[nagdu] acceptance of owner training was Arkansas School Refuses To Hold Leash For 7-Year-Old Boy's Service Dog

[Tracy Carcione]

I have encountered both good and bad owner-trained guide dogs, same as 
program dogs, though the pool of owner-trained dogs is a lot smaller, so 
they stick out more in my mind, good or bad.  Just saying that, just because 
a dog was privately trained doesn't automatically make it great, or 
terrible, same as if it was trained by School X.  It's all in what the 
owner/trainer values, I suppose.  If she values a quiet dog who attends to 
business, or, alternatively,  doesn't have a problem with a dog who snaps at 
other dogs, well, that's what she gets.
Tracy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marion Gwizdala via nagdu" <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
To: "'Julie J'" <julielj at neb.rr.com>; "'NAGDU Mailing List, the National 
Association of Guide Dog Users'" <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] acceptance of owner training was Arkansas School 
Refuses To Hold Leash For 7-Year-Old Boy's Service Dog


> Julie,
> One of the observations I frequently share when the topic of owner
> training comes up is that, of all the owner-trained guide dogs I have
> encountered, I have never encountered one that was ill-behaved or did not
> function excellently as a guide dog. This is not something I can say about
> program-trained dogs!  Also, this is my primary objection to
> registration/certification/identification for service dogs! Keep up the
> great work!
>
> Marion
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Julie J via 
> nagdu
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 2:54 PM
> To: Danielle Antoine; NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of 
> Guide
> Dog Users
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] acceptance of owner training was Arkansas School
> Refuses To Hold Leash For 7-Year-Old Boy's Service Dog
>
> I think owner training is more accepted than it once was, but to say that 
> it
> is "accepted" as in the same way service dogs from programs are 
> accepted...I
> don't think so.
>
> The folks on this list tend to be more accepting of owner training, but 
> even
> here there are people who think it is dangerous and the dog won't be 
> trained
> to the same level as a progam dog.
>
> If you talk about owner training a guide dog as a blind person on email
> lists for other types of service dogs, you will generally meet with great
> resistance.  I think because blind people are near the bottom of the 
> social
> status disability ladder.  So blind people couldn't possibly train their 
> own
> guides.
>
> I've had blind people, who are cane users, say pretty awful things about 
> my
> choice to owner train.  Mostly that happened in the beginning though.  I
> guess enough people have seen my dogs work, at least in my home area, that
> it's no longer an interesting topic of conversation.
>
> Sighted people I encounter in my day to day life couldn't care less, for 
> the
> most part.  Mostly they see a blind person and a dog and they fabricate 
> the
> rest of the story based on what they saw on TV.  The part about my having
> trained the dog doesn't come up very often.  Generally I don't bring it 
> up.
> Sometimes people ask though, and I am very open about the fact that I
> trained him.  I think a lot of times they want to know where I got the dog
> because they have some knowledge or affiliation with some program or
> another.  When they find out I trained him, they are astonished that it is
> legal/possible or they want to know if it's legal.  I'm not sure what the
> immediate response of, "is that legal", says about our culture...too many
> laws?...too much restriction on our freedom?...a statement about what
> disabled people's place in society?  I don't know.
>
> Then we get to service dog programs...there are a couple that don't react
> like beligerant idiots about owner trained dogs, but the rest...well, I'll
> just stop there.  The short version is that most of the guide and service
> dog programs do not like the idea of owner training.
>
> anyway, that's my opinion based on my personal experience.  It will be
> interesting to see what other owner trainers have experienced.
> Julie
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jul 14, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Danielle Antoine via nagdu 
>> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Tami,
>> I like how you dissected my points. that's what I was looking for.
>> Buddy, whether or not it was your intention you came at me like the
>> enemy! Any veteran who has worked in the service dog arena personally
>> or who has availed themselves of the many lists know that a specific
>> program does not have to be named and that owner-training is
>> recognized and acceptable. I, myself, am not in the right situation in
>> life to take it on. It is a lot less trouble for me, at this point to
>> just attend a training program for my nex guide. I was just curious
>> because I wondered what program would give license to a 7-year-old
>> child to handle and be responsible for a dog requiring an additional
>> person. Just seems sooooo unnecessary! As for me, my pup is retired
>> and living the good life of a pet dog and children and exes don't
>> count at this time. Good day, Sir.
>>
>> Best with your owner training undertakings, Danielle Ledet and retired
>> Seeing Eye Golden girl, Eden
>>
>>
>>> On 7/14/14, Tami Jarvis via nagdu <nagdu at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>> Rebecca,
>>>
>>> You're right about the dog's ability to sense the seizure (or
>>> whatever medical disorder) -- it can or it can't. However, the
>>> difference between a plain old dog that happens to be able to detect
>>> seizures and a medical alert service dog is whether the dog is
>>> trained to perform a specific alerting behavior. Often the medical
>>> alert SD will perform additional actions, like getting the handler to
>>> a safe place to prepare for the seizure, laying on the handler to
>>> help prevent injury during the seizure and a few other things. The
>>> article mentioned that the dog has eliminated the need for
>>> medication, so I guess locating the medicine bottle for the handler
> wouldn't be needed.
>>>
>>> As for the rest, I just don't know. Part of it is that I am not all
>>> that well-informed about the issues when it comes to kids, service
>>> dogs and schools. I can see both sides, depending on which way I
>>> squint. I wonder if having a staffer handle the dog in this case
>>> could be considered to be the equivalent of having a staffer push a
>>> wheelchair? Or do the dog's needs for handling make it that much more
> demanding?
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%40verizon.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/carcione%40access.net
>