[nagdu] EXTERNAL: Puppy raising

[Dan Weiner]

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