[nagdu] [NAGDU] Why Not Ownership?
Cindy Ray
cindyray at gmail.com
Mon May 5 22:26:43 UTC 2014
I have had two dogs that I returned to TSE after less than a year when our work together did not succeed. I did this because I thought there was some chance that someone else could be served well by one, and the other I couldn’t have kept. I did not think she could be a successful guide. Also, TSE does transfer the amount paid when you go to the school to the next dog. I believe I could have paid another such feed ($50 or $150, depending if it was first or subsequent) and given the dog to someone. At least one of them did have to be retired anyway. The third one I sent back after two years because I believed we were mismatched.I did think that dog might be a benefit to someone with a slightly different lifestyle from mine, so I returned him. I feel good to know that I would not have needed to do this if I found him a home where he wouldd be loved, but he was at an age then that would have given him a working life. I am glad to have had the opportunity to make the decision.
Cindy
On May 5, 2014, at 5:01 PM, Michael Hingson <mike at michaelhingson.com> wrote:
> Hi Ginger,
>
> This is not Marion, but here I go anyway.
>
> You say, "I can think of two advantages.
>
> One advantage may be that by withholding ownership for the first year, the
> school may offer its puppy raisers "first refusal" to adopt should it
> happen that, after going out with a blind person for a time, the dog they
> raised cannot cut it as a guide dog. This may be an important recruitment
> tool for the school to interest and retain puppy raisers. As an aside, this
> brings up the question as to whether or not it's reasonable for the blind
> person to make the decision about the dog's future when both the puppy
> raiser and school have invested more time and resources into the dog than
> the blind person. In other words, is it reasonable for the blind person who
> has spent less than a year with the dog to have final say over the dog's
> future? "
> [Mike Hingson] Absolutely. The graduate/user has invested his or her
> entire well being in the dog, something neither the raiser nor the school
> has done. The school has all the time in the world to screen applicants and
> when accepting a student/consumer/client the school agrees to provide that
> person with a guide. The puppy raiser has done their job and the school has
> done its job. If the school truly has faith in the graduate then providing
> the dog and ownership makes a statement to the world that the school has
> confidence in its decision.
>
> The school can put processes in place to allow students to return guides if
> the match does not work. However, if the school has real confidence in its
> own methodologies then providing ownership should be a no-brainer.
>
> If puppy raiser recruitment is an issue then the school is not doing a great
> job of proper recruiting. Also, the school is not helping to raise the
> image of blind people in the eyes of those same puppy raisers. This is all
> about providing guide dogs to students first and foremost. Every school
> should work more to show that that same school really believes first and
> foremost in blind people. Not providing ownership jeopardizing puppy raiser
> recruitment or donor acquisition is a shabby and inappropriate excuse which
> has no validity if schools truly believe in us as clients.
>
> "The second advantage is that if the dog cannot cut it as a guide dog within
> the first year, the school can freely take the dog back and assess the dog's
> suitability to be placed with another individual. My husband was
> successfully matched with a dog that had already gone out with another blind
> individual for just under a year. The previous owner graciously transferred
> ownership of the dog back to the school so it could be placed with someone
> else. There were family members who wanted the dog as a pet but fortunately
> the graduate recognized the huge investment in the dog and chose to give it
> back to the school despite having ownership. This is not always the case so
> maintaining ownership of the dog would allow a school to have more control
> over its investment."
> [Mike Hingson] What happened with Jim is the perfect example. You are
> right in that the same thing may not happen every time, but as you point out
> what the school does is make a significant investment all around. So does
> every person who comes to each school to get a guide dog. Part of the
> schools' investment should be in demonstrating real confidence in their
> decision to provide each guide dog. That confidence should include granting
> true ownership.
>
> Either schools believe in blind people or they do not. What you describing
> is "hedging a bet", but thank you very much, not at my expense please. TSE
> has demonstrated its faith in blind people. Most other schools have not
> made such a real statement. The school that began this whole discussion is
> a perfect example of the problem.
>
> If the schools do a good job of training students including showing the
> value of returning young guides back when there is a problem, then the
> schools should prove it by showing confidence in their decisions and
> operations. When schools do not provide full immediate ownership to their
> graduates my belief is that they are really saying that they do not have
> complete confidence and faith in me, and this is wrong by any standard.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Michael Hingson
>
> Best,
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ginger Kutsch
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 8:19 AM
> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Why Not Ownership?
