[nagdu] Devil's advocate on ownership

[Margo and New Dog]

But The Seeing Eye hs the freedom to train a mismatched dog.

Sorry but I will not attend a school which does not grant immediate 
ownership.

Margo and new Dog
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "sblanjones11" <sblanjones11 at sbcglobal.net>
To: "'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 8:10 PM
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/margo.downey%40verizon.net