[nagdu] On Ownership

Nicole Torcolini ntorcolini at wavecable.com
Mon May 5 03:45:20 UTC 2014


I agree that it is a balance, but I don't think that it is a balance over
ownership or not. How do you decide if a handler can take care of a dog, and
how long does it take to determine this? What happens if something does not
work out after ownership is granted? Does the school all of the sudden no
longer have the ability to intervene ? The balance is between helping/doing
what is best for the handler and dog and being over controlling. Schools
should never be able to just drop in and take a dog. If a situation is bad
enough that that is needed, then it should be animal control or something
that removes the dog, not the school. Regardless of ownership, the school
should somehow be able to occasionally check on the dog without intruding on
the life of the handler or making the handler feel afraid.

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Olivares
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 6:19 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] On Ownership

I agree with this. I don't think that credit checks should be done.

I think it needs to be as easy as possible for a blind person to get a guide
dog. if the handler proves to be responsible and able to take care of that
dog, then ownership can be given. But if ownership is given from the start,
guide dog schools will suddenly want to be stricter with whom they will or
will not accept, and those who really need a guide dog who perhaps don't
meet such parameters would be weeded out. It is a balance.

Brandon
On May 4, 2014, at 9:12 PM, Marsha Drenth <marsha.drenth at gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
> I am speaking for me personally. I do not want a guide dog school, to do a
credit check on me. My credit history is my business and not a guide dog
schools place to go. I can understand doing a criminal background check, or
the various other background checks that are available. But not a credit
check. I am not saying this because I have bad credit, or good credit, its
just not there place. If we as, students, of a guide dog school give the
school the authority to do such a check on us, who is to say that down the
line, the school will want more information about us. If we are saying that
doing a criminal background,a credit check is acceptable, what is to say
that if a school finds some thing else in a persons history or background to
be questionable, who is to say that they will accept us to recieve a guide.
I mean if we are going to do credit checks, followed by criminal checks,
what about a test for STD, or an educational check. I am stretching here,
but if someone has a STD, then the guide dog school will want to know how
did that person get that STD, and what unhealthy or unethical behavior led
to getting that STD. Because it is that unhealthy or unethical behavior that
might make you a bad guide dog user. It could go as far as to the guide dog
schools saying that if you failed university classes, or highschool, then
your unfit to recieve a dog. My point, is that no matter what checks a guide
dog school puts into place, there are unfortunately still going to be bad
handlers. And further to my point, it is my right as a potential student,
handler to give or not give a guide dog school information, more so, my
history, my background is my private business, and no one elses. Yes when I
apply to a guide dog school, I am providing a guide dog school with the
information they need, nor will I lie, nor am I saying that people should
lie, or with hold information. But a guide dog schools job is to train the
dogs, not to dig into my history. I know some here will disagree with me,
some will say that those things I mentioned will never happen. But as
potentila students, as handlers, we have a little thing, called privacy. 
> 
> Marsha drenth
> Sent with my IPhone
> Please note that this email communication has been sent using my iPhone.
As such, I may have used dictation and had made attempts to mitigate errors.
Please do not be hesitant to ask for clarification as necessary. 
> 
>> On May 4, 2014, at 8:42 PM, "Steven Johnson" <blinddog3 at charter.net>
wrote:
>> 
>> Alicia,
>> 
>> I have not chimed in on any of this thread, but do agree with you with
the credit check.  If we are going to be responsible owners, we should also
be able to afford that costs that come with owning a dog.  If one purchases
a car, they certainly don't go back to the dealership or manufacturer when
they need gas or funding to fix that vehicle that in the end, they can't
afford, and the same could hold true for dog guides.  As an owner, I also
should have access to all of the records of my guide and therefore know
about my dog's history, and therefore believe that being able to contact and
communicate with the puppy raiser should be a part of the larger ownership
platform.  Unfortunately, not all schools do this, and although the training
staff at the agency may know certain things about that specific dog, the
puppy raiser can probably give a lot more insight.  So, before we continue
to dwell on the practices of one agency and their ownership policy, we
really need to step back and look at how all of those things that go into
ownership need to be made black and white and not hidden because of a
so-called incident or two of a potential puppy raiser stalker forced the
agency at one time *key and important definition here once again* forced the
training program to implement such a policy.  
>> JMO,
>> Steve
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Alysha
>> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 7:28 PM
>> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] On Ownership
>> 
>> Hi Darla,
>> I didn't mean to suggest that people who have had financial difficulties
aren't fit to care for a dog. I think a credit check should only be one
piece in the application process. But especially for first-time handlers who
may not understand the possible expenses of food, vet care, etc., I think
the school should be responsible for making sure the applicant has a
realistic plan about how they will cover these expenses. Maybe this plan
includes some financial assistance from the school for medical care, but I
