[nagdu] A Question of Philosophy

[Margo and Elmo]

Ann, I think you have a wonderful opportunity to set this author and the 
public straight about our dogs and us as teams.  In other words, you have 
the opportunity to discuss the bond--what you do for Panda and what she does 
for you and what you do for yourself.  You have the opportunity to cut out 
these pitiful, romantic notions about us and our guides.

I mean romantic in the syrupy sense of the word when one thinks of this dear 
little guide animal who brings her owner out of the darkness of life into 
the light and takes such good care of the owner and the owner is pitiful 
without the animal.

margo and Elmo
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Hingson" <info at michaelhingson.com>
To: "'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] A Question of Philosophy


> Hi Ann,
>
> I have some thoughts which I will include in the body of your message.
> Please see below.
>
>
>
> Hi, Everyone,,
>
> I have recently been contacted by a writer who is writing a book about
> "animals which save lives".  She is interested in talking with me about
> Panda and her work as a guide.  I responded to the writer that I am always
> happy to talk about Panda and her guide work, but that I had some qualms
> about focusing on the "life-saving", dramatic aspect of our partnership.
>
> I know that many guide dog users will say that their dogs "save their 
> lives"
> many times each day.  But to me this statement can very easily be
> misunderstood by the general public.  It could give the impression that
> blind people are incapable of traveling safely outside their homes without
> the miraculous life-saving instincts and skills of a specially-bred and
> specially-trained service animal.  Although I very much appreciate my
> guide's abilities to guide me around obstacles, to evaluate footing for
> hazardous conditions, to plan a route through construction sites and other
> complicated situations, and to judge traffic and take evasive action or
> exercise intelligent disobedience where necessary, I guess I am more
> inclined to frame our safe travel as the result of contributions by both 
> the
> human and the animal members of the partnership.
> [[Michael Hingson]]  I agree with your observations about the 
> contributions
> of Panda or any assistance animal trained to guide.  I suspect the author,
> like the general public, has a bit of a misconception of exactly what our
> animals do.  Given, however, the positions we and our animals are in I 
> think
> it is fair to say that in fact we save each other's lives every day.
>
> You have a wonderful opportunity with this author to express exactly what
> you stated here.  Here is a major chance for you to help frame the 
> public's
> view of guide animals.  I hope you go for it.
>
> Also, I usually think of Panda's guide work as making travel smoother, 
> more
> efficient, and more relaxing and enjoyable for me, rather than as a matter
> of life and death.  I feel that I am capable of traveling safely using my
> white cane, as well as using my guide animal.  In either case, I still 
> must
> use my senses of hearing, touch, and smell, and my intelligence, 
> experience,
> and judgment to evaluate the environment around me every moment as I 
> travel.
> Of course, I appreciate the assistance that Panda provides me, or why 
> would
> I take on the added responsibilities and chores that caring for an animal
> partner and maintaining a working partnership entail?
> [[Michael Hingson]]  Right.  However, do not mitigate the extra ways our
> animals do in fact make guiding safer.  Hybrid cars come to mind.  Animals
> will often see them before we hear anything.  What our animals do for us 
> in
> such cases is just another example of the interdependence between us and
> them.
>
> We do as much for our animals as they do for us.  What would they do if 
> they
> were in the wild, or at lease if they had no home in this country.
> Civilization and our constant interaction with animals makes us more aware
> of their needs.  We as guide animal users know more than most the value 
> both
> sides place on the bond we forge.  I think it is important that the author
> understands it is a real two-way street.
>
> Another reason that I am reluctant to talk about the work of a guide 
> animal
> as "life-saving" work is that I do not regard the world as an inherently
> dangerous and scary place, or at least, not significantly more dangerous 
> to
> me as a blind person than to anyone else in the general population.  I can
> remember sitting in my 7th grade health class and hearing the teacher say,
> "Turn to the person sitting next to you and take a good look at him or 
> her.
> Statistics show that one of the two of you will be seriously injured or
