[nagdu] Devil's advocate on ownership

Tue Apr 28 15:38:00 UTC 2009

Sorry, this got caught in my drafts folder. I love Outlook. <groan>
Rebecca, 

Many state and local animal cruelty laws have provisions such as: 

The animal is left outside with no shelter, food or water for more than 24
hours at a time.
The animal has visible wounds that are not being treated.
The person is seen to have beaten the animal, etc. 

Beating usually means kicking or hitting with something, though we've all
probably had someone mistake a leash correction for a beating.

I've heard animal control people and court officials say that guide dogs
have special rules, their words, not mine, and they don't feel they have the
authority to intervene. They are also under the impression that all schools
will step in and take the dog away well before they have to get involved. 

Now, have there been cases where people have indeed been found guilty of
cruelty under state and local laws involving their guide dogs? Yes. In one
case in either Connecticut or Rhode Island, can't recall which, back in the
mid '90's, the judge called in people from Seeing Eye, from which the man
had obtained the dog, as expert witnesses.  He did rule that the dog be
taken from the man as I recall, but that's pretty rare. 

It can go the other way too. I don't know if anyone remembers a man named
Steven Hazard from the LA area whose dog was taken by a humane officer in
the early '90's. Since he was a GDB grad, I believe, they took the dog and
kept it during the hearing. As I recall, it turned out that the humane
officer had over reacted to a harsh correction from Mr. Hazard to his dog
and he got the dog back, but he was definitely guilty before proven
innocent. There was a lot more to that case as I recall but details are a
bit fuzzy right now. I'd wager though there's something written about it
somewhere. 

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Pickrell, Rebecca M (IS)
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 12:37 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Devil's advocate on ownership

Very good post. 
Maybe I'm slow today, but can you explain the statement below; 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.

Why exactly wouldn't animal control touch a guide dog case where abuse
either is or might be going on? 

-----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/rebecca.pickrell%
40ngc.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/jeninems%40wowway.com