[nagdu] a Straw Argument: Freedom of choice?

Tue Aug 25 19:52:46 UTC 2015

I talked with many people
concerning the resolution.
One thing that kept coming out
was due process and how the
programs might be threatened
with a lawsuit.  Also those I
talked with were under the
idea that the schools having
ownership would help dogs not
be abused.  I know of a dog
that was not owned by his
owner and many things still
happened to that dog.  What
about that.  That dog should
have not been retired at 3
years old because of what it
had been through.  Then the
person went to another school
and got a dog and fled when
they were going to remove the
dog.  Finally, we do exercise
choice when going to a program
and many people don't think
about the idea of ownership.
Especially many of them that
are exempted from the current
ownership pollecies.  

Warmly,
Melissa R. Green and Pj
It is 'where we are' that
should make all the
difference, whether we believe
we belong there or not. 

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu
[mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.o
rg] On Behalf Of Marion
Gwizdala via nagdu
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015
11:55 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the
National Association of Guide
Dog Users'
Cc: Marion Gwizdala
Subject: [nagdu] a Straw
Argument: Freedom of choice?

Tina,

	I know you assert you
voted against the resolution
on the grounds of
freedom of choice. I am
confused, though, on what
choice of the consumer is
limited by affording
unconditional ownership upon
completion of training. Is
it the choice to be protected
from unwarranted interference
by the training
program? Is it the choice to
have the dog removed
arbitrarily and without
cause? Is it the choice to be
fearful that the program might
get a call from
someone who decides to
retaliate against and
individual by filing a false
report of abuse? Is it the
choice of being hesitant to
contact the training
program to seek assistance on
a behavioral or safety issue
because the
program may think the user is
incompetent and might take the
dog away from
them? Can you please explain
what freedom is impinged upon
by transferring
unconditional ownership upon
completion of training?
Asserting that
ownership denies guide dog
users freedom of choice seems
illogical to me! 

	I am of the opinion
that providing ownership upon
completion of
training does not compromise
this freedom of choice;
rather, it enhances it.
Let me give you a specific
example from the agreement I
have with the guide
dog training program from
which I received Sergeant. I
guess I am a bit at
fault for not reading the
agreement more closely;
however, within the
agreement, it states that I
will not let anyone else use
my guide dog. I
suppose writing this message
could compromise my
relationship with GDF, but
I am confident in my ability
to make choices about what is
best for my guide
dog and what are acceptable
practices. 

	As many of you know,
my wife, merry, is an
experienced guide dog
user who is now between guide
dogs. Last week she attended a
business
function in an area in which
she was unfamiliar. She asked
me if she could
use Sarge for the day and I
had no problem with that. Now,
if GDF wanted to,
I guess they could say I
breached their contract and
take my dog away from
me; however, I also feel that,
in the spirit of ownership, I
have the right
to allow my wife to work my
dog, if I wish. 

	Now, I suppose it
could be argued that the
resolution limits freedom
of choice by not giving
consumers the option of owning
their dog or not. If,
as the training programs
assert, there is no difference
in the way one is
treated or the services
offered during and after the
probationary period why
do the programs still have
such a paternalistic policy?
The answer came from
the representative of Leader
dogs for the Blind during our
panel discussion,
and explanation that, like the
assertion of freedom of
choice, is a
questionable explanation: The
donors want it! Really? Are
donors really
conditioning their support of
a training program on this
policy or is it an
explanation that sounds good
but has no merit? I contend it
is the latter.
In fact, I would venture to
guess that a vast majority of
donors do not even
know what Leader's ownership
policy is, let alone make
donation decisions
based upon it! 
	Asserting that the
resolution limits freedom of
choice is that it
sounds good on the face of it
but holds no water. Those
programs that
transfer ownership upon
completion of training offer
no fewer services than
those who retain such
ownership. Furthermore, those
programs that transfer
ownership after a probationary
period do not offer any more
limited services
to their consumers once
ownership is transferred than
they do prior to the
transfer. The major difference
is that one voluntarily signs
away their
rights to the dog with which
they will form an emotional
bond, an investment
that, in my opinion, is far
greater than any the program
has in the dog.
Rather than the resolution
limiting one's freedom of
choice, it actually
enhances that freedom by
allowing blind people to
choose what they feel is
best for them and their dogs,
rather than subjugating them
to the custodial
policies and practices of a
training program that asserts
they know what is
best. How is such an assertion
congruent with the philosophy
of
self-determination held by the
National Federation of the
blind?

