[nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort

Wed Dec 30 17:36:43 UTC 2009

Steve,

I agree!

Also, service dogs in training are already covered in the ADA and (I think)
FHA.  As an owner-trainer, I had the same rights I do as a handler.  Also,
the same responsibilities.  Including the responsibility for my own safety,
her safety and that of others.

Someone mentioned socialization apart from training...  For a service
animal, socialization *is* pat of the training.  True, you do a lot of
ground work and obedience and exposure to people, kids, critters, everybody
and everything you can while the dog is young.  But sooner or later, you
have to take your pup into the milieus in which it will be working as an
adult.  A lot of those milieux are pretty high stimulus, let me tell you!
But the dog needs to learn to walk by the meat counter at the grocery store
without trying to snag a snack along the way!  There are some early training
techniques I'm going to use next time to cut down on potential scavenging,
but a dog is still a dog.  /smile/

Anyway, with Mitzi I did what the guide dog schools do:  I used PR when it
was time to take my wild and woolly one into the stores in our neighborhood.
I would explain that I was training her, that I needed to work with her in
stores, and I assured them that I would take her out immediately if she got
out of hand and would pay for any damage.  It was a ridiculously
dog-friendly neighborhood, which helped.  /grin/  The fact that my little
beast had *no* training until she came to me at the age of 7 months didn't!
Next time, I am starting with a baby puppy so I can start civilizing it
while it's young and impressionable.  /smile/

Still, we worked on it together so that she could learn to deal with the
overstimulation of it all, and now she's an old pro who can take me shopping
and dining and traveling without a hitch.  Well, I still feel a bit nervous
about that scavenging nose in restaurants, but it seems to be staying where
it belongs!  Actually, it's never gotten too far out of bounds, but I know
my dog!  It used to terrify me that I would have to buy someone's meal
because my dog tried to help herself to it.  I would just have died if that
had happened!  /grin/

Anyway, I just say "no!" to legislatively required certification, especially
when it comes to service animals for the disabled.  The whole issue is just
too fraught, and the people it is meant to protect will be the ones who get
the short end of the stick!

As for unscrupulous, unqualified trainers of service dogs for others....
Well, changing the access laws to require that they show certification to
take a trainee on a bus will just mean they don't train the dogs to travel,
right?  If someone is going to bilk a distressed clientele to begin with,
they can't be too long on character or concern for others.  Or is that just
my prejudices showing?

Tami Smith-Kinne

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Steve Johnson
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 11:24 AM
To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort

Well stated Rox.

The other issue is cost, and this idea of certification will have a price. 
Unless legislation has direct input from an organization like the NFB for 
instance, it has the potential to be that between the constituent and the 
legislator and honestly, that leaves the door wide open for interpretation. 
Tell me the last legislator who knew the difference between a guide from a 
formal agency or one that was self-trained?  Take it one step further, tell 
me a legislator who knows the difference between the different dog guide 
agency names, or what they are actually trained to do?  My point, is that 
they don't have a clue, and if they really want to do something impressive, 
don't run again.

JMO

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "The Pawpower Pack" <pawpower4me at gmail.com>
To: "NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort

> and who certifies the trainers?
>
> There is no certifying body for dog trainers.  If I want to call
> myself a dog trainer, I can.  There are outfits like CPDT who are
> trying to certify pet dog trainers but it's all voluntary.  The guide
> and service dogs, with the exception of California, may "certify"
> their trainers but it's about as valuable as the paper it's printed on.
>
> California "certifies" it's trainers but frankly, I would hate to see
> an outfit like the California guide dog board become the norm.
>
> I also think it's a step awy from certifying trainers to certifying PWD.
>
>
> Rox and the Kitchen Bitches
> Bristol (retired), Mill'E SD. and Laveau Guide Dog, CGC.
> "Struggle is a never ending process. Freedom is never really won, you
> earn it and win it in every generation."
> -- Coretta Scott King
> pawpower4me at gmail.com
>
> Windows Live Only: Brisomania at hotmail.com
> AIM: Brissysgirl Yahoo: lillebriss
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/stevencjohnson%40cent
urytel.net
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.722 / Virus Database: 270.14.119/2586 - Release Date: 12/25/09 
03:33:00

_______________________________________________
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/tamara.8024%40comcast
.net