If the owner is committed from the start, it can work. If they are under an illusion and lose interest in training, it probably won't. Although it's fair to say that a huge number of dogs aren't "trained" in the Uk a such. If the dog is something like - I dunno, a CKCs, it may not matter that much!

Lindsay
x

LOL Lindsay <I dunno, a CKCs, it may not matter that much!>are you saying CKCS ignore commands & pretend to be deaf ;) Never, oh hang a minute come to think of it you may be right they can't hear you say come from 12 feet away but can hear the rattle of the biscuit tin at 100 yards upwind :D

Seriously though training a deaf dog is not easy & needs a good trainer to guide the owner of they have never had a deaf dog before & if the first owner doesn't care(we had a Dalmatian that came to our club with owners like that dispite us getting a lady who is a really good trainer of deaf dogs & even got her little deaf girl to Crufts in Obedience to come & advise her & help her. Poor dog was put down at 2 1/2 years old totally & utterly ruined & a danger to himself let alone people)They then pass on one very confused dog to new owners who may or may not know the dog is deaf or even care & the dog ends up paying the price after a sad & abused short life

I'm glad I do not breed anymore as I'm afraid I too would PTS any puppy who was totally deaf unless I kept him/her myself

I really find this thread very strange.

I don't breed dogs, I help owners train them and I've seen half a dozen or so deaf dogs now who have a very good quality of life. Something I was told many years ago and I've since proved to myself over and over again, is that a dog learns 'words' after 500 to a 1000 repetitions, but learns a hand signal in approximately 5 repetitions. For this reason, I always incorporate hand signals into training anyway.

One recent client came along with a five year old dog who had become very hectic and tetchy - the reason turned out to be food allergy after a recent change of food. The dog was deaf, but the owner had no idea. He was very attuned to his owner and had no problems following her instructions, but, of course, my body language and signals were different so he was confused.

What really baffles me is that breeders are quite prepared to breed dogs that are prone to this condition, only to put them to sleep when they find their pups are affected. Sorry, but I find this appalling.

Since hearing testing was introduced the results of deaf animals has dropped dramatically.  Responsible dalmatian breeders only breed with full hearing dogs but this does not always ensure that their offspring will not be deaf.  Are you saying that dalmatians and the other breeds prone to deafness should die out completely just because you dont agree with a responsible attitude to deafness.  Currently around 5% of all puppies are totally deaf in dalmatians. 

>Are you saying that dalmatians and the other breeds prone to deafness should die out completely just because you dont agree with a responsible attitude to deafness<

I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that anyone with a responsible attitude who chooses to breed dogs should be responsible enough to take responsibility for all of the pups produced. Deaf puppies are not unhealthy and can and often do go on to have a good quality of life. What I would say, is that anyone who is unwilling to take on this responsibility, should not be breeding dogs

>What really baffles me is that breeders are quite prepared to breed dogs that are prone to this condition, only to put them to sleep when they find their pups are affected.

So, all breeds which are prone to hereditary conditions which affect the occasional individual's quality of life should never be bred? Or only by irresponsible people who don't give a flying fig about the pup once the money's changed hands?

>So, all breeds which are prone to hereditary conditions which affect the occasional individual's quality of life should never be bred?< 

As I said in my earlier post:

>I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that anyone with a responsible attitude who chooses to breed dogs should be responsible enough to take responsibility for all of the pups produced<

And taking full responsibility is exactly what these breeders are doing, by preventing the increased possibility of these pups suffering longterm.

Passing them on to others is irresponsible.

>And taking full responsibility is exactly what these breeders are doing<

I suppose it depends on your definition of responsible :(

I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this because I cannot see any justification for killing a healthy dog, sorry.

People who've seen many (there are exceptions of course) of the results of well-meaning tender-hearted people's efforts with these dogs have seen that their quality of life is markedly less than those without such a handicap. So yes, we'll have to agree to differ on the responsible action.

Deafness in Dalmatians is higher than any other breed at 21.8% unilaterally deaf, from American data.  UK incidence would be expected to be slighly lower than this as blue eye is not acceptable as it is in USA.

But there is one sure way to reduce these figures further.....Breed from patched dogs only.

Julie

That incidence is wildly inaccurate, thankfully, Julie. I think you must have transposed the first two digits. In the UK the incidence of bilateral deafness is about 7% and unilateral deafness about 11%.