think the issue of ownership is a little more complicated in that case since
the school would probably want to be involved in health decisions for the
dog. So finances are an important issue that I think should at least be
discussed as one part of the application process.
>> 
>> Alysha
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Darla 
>> Rogers
>> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 7:38 PM
>> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] On Ownership
>> 
>> Dear Alicia,
>> 
>>   I agree with most of what you say, but people whose only income is
social security or disability may have little to no credit equals bad
credit--so a credit check would weed out some very deserving handlers.
>> 
>>   If it came to food here, my dogs would eat before I do, or I'd find a
good home for my retired guide, but for now, thank God, I can--and co
care--for both of them, and my retired guide has been great for my husband's
physical health, as he can walk her on the trail through our subdivision--no
vehicles allowed--in safety, so they both get exercise, and she doesn't feel
left out of life here.
>> Darla
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Alysha
>> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 5:56 PM
>> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] On Ownership
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> I haven't been on this list for a while, but I recently re-joined and
couldn't resist throwing in on this debate. :) I absolutely, 100%, think
that we should own our dogs after graduating from a school's training
program. I also absolutely, 100%, think that both criminal background checks
and credit checks should be part of the application process. After all, we
aren't just receiving a service from these programs. We're receiving a
living, breathing being. I can't imagine having to give my dog to a
stranger, but if for some horrible reason I did, I would want to know that
they were a good person with the financial stability to properly care for
him. Many dog rescue organizations require detailed home interviews,
criminal background checks, vet references, and proof of income before they
will allow someone to adopt one of their dogs. Why should we be held to
lesser standards? I would think that training programs should be just as
serious about where they place the highly trained dogs they have spent so
much money, time, and effort to prepare for guiding as the organizations
trying to place pet dogs. When I applied for my dog as a college student, I
remember the application focusing a great deal on my O&M skills without
touching on how I intended to pay for the dog's care without an income, how
I would keep a dog safe and happy in a dorm environment, my knowledge of
local veterinarians, etc. These are all questions I would ask if I was
running a training program. I think I did a pretty good job with my dog, but
there are others who may not have done so in that situation. I think
sometimes we get so caught up in defending our personal rights that we
forget the dog's "rights" have a huge part to play in the debate as well.
>> 
>> After I bring a dog home, I strongly feel I should be the sole person
making decisions regarding his health, life, and well-being with the
possible exception of a situation where the school is still financially
supporting the dog's vet care, food, etc. If I am proven to be incapable of
this or at all abusive, then the dog should be removed from my care just as
a pet dog can be removed from someone's home in those circumstances. If this
happened, I would hope no training program would trust another guide to my
care for quite some time if ever.
>> 
>> I've encountered many handlers over the years who are responsible and
wonderful with their dogs. But unfortunately, I've encountered just as many
who have no discipline, no control, and no common sense when it comes to the
appropriate way to care for their dog. The schools are using these examples
as excuses for their unwillingness to grant ownership, completely ignoring
the fact that the schools accepted these people to begin with. So I think
the best solution is stricter application criteria along with full
ownership.
>> 
>> Whatever you want to call people who attend training programs (clients,
consumers, etc.), the bottom line is that we are receiving something for
nothing. When an organization spends a great deal of time and money to train
a dog and then gives that dog away for free or for a small fee, that is the
definition of charity. Most of us do not have the time or expertise to train
a guide from puppyhood for ourselves, so we rely on the schools to provide
this service. The work my school did in training my guide is something I am
personally quite grateful for. But I do not feel that having gratitude
toward the school makes me a lesser human being or unworthy of expressing my
opinions (don't get me started on the whole guide dog = dignity line!). I'm
not convinced it is our right to own these dogs, but I do know that it is
mandatory for me personally. Luckily, there are several good programs across
the nation to choose from, and those of us who feel that ownership is a must
will continue to support the schools who share this philosophy. No one is
being forced to attend a specific school. So if this issue of ownership is
important to enough people, hopefully it will become apparent by the
programs that people are choosing to attend.
>> 
>> Anyway, sorry for writing a novel!
>> 
>> Alysha
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of sheila
>> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 5:23 PM
>> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] On Ownership
>> 
>> I am not in favor of background checks of any kind. It doesn't seem
reasonable that we need more regulations to prove that we are able to be
responsible citizens  especially in regards to receiving services intended
to be used to enhance our lives as blind persons when other consumers aren't
subjected to this stuffff.
>>> On 5/3/2014 5:27 AM, Marion Gwizdala wrote:
>>>   I would also assert that a criminal background check should not be the
only information used to arrive at a decision. The information gleaned
should be used in perspective and other mitigating or aggravating