>
> Marion,
>
> You asked:
>
> "...what advantage the policy of withholding transfer ownership of a guide
> dog upon completion of training affords either party that is not afforded by
> law and its due process."
>
> I can think of two advantages.
>
> One advantage may be that by withholding ownership for the first year, the
> school may offer its puppy raisers "first refusal" to adopt should it
> happen that, after going out with a blind person for a time, the dog they
> raised cannot cut it as a guide dog. This may be an important recruitment
> tool for the school to interest and retain puppy raisers. As an aside, this
> brings up the question as to whether or not it's reasonable for the blind
> person to make the decision about the dog's future when both the puppy
> raiser and school have invested more time and resources into the dog than
> the blind person. In other words, is it reasonable for the blind person who
> has spent less than a year with the dog to have final say over the dog's
> future?
>
> The second advantage is that if the dog cannot cut it as a guide dog within
> the first year, the school can freely take the dog back and assess the dog's
> suitability to be placed with another individual. My husband was
> successfully matched with a dog that had already gone out with another blind
> individual for just under a year. The previous owner graciously transferred
> ownership of the dog back to the school so it could be placed with someone
> else. There were family members who wanted the dog as a pet but fortunately
> the graduate recognized the huge investment in the dog and chose to give it
> back to the school despite having ownership. This is not always the case so
> maintaining ownership of the dog would allow a school to have more control
> over its investment.
>
> Best,
> Ginger
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Marion Gwizdala
> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 6:48 AM
> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
> Subject: [nagdu] Why Not Ownership?
>
> Craig,
> As long as we, the blind, see ourselves as recipients or, in a more
> accurate term, beneficiaries, we will see ourselves as powerless, subject to
> the whim of our benefactors. This attitude will lead us to believe that
> those who were so gracious as to give us this wonderful dog, all this
> outstanding training, room & board for 26 days, all the follow-up training
> and advice, and any other value-aded benefits, have the right to treat us in
> a way that is less than dignified. Our benefactors will believe they can
> interfere in our lives, require us to submit our dog's medical records,
> require we feed the dog the food they tell us, call us and demand to see our
> dog in 10 minutes or less, and - should we resist, threaten to repossess our
> dog because they have the right to do so at their sole and absolute
> discretion.
>
> Now, this may sound as if I am being irrational by engaging in
> exaggeration; however, there are training programs who currently hold these
> attitudes and practices. I will admit that GDB seems to treat their
> consumers with dignity and fairness. The question still remains, though,
> "Why not ownership?" The simple answer is they want the power. Again, the
> primary question is "Why?" Are there not other ways in which they can
> deliver services and retain the right, through third party objective
> evidence and authority of law to ensure that the dog and the training
> programs' rights are protected? The answer is rhetorical, as such measures
> are in place!
>
> While on the subject of consumer vs. beneficiary, we must keep in
> mind that the training programs use the blind to solicit funds on our
> behalf. Each year these programs raise hundreds of millions of dollars
> collectively to provide services to us. In doing so, they tell their donors
> they give us this gift of these wonderful dogs, this awesome training, and,
> in many cases, they even assert they give us dignity! The whole concept of
> conferring dignity could take several pages, so let me just address the
> "giving" concept, since the question of whether or not a guide dog confers
> dignity is irrelevant to the discussion of ownership at hand.
>
> When property is exchanged, whether it is purchased or given as a
> gift, the ownership rights to the property are transferred to the recipient.
> Once given, the giver has no claim upon the property, unless the property
> were given in exchange for a promise of a future contractual obligation.
> Only if the future contractual obligation is breached does the giver have a
> right to repossess the property. The most common form of property given in
> consideration of a future contractual obligation is the giving of an
> engagement ring accepted in exchange for the promise to enter into the
> contract of marriage. . Other such exchanges of property given in advance of
> the fulfillment of a future obligation are signing bonuses and financing
> agreements. If one does not begin working or does not pay the finance
> company, the property exchanged prior to the breach of the contract must be
> returned.
>
> Either guide dog ttraining programs believe blind people are capable
> of caring for their dogs or they do not. If they do, they transfer ownership
> upon completion of training. If they do not, they require the blind person
> to prove the ability to do so during a probationary period or whatever
> euphemism they employ to limit the dignity they assert they give us.
> Apparently, we must prove we are worthy of the dignity they will bestow upon
> us so graciously!