Fraternally yours,
Marion Gwizdala

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu
[mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.o
rg] On Behalf Of Tina Thomas
via
nagdu
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015
11:28 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the
National Association of Guide
Dog Users'
Cc: Tina Thomas
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Cause for
Concern was Naming names

Hello Everyone- I want to
reiterate that I voted no on
the unconditional
ownership resolution because
of freedom of choice. As I've
said, there are
schools in this country that
offer unconditional ownership
and it is up to
the consumer  to decide what
program suits their needs the
best. Now, I'll
go back under my rock and work
on cagdu business. *smile*
Have an awesome
day everyone! Oh and for those
of us who are experiencing hot
weather, stay
cool and give you dogs water. 
Tina   

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu
[mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.o
rg] On Behalf Of Marion
Gwizdala
via nagdu
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015
7:46 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the
National Association of Guide
Dog Users'
Cc: Marion Gwizdala
Subject: [nagdu] Cause for
Concern was Naming names

Dear All,

	I think Susan's story
is less about what happened 40
years ago and
more about what could
potentially happen now if
guide dog training programs
do not grant unconditional
ownership upon completion of
training. When I sat
on Southeastern Guide dogs'
Graduate Advisory Council, I
was a lone voice
advocating for ownership.
Coincidentally, I was the only
officially
appointed consumer
representative. Though most
other members were affiliated
with the ACB, none of them sat
on the GAC as an official
representative of
that organization. Those
affiliated with the ACB,
especially one person,
said "We don't want to hear
NFB rhetoric in these
meetings!" Mike Sergeant
quickly intervened to say that
my voice would be heard and
asked some
questions about my stand. I
was eventually able to help
others understand
that my position was not a
reflection of the current
administration of SEGDI
but a desire to create sound,
long-term policies to protect
consumers from
interference should a less
responsive administration be
seated in the
future. During the following
meeting, the GAC proposed
unconditional
ownership upon completion of
training.

	Only a few short years
later, Mike Sergeant was
dismissed and
consumers voiced their
dissatisfaction with the
decision. We protested
outside the gates of SEGDI and
asked to be heard. SEGDI
called the Sheriff's
office to make us leave;
however, we were on public
property and could not
be forced to disband. We have
it on excellent authority that
SEGDI
videorecorded the protest and
created a blacklist of those
who expressed
their dissatisfaction. I often
wonder what might have
happened if we had not
been given ownership of our
dogs.

	Though many opposed
the resolution concerning
ownership, I believe
the opposition was less about
the terms of the resolution
and more about
loyalty to those programs that
do not grant such ownership.
Some argue that
the program must have a good
reason for their policies,
though the only
reason we have been given is
that their donors want it.
With all due
respect, I don't believe the
donors have really weighed in
on this nor that
they have the understanding to
make such a decision. Others
contend it is in
the best interest of the dog;
however, those programs
transferring ownership
do have processes available to
them to protect the dogs from
abuse or
neglect without reserving such
power and influence over their
consumers'
lives.

	I believe the
resolution will come up again
and, when it does, it
will pass. For the time,
though, there are more
important issues with which
NAGDU is focused. Also, we
will be more apt to make our
membership aware of
the instances in which
training programs insert
themselves without just
cause. I do believe, though,
there will always be those who
will assert
there must be a good reason
and defend the paternalistic
attitudes of the
training programs. 

	We would like the
programs to comply with our
requests for new
policies and will continue to
advocate for such policy
changes. We will also
continue to educate our
members about how such
policies are incongruent with
our philosophy and overcome
the objections raised. Lastly,
we will continue
to press those who have
publicly stated they are
willing to discuss these
policies but privately tell us
they have no interest in doing
so. Such was
the case when Christine
Benninger, Executive Director
of Guide Dogs for the
Blind stated during our 2014
meeting she would discuss this
with us. When I
spoke with her on the
telephone, she told me GDB had
no desire to discuss
this with us and no intention
to change their policy. Such
unprincipled
behavior demonstrates lack of
integrity and is cause for
concern.

Fraternally yours,
Marion Gwizdala

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu
[mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.o
rg] On Behalf Of Debby
Phillips
via nagdu
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015
8:44 AM
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the
National Association of Guide
Dog Users;
nagdu at nfbnet.org
Cc: Debby Phillips
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Naming
names

Just a thought about names.
If I went to a great
restaurant, but it was
forty years ago, I probably
wouldn't share the name,
because 1.  the
restaurant might not even be
there.  2.  If the restaurant
still exists, it
might not be the same great
place.  
So why would I share a bad
experience with an instructor
that I had forty
years ago? I admit that I have
done so, but hopefully not
publicly as in
email.  If I have, I
apologize.  It's not fair 
to that person.    Debby and
Nova

______________________________
_________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/list
info/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your
list options or get your
account info for nagdu:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/opti
ons/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%
40verizon.net

______________________________
_________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/list
info/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your
list options or get your
account info for nagdu:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/opti
ons/nagdu_nfbnet.org/judotina4
8kg%40gmail.com

______________________________
_________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/list
info/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your
list options or get your
account info for nagdu:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/opti
ons/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%
40verizon.net

______________________________
_________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/list
info/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your
list options or get your
account info for nagdu:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/opti
ons/nagdu_nfbnet.org/graduate5
6%40juno.com