Hi JG

You can check these figures here http://www.steynmere.com/TABLES.html

Julie

You can check the (outdated - they've improved greatly since this table was drawn up) here (you'll need to scroll down). If you contact Mary Greening she'll be happy to give you the most recent figures.

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that site. 

The latest figures for 98 shows 20.72% affected.  That's still a huge proportion and the comment " breed from hearing Normal parents which would appear to be having some small effect" suggests there hasn't been much improvement.  Introducing patching would have a much greater effect.

Julie

Cattanach's table shows 21.8% unilateral. The UK figure is 12.9% unilateral. The only ones who are really affected are the totally deaf ones (UK 7.6%),  because the unis have a perfectly normal quality of life, and indeed are indistinguishable from their fully hearing fellows.

I have no experience of dealing with deafness except in relation to old age, so I have no opinion on that.....my point was that both unis and bis are culled from the gene pool which must have an effect on overall health of the breed.  I think maybe aesthetics is more important than health?

Julie

Sorry, would be more useful to give the bilateral deafness rate at 8% (USA) :-)  but breeding so many unis + bis destined to be culled from the gene pool can't be good for the overall health of the breed.

Julie

Most animals are removed from the gene pool simply because their owners don't want to breed anyway. Only about 10% of dogs are of breeding quality, so removing the ones with hereditary conditions can only be good overall.
:)

I think you miss my point JG :-)

I think we agree that it's best not to breed from animals which aren't of breeding quality. That includes those with the various hereditary conditions - including hereditary deafness being just one of them. It's also best not to breed from dogs with PRA, hereditary cataract, HD ... the list goes on. For the good of the breeds, these animals should be removed from the gene pool. The numbers being removed for deafness are only a small fraction of the total number removed from the gene pool for the myriad other reasons that their owners have for not breeding.
:)

Like Jeangenie, I too own a breed in which deafness could be a problem (Australian shepherds).   Hopefully, by careful selection of dogs, I shall be fortunate enough not to breed a deaf puppy - but I am aware that it could happen.    It is something that we have talked about, what would we do, could we euthanise an otherwise-healthy puppy, would we keep such a puppy ourselves or find the right owners.    And I have come to the conclusion that it would depend upon the puppy.

I have bred persian cats - white ones - which can also suffer from deafness.   Some profoundly deaf kittens were so outgoing and responsive to all other stimuli that they could cope with everything that life would chuck at them - I can remember being absolutely shocked when one kitten was tested & found to be deaf - kept saying to the vet - are you sure that he is - he was the most outgoing kitten of the litter.  Others have been so overwhelmed by everything that it has been kinder to euthanise them at 4 weeks-6 weeks old, rather than have them subject to a lifetime of being terrified of everything.   Its not a decision that one takes lightly - it carries a great deal of heartache, but better that I am heartsick for a while, than an animal suffers for a lifetime.

Margot

I don't think we can go any further on this JG unless you address the issue of accepting patched dogs into the gene pool.   I can understand that that must be a totally alien concept for you.  It would be akin to asking me to accept Finnish Lapphunds with smooth coat!  :-)

I think we best accept each other's opinion on this.

We should only breed from pedigree animals which show breed 'type'. Patching is not typical, though fairly common. In my personal experience I'd say about 10% of dals are patched - some of these also are unilaterally deaf! ;)
:)

It seems to me that this thread has grown arms and legs. What it comes down to is whether you believe that a deaf puppy can lead as good a quality of life as one who hears. My belief is yes it can. As a breeder, I would not shirk nor shy away from making some harsh decisions of whether it was in a puppies best interests to be PTS. It is my opinion, and mine alone, that I cannot find one justifiable reason for putting a deaf puppy to sleep when it could be a fantastic pet if homed with the right owners. If I could not locate the correct home then, as the breeder of this pup, I would continue my responsibility to care, train and provide a loving home for this puppy.
For the OP - you have seen both sides of this emotive discussion and seen both sides of the arguement. I would never for one minute suggest this is the right puppy for you. Only you know your lifestyle, experience and ability to provide the right home for this pup. There are many websites that will also give both sides of the coin. Read, read and read some more before you decide! This website may be of use :
http://www.deafdogs.org/faq/myths.php
Good luck!