>
> The issue of ownership is not, as one writer seemed to imply, such a
> minor issue it does not deserve the attention we give it. In fact, it is
> the most important issue we bring forward as it reflects the fundamental
> belief of the National Federation of the Blind - the real problem of
> blindness is not the blindness but the stereotypes that influence the way in
> which society views us. The ownership issue is, therefore, a reflection of
> the perspective of the training program and this perspective will guide
> every policy, practice, and procedure of that program. If we are first-class
> citizens who are capable of making our way in the world without the
> paternalistic, custodial care of others; if we have the ability to bear and
> raise our children; if we have the capacity to enter into a contractual
> agreement; if we have all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, wy
> do we need to prove ourselves to a paternalistic training program?
>
> No one has given me the answer to the basic question of what
> advantage does withholding transfer ownership to the blind person afford
> either party that is not provided for by law. The answer the correct answer
> and the one the training programs will not give us is that such a practice
> gives them the right to interfere in our lives without justification, cause,
> or due process. The primary advantage ownership offers is the right to due
> process and, therefore, the freedom from illegal interference. If guide dog
> training programs would not, as they assert, repossess a dog without cause,
> why are they unwilling to afford us the remedies of law? I believe there is
> no other answer than the one I have tendered.
>
> I know this stand will garner a counterpoint discussion. In this
> discussion, I would like to explore the answer to the fundamental question I
> have posed. So, to be clear, I would like to know what advantage the policy
> of withholding transfer ownership of a guide dog upon completion of training
> affords either party that is not afforded by law and its due process. Simply
> restating the arguments that we have the right to go elsewhere if we do not
> like the policy or that the training program is giving us this wonderful dog
> at no cost is not, in my mind, a sufficient response. Ownership is a legal
> agreement and, if the discussion does not address the question, it is not
> relevant. I look forward to reading replies!
>
> Fraternally yours,
> Marion Gwizdala
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Craig Heaps
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 4:27 PM
> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] On Ownership
>
> In fact, GDB did give me something for nothing in a very significant sense.
> Yes, I showed up prepared with my life experience, need for a vision aid,
> and O&M skills. But GDB did not charge me a dime for any of their services
> or for Chase, himself. He came with training, a harness, a starter supply
> of food, poop bags, heartworm medicine, and flea medicine. He came with the
> so far fulfilled promise of ongoing support, both by phone and in person.
>
> None of that was predicated on my ownership of Chase.
>
> To some extent, how GDB made that possible is irrelevant to me. Whether
> they used an extraordinary endowment or ongoing contributions, the result
> was the same for me. I see myself much more as a recipient than a consumer.
>
> Had I paid for GDB's services, I would consider myself a consumer. But I
> didn't. They might call me a client. But the nomenclature does not change
> the substance of my relationship with them. I am grateful for what they
> gave me at no charge.
>
> I have never felt treated as a second class citizen. In fact, just the
> opposite. GDB was solicitous of my every need during my training and
> beyond. At every step, they treated me as if I were traveling first class
> and paid first class rates. As I read through the posts on this thread, I'm
> coming to realize much of it has to do with perception. As Eleanor
> Roosevelt said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." I
> am not a victim. No one has victimized me by withholding ownership of my
> guide. In fact, they have given me an enormous gift, one for which I am
> extremely grateful.
>
> Craig
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marion Gwizdala" <blind411 at verizon.net>
> To: "'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'"
> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] On Ownership
>
>
>> Craig, One paradigm I think we need to shift is that the training
>> program is giving us something for nothing. Training programs solicit
>> funds from the general public as 501(c)(3) corporations. As such, they
>> are accountable to the public. Donors contribute to training programs
>> because this is a way they can better the lives of those they wish to
>> help, since they have no direct ability to do so otherwise. In short,
>> the training programs receive contributions from the public with the
>> expressed intention of using those funds to enhance our lives. If it
>> were not for the blind and their assertions they are helping us, where
>> would the 6-figure salaries of the CEOs and the less significant
>> salaries of the staff come from?
>>
>> As it true with any economy except that of a guide dog training
>> program and some other disabvility services, consumers satisfaction is
>> the driving force. Until we see ourselves as consumers with all the
>> power that term conveys, we will continue to be treated as
>> second-class
> citizens.
>>
>> Fraternally yours,
>> Marion Gwizdala
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Craig Heaps
>> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:24 PM
>> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] On Ownership
>>
>> Michael:
>>
>> I understand the points you're making, and certainly don't think it's
>> simply one way or the other.
