[nagdu] On the subject of gifts

[Julie J.]

I'm so confused.  You wrote:
*I did vote against the resolution because it isn't a big issue to me
and won't determine where I go for a dog. I hope all of us will work
with our schools directly to change the ownership policy of our
school...  Hopefully, that will
change back to ownership upon completion of training in the future. I
plan to work with Leader Dog on this issue.*

So you say it's not a big issue and then go on to say you are working with 
Leader on this issue to change it back to ownership after graduation.  If it 
isn't important to you why are you working on it?  And why did you vote no 
and then go on to say you hope we will all work on this issue?  Isn't that 
what a resolution is supposed to do, get us all on the same page and working 
on the same issues? If you hope everyone will work on this issue, then a yes 
vote would have been one step closer to making that happen.  Is there a 
giant misunderstanding of what resolutions are?

It is clear that NAGDU has a lot of educating to do and I think we need to 
start right here.  I am very disappointed that the two resolutions were not 
discussed on this list.  I am disappointed that the NAGDU membership doesn't 
understand the issues.  Those who do understand are voting no because it 
isn't a big issue for them.  What happened to supporting the division?

There are a lot of blindness issues that I'm pretty indifferent to, money 
identification, accessible  school textbooks and the nuances of the Braille 
code.   They don't influence my life on a day to day basis and therefore 
they just don't get the same attention that something like guide dog 
ownership does.  I don't really see any issue with that.  We all have things 
we are more knowledgeable and passionate about.  The big difference is that 
when these topics came up, I didn't get in the way of those individuals 
advocating on these issues.

Julie
Courage to Dare: A Blind Woman's Quest to Train her Own Guide Dog is now 
available! Get the book here:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QXZSMOC
-----Original Message----- 
From: Marianne Denning via nagdu
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 7:38 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Cc: Marianne Denning
Subject: Re: [nagdu] On the subject of gifts

Michael, I am working with my fifth dog from Leader Dog.  I had
unconditional ownership through my 3rd dog.  Sadly, something happened
between my 3rd and 4th dogs so Leader Dog changed the policy.  Large
donors, like Lions Clubs, want to believe no one who receives a dog
would abuse it and that the school can insure that doesn't happen.
There is no way to insure that no dog is ever abused and the school
maintaining ownership doesn't insure it. But, as we all know, it is
the appearance of doing something that is important.  I don't think
the schools believe blind people will abuse a dog more than the
general population. I think NAGDU needs to work on changing the minds
of the general assembly so NAGDU has some work over the next year.

I did vote against the resolution because it isn't a big issue to me
and won't determine where I go for a dog. I hope all of us will work
with our schools directly to change the ownership policy of our
school.  Leader Dog had a policy of maintaining ownership for 2 years
and then we had to apply for ownership.  In 2013 this changed to 1
year and automatic ownership after that time.  Hopefully, that will
change back to ownership upon completion of training in the future. I
plan to work with Leader Dog on this issue.

