[NAGDU] New GDB contract

[David]

I'm not sure how they could enforce that agreement if challenged, 
either, Jenine.  In the first place, it sounds an awful lot like a 
contract of adhesion if the handler is required to sign after training.  
Secondly, the agreement is self-contradictory.   How can you have 
ownership and also be subject to losing ownership by violating their 
rules.   In reality, I think it is no more than a cudgel to beat the 
unsophisticated into compliance, or unsophisticated officials into 
removing the dog without due process, or using the power of the purse 
(legal fees) to take away someone's guide dog.  Anyway, the whole 
approach is paternalist, disrespectful of an entire group of people 
based on their disability, and demeaning.  It is very reminiscent of the 
not-too-distant past when social services, welfare agencies, and 
charities could remove children from parents who had physical 
limitations with virtually no due process at all.

*David in Clearwater, FL*
*david at bakerinet.com

*