PETA euthanizes the messes left behind and dumps them in dumpsters behind grocery stores.

I think there are probably enough unprofessional (not from breeders) litters being born that we're not really in that sort of 'danger'. Dogs have been around a lot longer than humans have been breeding them as a profession. That's usually where the mutts come from, no?
I was not referring to Peta--I was referring to people who care enough to patiently care for special needs dogs or those who would otherwise be killed.

[hanno]

Originally Posted by ZephyrBlue

And I believe that is true about babies as well- I am someone who would carefully consider not using heroic measures on a child of mine who had no hope of a fulfilling life- with kids it's a bit easier though- they don't have one "owner" that is the end all and be all of their safety and care.

WOW....just wow...
Who on earth are you to decide what qualifies as a fulfilling life. You're CULLING deaf human children now??

[EdlynsMom]

deaf does not equal "no hope of a fulfilling life". I know you know thats not what she was referring to. Its not a choice for everyone, but what is???? The important thing is that the chance to make a choice remains there. No matter what that choice is.

[jkpmomtoboys]

Originally Posted by ZephyrBlue

And I'm happy to use kill. Euthanize, kill, cull...all can be done in a humane way for a humane reason.

Though I have to say I do understand why the word "cull" is normally used in that it emphasizes the group over the individual, whereas "kill" emphasizes the individual...

[hanno]

Originally Posted by EdlynsMom

deaf does not equal "no hope of a fulfilling life".

It doesn't for a dog either.
I have only really known 2 blind dogs well, but they were really fine. The homes had wood floors therefore the dog could feel the vibrations better, and the humans didn't move furniture around but most of the time their disability wasn't even noticable.

[ZephyrBlue]

hanno, please don't put words in my mouth. if you understood the reference i was making about quality of life, you wouldn't have responded the way you did.

there is a big difference between dogs that are born deaf and those that loose their hearing. and it's documented medical fact that the majority of dogs born deaf also have neuro and/or vision problems. it's really really not as simple as "a deaf dog can have a wonderful life"

[hanno]

Originally Posted by ZephyrBlue

hanno, please don't put words in my mouth. if you understood the reference i was making about quality of life, you wouldn't have responded the way you did.

there is a big difference between dogs that are born deaf and those that loose their hearing. and it's documented medical fact that the majority of dogs born deaf also have neuro and/or vision problems. it's really really not as simple as "a deaf dog can have a wonderful life"

No, it's not simple. They can have a worthwhile life though. I realize that my personal beliefs are not common, but I do see all animals, including human, as equal and I don't separate their value. I can make adjustments in my arguements to accomodate for the fact that most people separate humans from other animals. This is why I haven't brought up my disgust for breeding in general.

If all this killing or culling or whatever is necessary when dogs are born deaf or other otherwise defective and certain breeds are well known to produce these defects, how can a responsible person breed these particular breeds knowing that it is a good possibility (or at least a much better possibility than with other breeds)? All this dog breeding business is really for human's benefit so why would they not just stick with breeds that have a greater likelyhood for a longer lifespan or less chance of illness?

[peridot83]

I think I agree with Hanno on this one, the origin of the problem seems to be continueing to breed very artificial dogs. By artificial, I mean breeds that are drasticly removed from the basic dog genes, and based on genetic deformities to produce the key characteristics of the breed. I know Joanna that you have said that one of reasons you quit breeding danes is do to all the ingrained health problems and short health span in the breed.

I realize there are lots of adorable and great breeds out there, that would fall under the catagory of "artificial." But I don't know that cuteness is enough to warrant breeding dogs that can't breed on thier own, can't give birth on thier own, and are likely to have severe birth defects. I believe dogs who still have a specific jobs such as hearders, protection breeds, etc. are a different case. Although most of those breeds seem generally healthy.
I really wish there was more room for natural selection in dog breeding, although I also realize that would be basically impossible with animals that live with us and not as wild packs. Wild packs naturally restict breeding rights to the alpha pair as a way of supporting the best genes in the group, but accidental breeding in our modern world is more a matter of happenstance and irresponsibility and not natural selection.

[3boobykins]

Originally Posted by hanno

WOW....just wow...
Who on earth are you to decide what qualifies as a fulfilling life. You're CULLING deaf human children now??

You definitely need to reread her post! She is very clearly not suggesting "culling deaf human children." She is referring to removing life support in extreme situations, braindeath, for example. And if you disagree with this fine, but you might want to read more carefully before completely misrepresenting another member's post. And sometimes a parent has to decide whether to remove life support, effectively deciding "what qualifies as a fulfilling life" to the best of his or her ability.

