[nagdu] Some Perspective on the Policy

Sat Jul 2 01:55:49 UTC 2011

Alicia,
    I think you have missed the point in my message by believing that I have 
nothing better to do than to run around looking for guide dogs left 
unattended. How would I know if the dog is unattended unless it is causing a 
problem? It is for the problems that the policy and it's associated remedies 
were created, just as is true with the laws concerning public intoxication. 
In other words, drink all you want! Just don't become disorderly or 
disruptive.

Fraternally yours,
Marion


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alysha" <anjeans at att.net>
To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Some Perspective on the Policy


> Dear Marion,
> Sorry to keep beating this topic to death, but I can't help but comment on 
> something in your message. You drew an analogy to public intoxication that 
> I thought was great, but I think it actually argues against the current 
> NAGDU policy. The idea is that people drink in public, and some of them 
> become disruptive  because of being drunk. The law allows people to 
> continue drinking, but it punishes those who cause problems because of it. 
> However, NAGDU has taken a different stance on the issue of dogs at 
> convention. People were leaving their guide dogs alone in hotel rooms, and 
> some of those dogs became disruptive because of it. But instead of 
> punishing only the offenders, NAGDU has essentially outlawed drinking by 
> forbidding us from leaving our dogs alone.
>
> I believe in the ADA it states that access can be denied to a service 
> animal if that animal is causing severe problems for the operations of a 
> business and that handlers are liable for the damages the animal might 
> cause. I might suggest that if a dog is causing serious problems at the 
> convention, that dog be banned from the hotel for the remainder of the 
> convention. Fines could be assessed to handlers whose dogs do damage to 
> the hotel, and the hotel could be made aware of its rights to refuse 
> access to very unruly dogs. Also, maybe next year, we could create some 
> kind of survey to gauge people's interest in dog-sitting and perhaps 
> organize a pool ahead of time.
>
> I applaud everyone who has stated that they will not leave their dogs 
> unattended because they are not sure how well their dogs would behave. 
> This is being a responsible handler, and the policy is probably not 
> directed at people who think that way. However, from the years I've worked 
> with my dog in all kinds of bizarre situations, I am 110 percent sure he 
> would be find alone in a hotel room. And I would probably keep him with me 
> for 99 percent of the time, but it would be much more convenient to leave 
> him in the room for an hour if I wanted to go swimming or dancing for 
> example. I do not think this makes me an irresponsible handler because I 
> know exactly how my dog would respond to being left alone.
>
> I have no problem what-so-ever with NAGDU strongly encouraging people to 
> avoid leaving their dogs alone when possible. We all need to understand 
> that the convention is different from an average trip because of the huge 
> number of dogs present. But, respectfully, I do not personally support 
> NAGDU's current policy of expressly forbidding people from leaving dogs 
> unattended. As Albert said, it is causing the many to pay for the actions 
> of the few.
>
> It is easy to tell people not to complain if they do not have a better 
> alternative on hand. It is certainly better to approach a problem with 
> constructive suggestions, but I also see value in allowing people to 
> express discontent without having a better idea. This could at least lead 
> us to acknowledge that there may be a problem with the current policy 
> which might encourage NAGDU members and leadership to begin brainstorming 
> possible solutions. The first step toward solving a problem is admitting 
> that it exists :). You may well have considered many alternatives already. 
> If this is the case, perhaps you would be willing to share them, and the 
> reasons why they were rejected, with the list. That might demonstrate that 
> NAGDU is taking the issue seriously and has put effort into resolving it.
>
> By the way, just out of curiosity, why in the world does it cost $8500 for 
> a guide dog relief area?
>
> Alysha
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Marion Gwizdala" <blind411 at verizon.net>
> To: "NAGDU List" <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:46 PM
> Subject: [nagdu] Some Perspective on the Policy
>
>
>> dear All,
>>    I hope everyone will read this entire post and that it will give a 
>> little perspective to the NFB policy concerning leaving dogs unattended 
>> in guest rooms during convention. Please keep in mind that this policy 
>> was enacted in an effort to resolve some very serious problems the 
>> organization faced in the past. It is not an arbitrary policy the 
>> Federation issued to attempt to make life difficult for guide dog users. 
>> Also, please keep in mind that the NFB Board of Directors is very 
>> supportive of the National Association of Guide dog Users and its 
>> members. This year, the NFB will spend about $8500 providing relief areas 
>> for our guide dogs. This is quite a significant investment! Now, to the 
>> purpose of this post.
>>    In order to understand the need for the policy, we need a bit of 
>> historical perspective. In 1994, the NFB convention was in Chicago, Ill. 
>> During that convention, there were some very serious problems, as it 
>> pertained to guide dog handlers. There were more than the average number 