>>
>> However, when the school accepted me, I also accpted the school. I
>> went to GDB knowing the ownership policy. I took all the things they
>> gave me for free, knowing it came with the stiuplation that I would
>> not own the dog for at least a year, if ever.
>>
>> I don't know of another situation other than service dogs where
>> someone hands over to you a highly trained, living, breathing being
>> for your benefit at no charge. Then regularly comes to provide
>> extended instruction and guidance at my home or work place. I find it
>> hard to complain about the conditions they put on that.
>>
>> I believe the schools have every right to withhold ownership of the
>> dogs for however long they choose. I do not expect them to be
>> infallible in their screening or training. And if they feel they need
>> to retain ownership for
>
>> a
>> time as a check on thier own fallibility, I'm ok with that.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm less sensitive to perceived paternalism. My sense of
>> gratitude might have overwhelmed it.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Hingson" <info at michaelhingson.com>
>> To: "'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'"
>> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:09 AM
>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] On Ownership
>>
>>
>>> Craig,
>>>
>>> I hear you, but the school did accept you and you accepted the school
>>> and its techniques. You take a chance that all the processes and
>>> procedures of the school will work for you. There is no guarantee in
>>> life. We should be judged by the same criteria as others.
>>>
>>> The Leader Dog example is as graphic as it gets. The claim is, they
>>> said, that they changed their policy simply because school management
>>> said it saw an increase in dog obesity. So why does such an increase
>>> justify how they treat dog ownership by the handler? The fact is
>>> that it does not.
>>>
>>> The schools always have recourse to remove a mistreated dog from an
>>> environment. Animal control, the courts, and the law should apply
>>> here just as in any other case. Why should schools have an advantage
>>> and an extra opportunity to intimidate? Schools have misused a lack
>>> of ownership by handlers to intimidate them make no mistake.
>>>
>>> No, not granting immediate ownership is paternalistic. If the
>>> schools train properly, if they do a thorough job of assessing the
>>> incoming student and later the team performance during training, and
>>> if the school personnel is confident in its own abilities to evaluate
>>> and if the staff has faith in blind people then granting ownership
>>> immediately is a no brainer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael Hingson
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Craig
>>> Heaps
>>> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 08:49 AM
>>> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
>>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] On Ownership
>>>
>>> I confess I see it differently. The guide dogs schools have invested
>>> tens of thousands of dollars into breeding and training the dogs. I
>>> don't know how the others work, but GDB provided free room and board
>>> for two weeks to me, trained me for free, and provided my dog for
>>> free for my use when I graduated. So, while I have an obviours stake
>>> in the dog and my relationship with him (or her), the school has an
>>> incredible responsibility for the dog.
>>>
>>> They accepted me on the basis of an applicaton and a home interview.
>>> While
>>> I'm sure they did their due diligence, there's no way they could know
>>> my ultimate success or failure wiht a dog in that process plus the
>>> two weeks I spent with them for training. If I should prove to be
>>> any one of a number of things -- incompetent, negligent, cruel,
>>> psychotic, neurotic, probiotic (sorry, I got caught up in the rythm
>>> of the thing) -- what recourse would they have to rescue the dog from
>>> me?
>>>
>>> GDB allows me to apply for owership after a year. I'm a couple
>>> months away from that anniversary and I don't know what I'll do. It
>>> really makes no difference to me. I'm holding Chase's harness handle
>>> every day. I buy his food and feed him. I buy the plastic bags and
>>> pick up after him. He sleeps next to my bed. In real, practical
>>> terms, I don't see what difference it makes.
>>>
>>> I tend to think of it as responsible rather than paternalistic on the
>>> part of the school.
>>>
>>> Craig and Chase (who technically belongs to Guide Dogs for the Blind)
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Marion Gwizdala" <blind411 at verizon.net>
>>> To: "'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'"
>>> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 6:31 AM
>>> Subject: [nagdu] On Ownership
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is my opinion that the failure to grant ownership upon completion
>>>> of training is founded in the underlying belief that blind people
>>>> are incapable of caring for a dog and must prove their ability to do
>>>> so before they are afforded this fundamental right! No matter how it
>>>> is couched, such a policy is paternalistic!
