... how can you say that? a deaf dog is still a dog...they are not better!! they are a dog still...you prefer them may be what you mean but imo they are no better or worse than their hearing counterparts

And yet many people say a hearing dog is better than a deaf dog...

A dog that can hear is far better for most people than one that cant. Deaf dogs present many problems that a lot for pet owners would struggle to address. This may well result in the dog needing a new home.

And so why is it a problem when someone says they think deaf dogs are better for them and list their reasons?

And I disagree that they present many problems for people. Those problems are just in their imagination.

Funnily enough the average pet owner seems to cope really well with deaf dogs. They buy Barry Eatons book, ask for advice and get on with it.

The real problem was the deaf and more or less blind lurcher but he actually did really well. Apart from the deaf collie pup he was the only one who came through the rescue in the 7 years I was there----apart from oldies of course.

I know of three people who would now actively look for a deaf dog having lived with one. Having looked after Perran I would actively avoid them

rune

Do they , ??? dont know about many people? but its not a case of one being better then the other,more a case of whats easiest to find "forever homes" for !

It makes no difference whether the problem is imagined or not, the facts are many peopel will see a deaf dog as more of a challenge , no matter how much you try to "educate" them.

if you have two dogs in rescue one deaf and one not and the average prospective new owner comes along, you can tell them till you are blue in the face the deaf dog is as easy as the hearing one to take on, if they decide its not , then thats what they will stay with.

Hence unless you find the right home for said dog, it will stay in kennels, same as the old /black/aggressive/ugly dogs, they will be harder to place.


You are mistaken in the belief that some of us, feel deaf dogs are inferior, or dont deserve to live, thats far from the truth, we simply see reality and see that the easy /cute dogs will always find homes first, the "harder" ones wont.

And thats why I stand by my belief, that if a breeder euthanize a puppy for A.B.C because they deem it in the pups interest, then who am I to judge.

At least they have acted on their responsibilities , and not uploaded the problem onto rescue!

Black dogs also have a really hard time finding homes. Should people cull them too? It just makes NO SENSE to me at all to kill a puppy because you might or might not have a hard time finding it a home. Plenty of dogs have a hard time finding homes, some of them really good dogs but of colors or breeds that people don't want. Breeders should take responsibility for all of their dogs until they can find a home for them.

yip!

its a good get out clause for not taking responsibility imo

I agree.....but to be fair....the breeder has to know.

I know plenty of people who do not keep in touch with the breeder of their dogs.....it just takes one house move....

Does not matter if it makes sense or not, the facts are to many dog not enough homes, and as sad as it is , a selection will have to be implemented, many many rescues HAVE to do this .

So given that implications of NOT finding a new born pup a forever home, for the rest of its life, a breeder may well take the decision to "save" said dog from doing the rounds of rescue centres.

If they choose to find a home or keep it themselves, thats far enough, but if they take the other option, so be it.