> killed in a traffic accident."  And this was in a class where everyone was
> fully-sighted, except for me.
>
> I know that one way of looking at the world is that we are taking our 
> lives
> into our hands every time we venture out onto the streets.  In that light,
> the service our guides provide may be considered truly life-saving.  But
> then, don't we take risks of harm to life and health every time we breathe
> the air, drink the water, or eat food purchased at the local market?  The
> alternative, of not doing anything unless it can be shown to be risk-free,
> is neither very attractive, nor very practical.
> [[Michael Hingson]]  Yes, but the fact is that we choose to use our 
> animals
> to guide us and, in fact, help keep us safe.  We believe these creatures 
> do
> help us stay more safe in at least some instances.
>
> I believe we should not emphasize the safety aspect for the wrong reason. 
> I
> suspect the author and the general public think our animals save our lives
> because their opinion is that we are less competent and capable because we
> are blind which inherently makes us less than they.  You have the
> opportunity to help educate through your words.  I think you have 
> expressed
> it very well.
>
> One more thing.  When I was obliged to run for my life as Tower Two of the
> World Trade Center collapsed only 100 yards away from me I was using a 
> guide
> dog as you know.  Looking back on it and having the opportunity to think
> about now for over seven years I believe absolutely that I would have had
> much less chance of surviving my run without a guide dog.  I am an 
> excellent
> cane user.  I can and do travel anywhere with a cane.  However, if I had
> been using a cane while running from that falling tower I think I would 
> have
> not been able to navigate my surroundings as easily with a cane since I
> would have lost or broken it if it were extended fully as people would 
> have
> undoubtedly stepped on it; no one was looking down to avoid a cane, they
> were running in panic too.  Also, I might have tripped someone as again no
> one was watching for a blind person with a cane.  My dog navigated in and
> out of the crowd of people.  She did save my life, no question.
>
> My story is an unusual one of course.  I do think the story is all about 
> the
> bond and how two creatures learned to work together to do a job.  I can 
> say
> that I saved Roselle's life too.  I now spend my life helping to educate 
> the
> public about this wonderful thing called the human-animal bond and how so
> many could benefit from it.  Again, you have a wonderful opportunity to do
> the same.
>
> And here is the final thought that causes me pause when I am asked to
> describe the "life-saving" work of my guide:  Haven't we all heard of 
> blind
> people who have been injured or killed while walking with their guide
> animals?  Obviously, there is no guarantee of safety, with or without a
> well-trained guide animal.  There is only the increased probability of
> successful travel that can be achieved by using all the skills and
> techniques that we ourselves judge will work best for each of us as
> individuals.
> [[Michael Hingson]]  Right.  You, at least, get to say that to the public
> through this interview.  As you work with the author I urge you to insist
> that you have final say over the wording of the interview before it goes 
> to
> print.  If the author does not agree then don't do the interview.  This is
> not a news piece.  You have the right to make sure your thoughts and words
> are represented accurately.
>
> I would welcome your thoughts on this subject to help me formulate how to
> frame the discussion with the writer who has contacted me, as well as for
> future reference.
> [[Michael Hingson]]  If you wish to talk more in person feel free to call 
> me
> at (415) 827-4084 or email me off line at info at michaelhingson.com
>
>
> Best,
> Ann
>
>
> Michael Hingson,
> NSA
> President,
> The Michael Hingson Group
> 84 Bahama Reef
> Novato, CA 94949
> Phone Direct number (415) 827-4084
> Fax number (415) 883-6220
> Mobile/Pager (888) 965-9191
> Email
> info at michaelhingson.com
> <
> mailto:
> info at michaelhingson.com>
> For information on Michael's speaking topics, his availability, and his
> consulting services on Diversity and Access Technology for blind persons
> please
> visit <
> http://www.michaelhingson.com>
> For information on Guide Dogs for the Blind please visit <
> http://www.guidedogs.com>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
> Of Ann Edie
> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 12:06 PM
> To: nagdu at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [nagdu] A Question of Philosophy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nagdu:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/margo.downey%40verizon.net