>>>>
>>>> Fraternally yours,
>>>> Marion Gwizdala
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Cindy Ray
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 9:30 PM
>>>> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
>>>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Attention: New Leader Dog Ownership Policy
>>>>
>>>> Well, it does have to do with ownership policy. The implemented it
>>>> because guide dogs were obese; they lowered it because blind
>>>> graduates were starting to do better because the obesity rate is
>>>> down. Do you think the obesity rate in dogs should have anything to
>>>> do with ownership? What I was saying is, if you have to wait one
>>>> minute for that reason, then it seems you are being treated as if
>>>> you are not capable of good judgment. My point was that people with
>>>> pets don't have to wait a year or two to see if their dogs are going
>>>> to be obese or not.
>>>>
>>>> Cindy
>>>>
>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 7:37 PM, Nicole Torcolini
>>>> <ntorcolini at wavecable.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, I don't think that ownership is the way to solve the problem,
>>>>> but, if you looked at the average life expectancy of the breeds
>>>>> that are used as guide/service dogs for pet versus service/guide
>>>>> dog, you would probably find that, between a higher level of
>>>>> physical activity, more attention to weight, and more attention to
>>>>> health in general, service/guide dogs live longer than pets. And
>>>>> yes, being obese is bad for the health of a dog. Obesity is a
>>>>> slightly different problem in dogs than in humans. Humans know that
>>>>> we are going to get our next meal. Even though dogs have been
>>>>> domesticated for a long time, they still go on the instinct that
>>>>> they don't know when their next meal will be and therefore eat
>>>>> anything you put in front of them to the point of even making
>>>>> themselves sick. But, back to my original point, no,
>>>> this is not something that has anything to do with an ownership policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Cindy
>>>>> Ray
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 5:23 PM
>>>>> To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
>>>>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Attention: New Leader Dog Ownership Policy
>>>>>
>>>>> Think about it. How many pet dogs are obese? You must know that
>>>>> lots of them are because people over feed the dogs-table scraps,
>>>>> ice cream, whipped cream, whatever. So I ask you, how many pet dogs
>>>>> are
> obese?
>>>>> Probably they suffer the same problem as people. Many of us are
>>>>> over fed,
>>>> too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cindy
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 7:12 PM, Nicole Torcolini
>>>>> <ntorcolini at wavecable.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't quite understand what you meant. Are you saying that a lot
>>>>>> of pet dogs are obese or not many are obese?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nicole
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Cindy
>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:16 PM
>>>>>> To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: Attention: New Leader Dog Ownership
>>>>>> Policy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this is laughable. How many pet dogs are obese? Isn't it
>>>>>> as unhealthy for them? Their owners aren't required to wait two
>>>>>> years before applying for ownership of the dog.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cindy Lou
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Marion Gwizdala
>>>>>> <blind411 at verizon.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>> I would like to comment on this message as president of the
>>>>>>> National
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Association of Guide Dog Users. As this message states, Leader
>>>>>>> Dogs for the Blind changed its ownership policy around April of
>>>>>>> 2007. In July of that year, I presided at my first NAGDU annual
>>>>>>> meeting as Vice President of the organization. During our
>>>>>>> meetings, Leader was provided an opportunity to share an update
>>>>>>> with our membership, as has been our custom for quite some time.
>>>>>>> One of the pieces of information Leader failed to mention was
>>>>>>> their change in ownership policy. In August of 2007, I called
>>>>>>> Leader and spoke with Rod Haneline about this apparent oversight.
>>>>>>> At that time, Mr. Haneline advised me that the change in
>>>>>>> ownership policy was in response to the negative attention the
>>>>>>> case of Craig Miller who kicked his Leader Dog, Inky to death in
>>>>>>> a drunken rage had garnered. There are a number of challenges to
>>>>>>> this explanation. One major challenge is that, at the time of the
>>>>>>> incident, Mr. Miller had had his dog for more than the two years
>>>>>>> the new ownership policy provided for. The other major challenge
>>>>>>> is that there is no way to predict such behavior and no
>>>>>>> restriction of ownership would
>>>>>> have made a difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> During last year's meeting, the question about their ownership
>>>>>> policy
>>>>>>> was posed to Leader again and this was when the issue of obesity
>>>>>>> was brought up. Though this sound like a reasonable explanation,
>>>>>>> no objective evidence that an obesity problem exists has ever
>>>>>>> been offered. Now the policy has been changed to one year because
>>>>>>> the obesity rates have gone down. Still, no objective evidence
>>>>>>> has been offered that there is a problem, in spite of the
>>>>>>> assertion that the rates are lower. Though I would like to
>>>>>>> believe those who tender such an argument have evidence to
>>>>>>> support their argument, as a professional who relies upon
>>>>>>> research to guide my practice,I am trained to be skeptical of
>>>>>>> unsupported claims. As of yet, I have seen no evidence of an
>>>>>>> obesity problem among guide dogs. If there was a problem and now
>>>>>>> the problem is less, let us see the pre- post-study evidence!
