[nagdu] O&M, Ownership, & Leader

[Marion & Martin]

Dear Ron and All,
    The problem with a school retaining ownership is the holding of this 
fact over the heads of the user. In many cases, graduates who do not have 
ownership are hesitant to ask for help when needed, thus compromising the 
integrity of the team due to training or behavioral issues. Furthermore, 
handlers who do not own their dogs have little recourse should the school 
decide to repossess the dog and the schools need no justification for this 
action. Lest anyone think a school would not do such a thing, I will share a 
real example of this occuring.
    I advocated for a couple in Florida who were very outspoken and, because 
of this, made a few adversaries. Several of these adversaries filed 
complaints against the couple, charging that their dogs were out of control 
and were being abused. One of the complaintants was a guide dog user who 
worked for the state agency for the blind where each member of the couple 
was engaged in rehabilitation. This person's dog was agressive toward the 
wife's dog and the dog naturally defended itself. This state employee 
contacted the school and asserted that the wife's dog was the agressor and 
had been aggressive toward other dogs at the rehabilitation center. The 
complaintant also stated that the wife had been barred from bringing her dog 
to the rehab center. This latter fact was absolutely false and the 
complaintant was disciplined by the agency for saying this.
    The school sent a trainer to visit the couple and their case notes state 
that the trainer spent "two or three hours" with the graduate. The first 
thing I thought when I read this entry was "Did the trainer spend two or 
three hours with the person?" In any case, the graduate asserts that the 
trainer spent about ten minutes with her and that most of the time the 
trainer was on the telephone. In any case, the school sent another trainer 
to "investigate". The traner went door-to-door in the couple's apartment 
complex questioning neighbors about the allegations of abuse. Finding no one 
who would coroborate the abuse alleged by only one neighbor who the wife 
said observed her correct her dog after it became distracted and ran her 
into a trash can on the sidewalk, the school contacted Animal Services to 
investigate the claims of abuse and neglect.
    The Animal Services officer - a sworn law enforcement officer - 
investigated the charges by visiting the couple's home unannounced. He told 
me ( and wrote in his official report) that he found the couple's apartment 
clean and orderly, there was a bucket of water on the floor, plenty of dog 
food, both of the dogs were well-groomed, and the female dog even had its 
nails painted! The officer concluded that there was no evidence of abuse or 
neglect and closed the case.
    The school sent a trainer, nonetheless, to the couple. Since the couple 
owned their dogs, the school could not take the dogs away from them; 
however, since the school retains ownership of the harnesses, they took them 
away. In addition, the Animal Services officer who was present when the 
harnesses were taken told me that the trainer was verbally abusive to the 
couple who, in his opinion, had done absolutely nothing wrong. In his own 
words, he said, "I arrest people every day for serious crimes and would 
never treat one of them the way this couple was treated!" Furthermore, the 
trainer went to the police department and told officers that the dogs were 
no longer service animals, that they had no right to use them as guide dogs, 
and that they  had no right of access. When I spoke with the police 
department, this was confirmed; however, I was told by the police department 
that they had no intention of interfering with their rights of access, as 
this would violate both Florida and Fedeeral laws.
    Fortunately, this couple had ownership of their dogs. The only recourse 
the school had was to repossess their harnesses, another issue I have with 
schools' policies and why I have purchased my own harness. If the school had 
ownership, the dogs could have been taken away from them in spite of the 
fact that there was no objective evidence of abuse or neglect.

Fraternally,
Marion Gwizdala

 owned the dogs,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Davidson" <fuzzy_1 at cox.net>
To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] O&M, Ownership, & Leader


>I was told that once a dog is returned it is retired or adopted out and 
>they do not retrain and match with another student. As far as ownership I 
>don't see what the big deal is if the school retains ownership for a year 
>or two years. If they feel you are abusing or not taking care of the dog I 
>would want them to take it. I have known too many people get the dog and 
>don't follow the feeding guidelines and feed table scraps etc and it ruins 
>the dogs digestive system and they will go for food left on floors of 
>restraunts etc. To me all that does is ruin a good working dog and make the 
>rest of us look bad. The school I went to kept ownership for two years and 
>it was no big deal to me but everyone is different. I also was told  that 
>Seeing eye gives ownership upon graduation when you pay a fee of 150.00 and 
>this came from one of their field reps. I don't know what Leader dog does I 
>went to Guiding Eyes and was very pleased with them and their follow-up. 
>If I have a problem I gave them a call and we solved it over the phone or a 
>field trainer would come down if serious enough. I know everyone has their 
>own preference of schools just like me and this is just my opinion.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/swampfox1833%40verizon.net