>> of accidents, partly due to the fact that the area around the hotel had 
>> very little grass, except for Grant Park, which was swamped with millions 
>> of people for the Taste of Chicago. In addition to these accidents in the 
>> public areas of the hotel, several guide dog users left their dogs 
>> unattended to go to the fireworks in grant Park because they knew their 
>> dogs were afraid of the noise. A very large number of stressed-out dogs 
>> carried on well into the night, disrupting other guests staying in the 
>> hotel. Furthermore, some of these dogs literally destroyed the rooms. The 
>> long story short, since the guests were unable to pay for the damages, 
>> the NFB had to cover the cost, which ran well into the thousands of 
>> dollars. Of course, some will say that the NFB should have required the 
>> responsible parties to pay the damages, but you know the old adage of 
>> getting blood from a turnip! If the NFB didn't pay the damages, they 
>> would have been hard-pressed to find another hotel willing to offer us 
>> the rates we are accustomed to receiving. Even though we did pay the 
>> damages, though, word travels quickly in the hospitality industry and the 
>> NFB was having a difficult time finding properties willing to host our 
>> conventions and negotiating the rates.
>>    The NFB attempted to assess a surcharge of $25 for each guide dog 
>> user, but this was met with a great deal of resistance and this plan was 
>> scrapped very quickly. The resulting compromise was the policy that draws 
>> so much contention every year.
>>    I would like to offer a real-life analagy. Most communities have a 
>> public intoxication law. Basically, this law says that, if you are 
>> intoxicated and behave in a disorderly fashion, you are going to jail. 
>> The law is enacted because there was a problem with intoxicated people 
>> behaving in a disorderly manner. Now, some could argue that it is their 
>> right to drink if they are over the age of 21 and they would be correct. 
>> Therefore, they would argue, it is their right to become intoxicated and, 
>> again, they are right! However, if your public intoxication results in 
>> behavior the community deems disorderly, impinging on the rights of 
>> others to be free from such behavior, the police have the right to impose 
>> the remedies available under the law. at the same time, if one chooses to 
>> become intoxicated in public and behave themselves, no one really cares. 
>> It is only when that state of intoxication imposes negative consequences 
>> on public order that the remedies available are imposed.
>>    One post implied that I was only agreeing to the policy because it 
>> came from the leadership. This member is absolutely correct. Policies and 
>> laws are enacted for the general good of the community in an effort to 
>> provide remedies for behaviors that negatively impact that community. 
>> Barking and destructive dogs negatively impact the NFB community and the 
>> leadership of this community has designed a policy to resolve this issue 
>> and provide remedies. As a member of this community, you agree to abide 
>> by the policies or laws that govern that society's behavior or face the 
>> consequences for their violation. Whether that society is a country, 
>> state, county, city, place of business, workplace, or the NFB convention, 
>> there are acceptable behaviors and consequences for unacceptable 
>> behavior. Anything else is anarchy!
>>    I reject the notion that this - or any other - policy treats one like 
>> a child. In fact, what is childish is being intentionally oppositional 
>> and defiant of societal norms and mores. Remember that it was not too 
>> many months ago when someone believed he had the right to insult anyone 
>> he wanted to on this list and no one could do anything about it. How many 
>> of you rejoiced when it was announced that he was permanently banned from 
>> subscribing to any of the NFBNET lists? Parenthetically, he telephoned me 
>> to advise me that he intended to disrupt the NAGDU meeting this year. the 
>> Board has taken the measure of refusing his membership for conduct 
>> unbecoming a member. Since only members in good standing can speak on the 
>> floor, this effectively bars him from disrupting our meetings. Might he 
>> do so anyway? Perhaps! But there are other remedies available, too!
>>    I hope you have a better understanding of how this policy came to be 
>> and the practical issues it addresses. It is not an anti guide dog 
>> policy; rather, it is meant to prevent a serious issue and maintain order 
>> for the common good of all concerned. It is unfortunate that such a 
>> policy had to be implemented to deal with a problem created by a few. 
>> Just as most people are generally honest, but we have laws against 
>> stealing to provide remedies for the few that are not, most guide dog 
>> users are responsible. The policy is to provide remedies for those who 
>> are not!
>>    I hope that everyone has a fantastic convention. I understand that we 
>> are expecting more than 4000 in Orlando. That means we will most likely 
>> have close to 500 guide dog teams! I hope many of you will join us for 
>> the NAGDU meetings on Sunday & Tuesday in the Panzacola H-3 ballroom at 
>> 7:00 pm! I'll see you then or here on the list afterward! Have an awesome 
>> Fourth of july!
>>
>> Fraternally yours,
>> Marion Gwizdala, President
>> National Association of Guide Dog Users (NAGDU)
>> National Federation of the Blind
>> 813-626-2789
>> President at NAGDU.ORG
>> HTTP://WWW.NAGDU.ORG
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/anjeans%40att.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/blind411%40verizon.net