>>>>>>> While we are at it, let's also see a correlative study of those
>>>>>>> programs who transfer ownership and those who do not so we can
>>>>>>> ascertain if there is a difference between the two groups. Here
>>>>>>> is an interesting statistic I would like to share with you to
>>>>>>> drive home the point: 87% of all statistics are made up on the
>>>>>>> spot! Of course, that's a cynical
>>>>>> statement, but I think you get the point!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fraternally yours,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marion Gwizdala, President
>>>>>>> National Association of Guide Dog Users Inc.
>>>>>>> National Federation of the Blind
>>>>>>> (813) 626-2789
>>>>>>> (888) 624-3841 (Hotline)
>>>>>>> President at nagdu.org
>>>>>>> http://www.nagdu.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> High expectations create unlimited potential for the blind!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>> William Vandervest
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:56 AM
>>>>>>> To: the National Association of Guide Dog Users
>>>>>>> Subject: [nagdu] Fw: Attention: New Leader Dog Ownership Policy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are none so blind as those who will not see
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> William and LD Lynard
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: Leader Dogs for the Blind
>>>>>>> To: timelord09 at att.net
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:31 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: Attention: New Leader Dog Ownership Policy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Graduate,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leader Dogs for the Blind is announcing that effective
>>>>>>> immediately we are reducing our transfer of ownership policy from
>>>>>>> two years to one year
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> our guide dog clients (with the exception of clients from Spain
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Brazil,
>>>>>>> who follow their local organization's procedures).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The previous policy that required clients to apply for
>>>>>>> ownership
>>>>>> after
>>>>>>> working with their dog for two years was put in place in 2007 to
>>>>>>> address
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> growing number of working Leader Dogs who were overweight or obese.
>>>>>>> "The reason for the change is that over the past seven years,
>>>>>>> this problem has diminished as our clients have become more
>>>>>>> proactive at regulating their dogs' weight," said Will Henry,
>>>>>>> Leader Dog director of
>>>>> client services.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The new policy grants automatic ownership, without the need to
>>>>>>> apply, to clients one year after their graduation date if they
>>>>>>> are in good
>>>>>> standing
>>>>>>> (not on probation, and with no complaints on file).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Current clients (in good standing) who have had their Leader
>>>>>>> Dog longer than one year will receive automatic ownership as of
>>>>>>> May 1, 2014.
>>>>>>> Clients (in good standing) who received their Leader Dog after
>>>>>>> May 1,
>>>>>>> 2013 will receive automatic ownership one year after their
>>>>>>> graduation
>>>>> date.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you have questions about the ownership of your Leader Dog,
>>>>>>> please contact your client services coordinator at 888-777-5332.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>> Leader Dogs for the Blind
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you have shared your email
>>>>>>> address with Leader Dogs for the Blind. To ensure that you
>>>>>>> continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book
>>>>>>> or safe list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your email preferences | Review our Privacy
>>>>>>> Policy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leader Dogs for the Blind, 1039 S. Rochester Rd., Rochester
>>>>>>> Hills, MI
>>>>>> 48307
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Forward email
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This email was sent to timelord09 at att.net by
>>>>>>> webmaster at leaderdog.org |
>>>>>>> Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with
>>>>>>> SafeUnsubscribeT | Privacy Policy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leader Dogs for the Blind | 1039 S. Rochester Rd. |
>>>>>>> Rochester Hills | MI | 48309
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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%40ver
>>>>>>> izo
>>>>>>> n
>>>>>>> .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/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/ntorcolini%40wa
>>>>>> vec
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> ble.co
>>>>>> m
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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%40gmai
>>>>>> l.c
>>>>>> o
>>>>>> m
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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%40wav
>>>>> eca
>>>>> ble.co
>>>>> m
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>> .co
>>>>> m
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/craig.heaps%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/info%40michaelhingson.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/craig.heaps%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/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/craig.heaps%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/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/gingerkutsch%40yahoo.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/info%40michaelhingson.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/cindyray%40gmail.com
More information about the NAGDU
mailing list