[nagdu] people abusing dogs and ownership

Sun Aug 1 16:17:28 UTC 2010

Hi All,
I changed the subject line of this.

This is why I will NEVER go to a school with a contract or not having real 
ownership like Seeing eye has.  That school that abuses blind people and 
blackmails their graduates with taking away their dogs is paternalism at its 
worse!  It should be closed down or become the next target of NFB as the NAC 
places were during the seventies and eighties. Maybe we're becoming too nice 
and have forgotten about our old tactics that have WORKED.

Now, protecting the dogs.  Any school can use Seeing Eye's model that has 
worked for them for the past 81 years.  You screen your applicants.  You 
watch them carefully for signs of potential prioblems during class.  After 
the graduate goes home, any abuse problems get reported to Animal Control 
just like anyone else's pet dogs or cats. This system works and the number 
of blind people who abuse their dogs is very small.  What blind person would 
abuse the thing that gives us freedom to move around without having to use a 
white cane?  Only someone who has other problems and many schools are able 
to find this out before the person even goes to the school.

End the abuse of blind people from paternalistic schools!!  Shut 'em down!!!

JMO

Lyn and Landon
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cathryn Bonnette" <cathrynisfinally at verizon.net>
To: "'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] EXTERNAL: Puppy raising

> All:
>
> After reading this, I register my vote for ownership based on experience. 
> If
> you have a moment to read, here's my story:
>
> While renting a house on a cul-de-sac at the end of another
> cul-de-sac,-meaning there were rarely any cars on either street-  I 
> decided
> to leave my guide at home one morning since she was enjoying the sun in my
> fenced back garden. I lived walking distance from my office, and planned 
> to
> come hone for lunch and take her back to the office that afternoon. 
> Gardners
> came that morning, and despite my instructions left the gate open when 
> they
> finished their work. My guide took a stroll down the street and a neighbor
> put her in his garage with his lab. I came home for lunch, found the open
> gate and went down the street calling her loudly and asking everyone I
> encountered until I found her, thanked my neighbor and brought her home.
> Meanwhile this Good Samaritan had called the school due to tags on my 
> dog's
> collar. So, I called the school to let them know all was well. Regardless 
> of
> my assurances, they insisted on showing up at my home, to "make sure 
> you're
> all right." As they continued to insist, I finally confronted them with 
> the
> abuse I had witnessed and experienced by one of their staff, and    told
> them that if they came to my home uninvited, I would file a complaint for
> trespass. I concluded by repeating that both my dog and I were completely
> safe, and that I was returning to work.  Of coarse, that made me public
> enemy #1 and the Wicked Witch of the West etc.  from that school's
> prspective.
> You may think this sounds harsh, but I knew the month of abusive treatment 
> I
> had survived at the school, and of horror stories about dogs being taken
> back from blind people without notice or basis since this school never 
> gave
> legal ownership to blind persons who received dog guides from them. Thus,
> abusing blind people was tolerated, but the school retained ownership of
> their dogs to prevent dog abuse. (Perhaps it is just me, but this seems
> rather strange.)  I am in absolute agreement that dog abusers should not 
> be
> able to keep dogs. I am equally convinced that blind persons who use dog
> guides must not be treated like children as schools retain legal ownership
> of dog guides. My suggestion as a way to deal with dog abusers is to 
> contact
> local animal control.  They will observe and intervene.
> OK- sorry this is so long.  Have a great day everyone, and comment as you
> like.
>
> Cathryn (& Abby)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
> of Nimer Jaber
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 4:47 PM
> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] EXTERNAL: Puppy raising
>
> I look at it is if we had to fill out reports and it minimized the
> dogs that ended up getting abused, mistreated or whatever it would
> also reflect better on us as dog guide users. We are a minority just
> being blind. Being blind dog guide owners makes us more of a minority.
> So, if someone saw a blind guy abusing his dog or saw a dog that
> wasn't being taken care of, what kind of response do you think that
> person's going to give to the next person who he/she runs across with
> a guide? It's a reputation thing almost as much as it is to protect
> the animals. If we want to keep our rights as dog guide owners, we
> have to show that we can take care of them and not abuse them. One or
> two people abusing their dogs in front of the right individual could
> spell trouble for dog access laws. You guys can disagree as much as
> you wish, any comments are welcome.
>
> On 30/07/2010, Danielle Nicole Larsen <dnlarsen75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> People who shouldn't have dogs are people I believe whoa ren't ready for
> the
>> commitment. People who have drug problems. People who are unable to
> control
>> their temper. Anyone who'd put a dog in danger.
>> Big brother watching is creepy. Ownership is valuable.
>> But to prevent dogs from being in danger I think it's teh safer choice
>> overall.
>> It would be a sacrifice I'd be willing to make to protect the others.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dan Weiner" <dcwein at dcwein.cnc.net>
>> To: "'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'"
>> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 4:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] EXTERNAL: Puppy raising
>>
>>
>>> How are you deciding that "people who shouldn't have dogs" might get 
>>> them
>>> and what constitutes your criteria for who should have a dog?
>>> So, if people who shouldn't have dogs, in quotes, get them, than wasn't
> it
>>> the poor judgment of the school rather than a question of ownership?
>>> I do believe in total unfettered and unrestricted ownership, though I 
>>> see
>>> that I'm in a minority--smile.
>>> Most of us apparently want big brother watching us.
>>>
>>> A yearly vet report won't stop, for example, the people I myself think
>>> shouldn't have dogs, the ones who in my judgment correct the begeezes 
>>> out
>>> of
>>> their dogs.
>>> Or those who are yelling at their dogs, that bugged me more than, say, 
>>> an
>>> uncontrolled dog before I had a dog. Now I have a dog and know things
>>> happen, but I have a mental check list of people I have met who I think
>>> would do the dog and themselves a favor by not having one--smile.
>>>
>>> Remember, that's my judgment, if a training facility doesn't   think
>>> certain
>>> grads should have dogs  then they will need to do better at selecting or
>>> training.
>>> A blind person is still a person.
>>> I love dogs more than I can say, actually, but facts are facts, people
>>> need
>>> to be given consideration, blind people too--smile.
>>> We're not just people who have been granted a dog and therefore must be
>>> watched because the dog is more important than we are and being a blind
>>> person with a guide dog, we might and probably will abuse our dogs..
>>> If the schools are so sure we will abuse our dogs, then think twice 
>>> about
>>> training them for us.
>>>
>>> I personally despise slime balls who abuse their dogs, but will a school
>>> owning our dogs and subjecting us to yearly check  lists stop that?
>>> Evidence suggests that it won't.
>>> The Seeing Eye grants ownership, as I understand, I have not, however,
> got
>>> the impression that more Seeing Eye grads mistreat their dogs than any
>>> other
>>> school's grads.
>>>
>>>
>>> Remember not attacking you, just expressing my opinions as you are
>>> expressing yours.
>>>
>>> Cordially,
>>>
>>> Dan W.
>>>
>>> -----Or
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/dnlarsen75%40gmail.co
> m
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/nimerjaber1%40gmail.c
> om
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cathrynisfinally%40ve
> rizon.net
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3038 - Release Date: 07/30/10
> 06:34:00
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/linda.gwizdak%40cox.net 