information should be considered. I don't know if I am in favor of
background checks of any kind.
>>> 
>>> Fraternally yours,
>>> Marion
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Star 
>>> Gazer
>>> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 8:53 PM
>>> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
>>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] On Ownership
>>> 
>>> I was only suggesting that a criminal background check is not the 
>>> only check worth doing
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On May 2, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Cindy Ray <cindyray at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I'm kind of confused about criminal checks leading to financial ones.
Maybe it is because I didn't read Rebecca's message?
>>>> 
>>>> Cindy
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 2, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Daryl Marie <crazymusician at shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> But then how far would those financial checks go?  Even though Jenny
is my responsibility, I am married to someone who historically has had
credit problems.  Would a guide dog school checking in to my financial
background also breach his confidentiality and deny me the chance to train
with a dog because of it?  Does that seem fair?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Daryl and Jenny (who is a little on edge today)
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Star Gazer <pickrellrebecca at gmail.com>
>>>>> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
>>>>> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
>>>>> Sent: Fri, 02 May 2014 13:47:33 -0600 (MDT)
>>>>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] On Ownership
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Criminal background checks only "get" people who have found heir 
>>>>> way into the criminal justice system. Many many people commit 
>>>>> crimes and are not caught. And, an arrest means absolutely nothing.
>>>>> I wonder if the schools also do finantial background checks as 
>>>>> finantial stress can make people act in ways they normally wouldn't.
>>>>> Not to say that a person under finantial stress would or wouldn't 
>>>>> abuse a dog, just that criminal background checks aren't the only 
>>>>> background checks in town, and may not give a full picture.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Julie J.
>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 1:49 PM
>>>>> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog 
>>>>> Users
>>>>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] On Ownership
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do any of the programs do criminal background checks?  What about 
>>>>> the references?  Is a reference letter submitted or are these 
>>>>> people called and asked questions?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I feel that the programs should use whatever means necessary to 
>>>>> assess the suitability of a particular person to have a dog and 
>>>>> then let them have the dog.  If there is some concern that the 
>>>>> person won't properly take care of the dog, then that person shouldn't
get one.  Once the person has the dog,
>>>>> it's too late to prevent abuse or neglect.   Ownership or no ownership
isn't
>>>>> 
>>>>> going to change the condition of the dog.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The only way that ownership can influence how people act toward 
>>>>> their dog is if it's used as a threat.  If you don't do what we 
>>>>> say, then we'll repossess your dog.  the thing with this approach 
>>>>> is that it only works on folks who would have taken proper care of the
dog regardless of the ownership policy.
>>>>> People who do bad things are going to do bad things regardless of the
rules.
>>>>> 
>>>>> An ownership policy isn't going to prevent abuse, any more than
domestic
>>>>> abuse laws stop spouses from hitting each other.    People who don't
commit
>>>>> abuse don't do it because of a law, they are non abusers because 
>>>>> they feel it's the right way to act.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'd really like to know what the actual reason is for the various 
>>>>> schools ownership policies.  I've heard obesity, abuse, better 
>>>>> follow up, being able to place the dog after retirement, better 
>>>>> service and all other manner of nonsense.  It doesn't make any 
>>>>> sense to me.  How does the ownership policy affect the school's 
>>>>> ability to provide good service?  It smells like an excuse to me.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It would be interesting to see solid statistics comparing things 
>>>>> like obesity rates, abuse, time between a follow up request and 
>>>>> the provision of service and overall success rates between 
>>>>> programs that retain ownership and those that don't.  My hunch is 
>>>>> that there is no correlation between ownership and these items.  I 
>>>>> think the better indicator is the quality of the applicant 
>>>>> screening process, and the quality of the training at the program
>>>>> 
>>>>> Julie
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/pickrellrebecca
>>>>> %4
>>>>> 0
>>>>> gmail.c
>>>>> om
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/crazymusician%4
>>>>> 0s
>>>>> h
>>>>> aw.ca
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/cindyray%40gmail.
>>>>> c
>>>>> om
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/pickrellrebecca%
>>>> 40
>>>> g
>>>> mail.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/sleigland%40bresn
>>> an
>>> .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/alyshaj%40comcast.
>> 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/djrogers0628%40gma
>> il.com
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/alyshaj%40comcast.
>> 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/blinddog3%40charte
>> r.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/marsha.drenth%40gm
>> ail.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/programmer2188%40gm
> ail.com


_______________________________________________
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/ntorcolini%40wavecable.co
m





More information about the NAGDU mailing list