On 7/12/15, Michael Hingson via nagdu <nagdu at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I thought I should more clarify my comments about guide dogs as gifts.
> Using
> dictionary definitions guide dogs are gifts on several levels. Of course
> donors give money to guide dog schools to provide dogs, or at least they 
> do
> in part. Guide dog schools attract many donors simply with the photos of
> "those wonderful and cuddly puppies" that they prominently display on 
> their
> web sites and in their mailings.
>
>
>
> Puppy raisers' gifts are of their time, talents, and skills to raise
> puppies
> and turn them into future guide dogs. There is no doubt that they give and
> give well.
>
>
>
> Staff while paid give a tremendous amount of their time and skills as 
> well.
> They also give their wisdom to students.
>
>
>
> Students also give and receive. Of course we receive the trained guide
> dogs.
> We give of our knowledge, wisdom, and expertise on blindness. Some schools
> appreciate our gifts while others do not demonstrate as much appreciation
> for the gifts of their students.
>
>
>
> My concern is that we take the gift concept too far nor in the wrong way.
> While I appreciate all the gifts that go into the making and providing of 
> a
> guide dog I do not believe it is necessary to feel so grateful to GDB that
> I
> should sacrifice my basic philosophy and principles. Former president 
> Jimmy
> Carter once said that "we must adjust to changing times while holding to
> unchanging principles". This is as true for guide dog schools as it is for
> anyone else. The basic tenants of a guide dog school include raising and
> training the best guide dogs possible. They also include providing those
> same guide dogs to qualified users who will treat the dogs well and use
> them
> to the best of their abilities.
>
>
>
> The very fact that we are having this discussion on our NAGDU list now
> shows
> how times are a changing, as it were. More and more consumers are 
> realizing
> that there is a basic disconnect between how most guide dog schools 
> operate
> and the basic philosophy of blind people. When I hear from someone 
> employed
> by a guide dog school who tells me that the school cannot give ownership 
> of
> its dogs to students or that there needs to be a waiting period simply
> because the school has a responsibility to its donors then I can only
> believe that the school has not done a good job of educating its donors or
> it has a basic distrust of the abilities and commitments of its graduates.
>
>
>
> When I hear from school staff that not providing immediate unconditional
> ownership to graduates is necessary in order to give all parties time to
> insure that the match works I again have been forced to conclude that 
> there
> really is a lack of confidence or a distrust on the part of the staff. 
> Even
> if the match does not work out during the first year or two of the life of
> the user/guide dog team the school could have a mechanism whereby the
> student can return the dog to the school for retraining should that be the
> appropriate way to go. The real way to accomplish the return of a dog to
> the
> school should involve a defined process during which the school and 
> student
> work together to determine whether or not the team match really didn't 
> work
> out. The crux of this process should be the working relationship between
> the
> school and student to address the issue.
>
>
>
> When I hear from consumers that their school came and took away their 
> guide
> dog without any notice or without giving reason for the repossession I
> cringe. No matter how valid the concern of the guide dog school there must
> be a process the school should follow to address the issue and that 
> process
> needs to include full disclosure and discussion with the consumer. Once
> schools graduate guide dog teams they should not be permitted to have 
> power
> over the consumers they serve. If a school believes there is a problem it
> cannot be permitted to act unilaterally, but it must adhere to policies 
> and
> procedures that protect the rights of the consumers they are supposed to
> serve.
>
>
>
> Most schools do not have a true "due process", or whatever you wish to 
> call
> it, through which all parties work fully together to address issues. There
> is no excuse for this. If guide dog schools really were confident in their
> consumer relationship choices then they should provide unconditional
> ownership and take all steps to treat their graduates as intelligent and
> mature individuals. In fact, today I have heard of several situations 
> where
> guide dog teams have graduated which should not have ever been allowed to
> go
> home. The burden should always be on the schools to produce the best 
> teams,
> teams that will work unless something unexpected or unanticipated happens
> to
> damage the working relationship. An advantage of providing unconditional
> ownership would, I think, be that schools will really do their best to not
> fill beds but graduate the best teams possible.
>
>
>
> I used earlier in another email thread a comparison between state provided
> equipment and the process of providing guide dogs. I believe even after
> seeing several responses on the NAGDU list that this example is apt. Even
> if
> the state can come and take away equipment there is a process by which the
> state may be called upon to defend its action. The guide dog schools do 
> not
> generally provide such a mechanism. Private or not guide dog schools 
> should
> not be permitted to operate with impunity. USC and Notre Dame as private
> colleges have to follow many of the same rules as UCLA, a state funded
> institution. Guide dog schools also should evolve and follow rules that
> protect consumers and help educate their donors about how and why they
> should operate in such a manner should the issue come up. I suspect that 
> in
> reality most donors might negatively react if they truly discovered the
> poor
> attitudes that many guide dog schools display toward the consumers they
> "serve".
>
>
>
> It is time for guide dog schools to recognize the validity of the
> philosophy
> of blind people that we should be valued as highly as the rest of the
> population. It is no longer reasonable for guide dog schools to operate
> under the assumption that we cannot take full responsibility for our lives
> and that these same schools must "protect" their investment. If guide dog
> schools are producing less than desired teams and if some higher than
> expected percentage of guide dogs are being returned or taken back by the
> schools then these schools should not put the burden on the users, but
> rather the burden should go to the schools that should reevaluate their
> training and admissions procedures.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Hingson
>
>
>
> The Michael Hingson Group, INC.
>
> "Speaking with Vision"
>
> Michael Hingson, President
>
> (415) 827-4084
>
> info at michaelhingson.com
>
> Please help us empower blind people and their families with your support 
> at
> www.gofundme.com/michaelhingson
>
> To order Michael Hingson's new book, Running With Roselle, and check on
> Michael Hingson's speaking availability for your next event please visit:
>
> www.michaelhingson.com
>
>
>
> To purchase your own portrait of Roselle painted by the world's foremost
> animal artist, Ron Burns, please visit  <http://www.ronburns.com/roselle>
> http://www.ronburns.com/roselle
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/marianne%40denningweb.com
>


-- 
Marianne Denning, TVI, MA
Teacher of students who are blind or visually impaired
(513) 607-6053

_______________________________________________
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/julielj%40neb.rr.com


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2250 / Virus Database: 4365/9711 - Release Date: 07/12/15