[nagdu] Response to Lisa Re: $150: Then & now

[Angie Matney]

Hi Lisa,

>I understand how some people may feel empowered by paying something toward
>the training of their dog, and that's fine.  But in the end, does this fee
>really determine how well that person treats or works with their dog?  does
>it mean that the school where the dog was obtained and/or the general public 
>will think more of them as a blind person?

Absolutely not. This actually has nothing to do with why I think TSE's fee policy is such a good idea. I think it reinforces for the school staff and for the students that blind people do engage in "normal" transactions.

>Whether someone pays $150 or nothing to work with a dog who cost around 40 
>or 50 grand to breed, raise, and train is immaterial.  I've seen handlers 
>from many schools, including the Seeing Eye, and it's been my experience 
>that that person will either treat his or her dog well or he or she will 
>not.  It doesn't make that person a better handler or a more dignified 
>individual simply because they paid a teeny bit of the cost of their dog 
>guide or were granted outright ownership upon completion of training.

Agreed. 

>I've heard that the Seeing Eye doesn't verify how the money is raised just 
>as long as the person has that $150.  I'm sure some people, especially 
>younger folks going up there for the first time have had that money given to 
>them.  I'm sure some people just fork over the money, no matter how they got 
>it, just to get a dog.  And, unfortunately, I'm sure there are people who 
>acquired that money by less than honest means.

Sure. But what purpose would verifying the source of the money serve? In what domains of life does this occur? IMO, the fact that they*don't* verify how the money is obtained actually serves to differentiate the experience from dealing with 
social-service agencies and the like. As I said in another post, I was kind of amused by a TSE staffer going around hitting the students up for money. (grin) Applying an unnatural scrutiny to the whole thing would indeed render it pointless and 
ineffective.

>I have to echo Rebecca's question and wonder why The Seeing Eye hasn't 
>raised their cost to reflect current economic conditions.  The original 
>intent behind this policy may have been honorable, but I'm not sure if this 
>miniscule price is still a valid representation of the cost of training.

It was never intended to be a representation of a certain percentage of the cost of training. Yes, economic conditions have changed (though I fear people with disabilities are more susceptible to the current economic downturn...but that's 
another post for another list). But simply modifying a number to comport with a pricing index doesn't represent the economic reality of blindness. I'm not suggesting that the fee *shouldn't* be changed; but it seems to me that doing so in any 
meaningful way would be a complex undertaking.

>Because, if the cost isn't adjusted to reflect current economic conditions, 
>this fee seems like nothing more than a condescending pat on the head, IMO. 
>If you pay only a fraction of the cost of something simply because you're a 
>blind person looking to obtain a dog, then it's charity. If you want to 
>imply that you or the school is better than the rest of us who  didn't pay 
>anything for our dogs (and I've had some vocal TSE grads come right out and 
>say just that), have at it if  it makes you feel better, <smiles> but you're 
>still taking advantage of charity.  It's like they're saying we know you as 
>a blind person could never come up with the tens of thousands of dollars 
>needed to breed, raise, and train this dog and then train you, but we know 
>how you blind people like to feel like you're a full part of society, so 
>we'll let you contribute this small price that's not even one percent of the 
>total cost for a dog.  We'll even let  you have ownership of your dog so you 
>feel like real adults.

Well...I think you've missed the point. At least, that was not at all my perception after having attended a school that charged nothing for my dog and then attending TSE. I think the policy is in place just as much for school staff as for blind 
handlers. Of *course* we know we're the recipients of charity. But I do believe that the fee does serve a purpose. 

>For my part, I'm conscious of the time, effort, and sacrifice that went into
>training Katy every time I snap on that leash.  Whether I paid nothing, $150
>or $150,000, a guide dog is always going to mean the same for me.  

I agree. There's no way that $150 could lead me to differentiate between Glaze and Yani. I do think, though, that the fee and unconditional ownership do have repercussions for the school's culture.

Best,

Angie