And FTR, I support culling of puppies with deafness and other serious issues that would inhibit a fulfilling life. I think it can be an act of extreme loving kindness.

[hanno]

Originally Posted by 3boobykins

You definitely need to reread her post! She is very clearly not suggesting "culling deaf human children." She is referring to removing life support in extreme situations, braindeath, for example. And if you disagree with this fine, but you might want to read more carefully before completely misrepresenting another member's post. And sometimes a parent has to decide whether to remove life support, effectively deciding "what qualifies as a fulfilling life" to the best of his or her ability.

And FTR, I support culling of puppies with deafness and other serious issues that would inhibit a fulfilling life. I think it can be an act of extreme loving kindness.

I admit to being frustrated and saddened by the whole situation but this whole time we've been talking about deafness other disabilities in dogs that are usually seen as relatively small in terms of humans. We weren't talking about dogs on life support of who are braindead. Of course, I would agree wholeheartedly to leave those kinds of decisions to the parents (or human caretakers).
I was just reminded that our dog lived with a deaf puppy while she was in foster care before we adopted her. The foster family said that it was difficult to live with the puppy at first because she barked a loudly a lot and frustrated the other dogs. She also needed a lot of reassurance. By the time I met the puppy months later, she was fine and sweet and adapted. As far as a know, there was no other impairment with her though, so that may play a role in her well-being.

[Sailor]

I work with a GSD rescue - we pass over the deaf dogs in shelters 9 times out of 10. Most of them who make it that far in life, i.e. they had an owner and then was abandoned by said owner are chock full of behaviour problems, medical problems, and serious issues that would require a professional with loads of experience just to maybe, possibly get the dog to lead a fairly normal life. And even then, it's not guaranteed. It's not worth it to rescue them for us primarily because, should something go wrong, our rescue will be held liable for adopting out the dog. So, they wind up being put to sleep in the shelter. If they have the misfortune of being in a no-kill shelter, they lead out a miserable life behind the bars of a cage.

I've noticed a tendency to anthropomorphism in some of these posts. Dogs are NOT humans - they don't think, they don't act, they don't react, and they don't feel the way a human being does. They're also NOT on an equal ground with humans. A human is responsible for his/her dog - not the other way around. Part of that responsibility is knowing when a dog can lead a life of quality, and when they can't. And no one knows their dogs better than their breeder. Culling is a necessary practice, and there is nothing wrong or unethical about it. What WOULD be unethical is to allow a dog with serious behaviour issues, with serious medical issues, etc. continue on to adulthood. First, because the dog would have a miserable life. And, second, because that dog has the power to KILL or seriously maim a human being. Why let it go that far?

Applying the human philosophy that we are all born good to puppies is simply not appropriate. Because human beings can reason and think logically. Therefore, they have the ability to change for themselves. A dog does NOT operate in the same way. The ones with good, normal temperments can be trained, they can be incredible companions, incredible working dogs, have incredible instinct, even make certain INSTINCTUAL (as opposed to rational) decisions on their own, such as in the cases of protection, but they do not have a mind that is capable of logical self-assessment. As such, if you have a puppy who is born deaf, who is already having serious behaviour issues, who is potentially at risk for even more issues, who would have a difficult life, and who would respond to humans through agression ... the HUMANE thing to do is to euthanize. Because when that dog grows up, and a human startles him, he will not think (as a human would) "oh, it's OK, don't worry about startling me." He will attack. It's self-preservation, at best. Full out agression toward humans, at worst.

[3boobykins]

Originally Posted by hanno

I admit to being frustrated and saddened by the whole situation but this whole time we've been talking about deafness other disabilities in dogs that are usually seen as relatively small in terms of humans. We weren't talking about dogs on life support of who are braindead. Of course, I would agree wholeheartedly to leave those kinds of decisions to the parents (or human caretakers).
I was just reminded that our dog lived with a deaf puppy while she was in foster care before we adopted her. The foster family said that it was difficult to live with the puppy at first because she barked a loudly a lot and frustrated the other dogs. She also needed a lot of reassurance. By the time I met the puppy months later, she was fine and sweet and adapted. As far as a know, there was no other impairment with her though, so that may play a role in her well-being.

You wrote that she was "culling deaf human children now." I was just clarifying her points, because I felt like you were misrepresenting, or maybe misunderstanding them. That is why I was referring to the lifesupport situation--meaning THAT is the type of extreme situation she was referring to, not "culling deaf human children." I know we're not talking about braindead dogs.

But I just scrolled down and saw that I'd missed where Zepyr replied to your misrepresentation of her post, so I probably didn't need to post all of this anyway. :


: