[nagdu] Devil's advocate on ownership

Angie Matney angie.matney at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 01:03:39 UTC 2009


Hi Susan,

I understand what you are saying. But I know of instances where people have
chosen not to contact their school about problems until they had ownership
of the dog. Perhaps it's not logical, but it does happen.


I think Jenine made some good points, too, that people might choose not to
cnotact their school for other reasons, including embarrassment. Sadly,
people do not always approach this whole issue logically. 

Angie

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of sblanjones11
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 8:10 PM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Devil's advocate on ownership

Sorry, I don't buy the thing about people not seeking help because they are
afraid the school will take the dog away.
Hopefully, I would have chosen a school I felt I could work with.  A school
I feel afraid will yank the dog without working with me is a school I would
not want to attend.
Admittedly, a first-timer might feel somewhat intimidated, but I think we
all want guide dogs that will work for us.
My school offers ownership after two years, and I'm fine with that.  
This gives the school the freedom to retrain a mismatched dog, which I think
is only fair.
Personally, I would rather we spend our time and energy making sure all
schools give quality traffic training.
JMHO,
Susan & Rhoda

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Angie Matney
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 6:16 PM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Devil's advocate on ownership

Hi Jenine,

Excellent post. I certainly don't presume to know how I'd handle things if I
were responsible for a guide-dog school. The reason I think ownership upon
graduation is the best way to go partly has to do with a cost-benefit
analysis. In his interview, Marion mentioned that some people are less
likely to seek help with problems if they are afraid the dog will be taken
away. Since these people are making a choice to keep quiet about
difficulties, we probably have no idea how many such people there are. But
clearly this is a recipe for disaster. I would argue that the abuse of a few
dogs is, regrettably, a necessary "cost" to guide-dog mobility. 

That probably made me sound heartless. I doo think that all appropriate
measures should be taken to minimize these incidents, but nothing will ever
completely eliminate them. The incident with the Leader Dog happened around
the time I got Glaze. I also applied to Leader back then, and Leader asked
me for six references. So this man from PA was probably able to find six
people who could vouch for him, six people who were willing to say, in
writing, that he was a good candidate for a guide dog.

I think the problem of people not returning dogs when they don't work out is
similarly an unavoidable cost of guide-dog mobility. Maybe the schools could
find ways to really emphasize the worth of these dogs and to encourage grads
(without coercion) that returning a mismatched dog is in the best interests
of all concerned. (On the other hand, I do think there are some instances
when a grad is in a better position to judge whether or not a dog should be
re-evaluated. But that's a whole nother kettle o' fish, and I ain't touching
it tonight.)

In this country, there are thousands of fatalities from automobile accidents
each year; yet we continue to allow cars to be on the road because the
cost-benefit analysis weighs in favor of maintaining the system. We pass
laws to minimize traffic accidents, but we recognize that some people are
going to be killed each year, no matter what we do. I guess I view ownership
in the same way. If providing ownership at graduation would make it more
likely for struggling handlers to seek help, then it is probably worth
doing, even with its associated "costs." I'm sure the schools do conduct
some form of cost-benefit analysis, even if they don't couch it in those
terms. 

Again, great post. 

Angie

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Jenine Stanley
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 3:35 PM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: [nagdu] Devil's advocate on ownership

Before I pose this question, or series of questions, let me say that I am
very in favor of full ownership, if not for everyone directly upon
graduation, very soon thereafter. I recall in the 1990's, a number of
schools did change their policies to afford full ownership upon graduation.
I know GDF did so. 

That said, why have some schools changed their policies back to some type of
custody or arrangement by which the school has legal title to the dog and
hence the ability to take the dog back without other entities being
involved? 

I think things began to get a little tense, and I have no citations for
this, just a gut feeling, when the man in Pennsylvania killed his guide dog.
Sorry, can't remember off the top of my head when that took place. 

Over the years, even Seeing eye has had some grads who have abused their
dogs to the point that legal intervention was necessary. I would hope that
no one sets out to abuse a dog. Many habitual abusers can fake it well
enough to get through training and aftercare visits though. The man in
Pennsylvania certainly did this. He had a host of other issues, as I'd wager
do most people who abuse their dogs to the point that the dog must be taken
away. 

This percentage of abusers is minuscule in terms of applicants and
graduates, but who do you remember? The big question about the man who
killed his dog, beyond how could someone do such a thing, was,  how did this
person get a dog to begin with? 

That's not really fair to Leader as he looked fine to them up until he
killed the dog. In fact, an instructor did a home visit a month before the
incident. Leader got a lot of bad press and questions, I'd wager, from their
donors and others over the incident though. 

Did they over react by changing their ownership policy? Professionally, I'll
reserve opinion on that one, but I fully understand their reasoning. 

It is disturbing to hear such revisions couched in language about
"protecting the dogs." If I am that bad and the dog needs protection from
me, why have I been accepted for training? 

That said, if you ran a guide dog school, how would you handle situations in
which you saw people abusing or neglecting dogs that they legally owned? 

Often the local animal cruelty laws have conditions well above what we would
consider cruel or neglectful for a working dog. This means that the animal
control officers or courts often won't touch guide dog abuse allegations,
even when they are legitimate. 

Let's face it. There are people for whom working and caring for a dog is too
much. There are people who may treat a dog the way they were treated as a
child and that may not be kindly. 

What would you do if someone from the public called in a complaint about a
grad? 

We all know that most complaints are simple misunderstandings or over
reactions to appropriate corrections. There are that small percentage though
of complaints that are valid. 

How would you investigate such a complaint? What would you then do if you
found that the dog was being abused or neglected? 

I often hear guide dog handlers say after publicized abuse events that the
schools have the right to protect the dogs. See my opinion above on that
one. <grin> 

>From a school's point of view, another dynamic is occurring that may 
>cause
policy changes. Many people are no longer accepting any dog and are
returning or retiring dogs that are not suitable for them. Many of these
dogs may truly need to retire from guide work for one reason or another.
Some of them are just not good matches for that particular handler. Yet, if
the person owns the dog, he or she can do with it whatever he or she wants.
Some people choose to retire a dog who might be reevaluated and placed with
another person. 

How would you handle this situation, short of making better matches,
something we all hope happens but something that can change for any team
over time? 

Understand I'm not challenging anyone's position here, just posing questions
as to how you might handle things if you were on the other side of the desk.
Many of us have been in a class with people we questioned. Sometimes those
people are changed by having a dog. Sometimes they sadly are not. 
 Jenine Stanley
jeninems at wowway.com


_______________________________________________
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/angie.matney%40gmail.
com


_______________________________________________
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/sblanjones11%40sbcglo
bal.net


_______________________________________________
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/angie.matney%40gmail.
com





More information about the NAGDU mailing list