Category: Animal House
I have had a few incounters of businesses asking me if my dog was a service animal and once even to prove it. I have had someone tell me how they had a shopper come in recently with a dog they thought wasn't a real service animal. They said they didn't know how to handle this situations and did nothing about the dog barking in the store and jumping up on I guess its owner...
I am seeing lots of things with this topic lately and wanted to know what your thoughts were or what you have gone threw.
Here is an artical I found that might be interesting to some. I thought is was well written.
http://anewscafe.com/2009/11/24/carla-jackson-service-dog-fraud-quest-for-the-vest/
Interesting article! I honestly think that it is shameful for those who simply want to take their dogs with them all the time to get a vest and put it on... it makes all of us with legitimate service animals look bad. My guide dog is by no means perfect, but she has good good manners, and if I scold her, it is more about her not being focused than it is about her making a nuisance of herself in front of someone else.
I did a little bit of digging in Canadian news, and located the below news link regarding a PTSD service dog, and would love others' opinions on this as well - is this dog a legitimate service dog? Is she being discriminated against because of her PTSD or because of her dog?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/job-hunting-ex-soldier-says-hirers-balk-at-ptsd-service-dog-1.2439050
Thoughts?
My most recent x had a little chihuahua that she claimed was a service dog. What service the dog had been trained to provide I don't know, but she used to take her everywhere and she could get quite nasty when called out on it. This was the same girl who also thought non owner trained guide dogs weren't reliable and would turn on you at the slightest provocation. So she wanted to train one of her other Chihuahuas to guide me. Talk about crazy. That dog might have been a certified companion animal but not a service animal. I'm pretty sure there is a legal difference.
companion animals aren't allowed everywhere the way service animals are. Your ex would've driven me crazy had I encountered her somewhere. That's the kind of person that deserves a good ol' wake-up slap on the face, both to give them a reality check and to shut them up, if only for a second. I hate when people spew ignorance for their own flawed good.
This is actually funny that I posted this right before I left for my trip. I went to visit some family for Thanks Giving and on the trip down, I was at the train station waiting for my next train when a guy came up and kept asking me how he would go about making his girlfriends GSD in to a service animal.
He started out talking about how hard it was for them to get about public transportation with her dog and I told him the guide dogs are allowed to go any place you go... He then told me it was just a pet so I replied that i would not help him out with making his pet in to an elegal service animal. He then whent on about how he had a friend in California who had a pet that he claimed to be a service animal but he didn't know what his disibility was because he didn't see anything wrong with him. I told him that not all issues are visible. He kept going on and on then after a while he finally got the point and left but he kept coming back to ask me how someone would go about making it happen. He had also said that store owners aren't allow to ask you what the dog is for and such... He had some of his information right but not all ofit. I just told him i wasn't interested in the topic and left it at that. I don't want to help someone make my life harder one day. LOL.
interesting topic and once I had a guide dog and I use to go to the store that was down the road from where I was living at the time and my dog and i went to the store, we walk in and straight away the lady goes "excuse me but he is not allowed in here", I then said "yes he is as he is a guide dog" but still she would not believe me even with him having his harness on so we left but returned the next day and again I was told to leave my dog outside so to cause no further trouble I left him outside.
I informed my sister of the problem I was having so once again we went down to the store and we all walk in and what do you know yet again "your dog is not allowed in here" we both reply "yes he is" the lady did not believe us and told us she was going to call the police and we told her she could but weren't worried about getting in trouble because we were in the right and she was in the wrong for what she was doing and I even had a identification card that had the rules on it and what would occur if refusal for a dog to enter the premises and after that there was no more trouble had, smiles.
Why would you leave the dog outside, even if someone asks you to do so. That's irresponsible.
Wasn't it said "To cause no further trouble?" What if at that moment she needed something and there weren't any other stores around? Didn't this user also state that she and her sister went together the next day and proved the store owner wrong? Maybe the dog was left to stay down till she came out, and I doubt like hell that the dog was left outside an entire day or for hours on end. I personally wouldn't leave my dog outside, but no one really knows the situation enough. I've encountered several people with dogs who are said to be service animals. One of my fears, as a future guide user, is that I walk in at the market, and there's another dog that's not a service animal, and it misbehaves or something twards my dog? Or the other way around. I guess it happens, though. In anything. People have fake ID's, fake names, drive without licenses, so many things that are illegal, and it'll continue to be a constant battle for all of us. Some people do such things out of need, I don't know, It's really not my place to judge. It is up to me, however, to follow the rules acordingly.
while I'm not a guide dog user, I must say that I don't care what the situation is, leaving one's dog outside, unattended, is never okay. what about telling the store owner that she'd lose business, and making a big stink that way, instead of succumbing to her wishes that were based out of ignorance, to begin with?
Yeah. If I ever had a legitimate service dog no way in hell would I let a store employee make me leave them outside, particularly in view of the fact that here in the Magic Valley area we've been having a rash of animal thefts recently. I also talked to a girl who had a guide dog and was almost denied entry into a Chinese restaurant because of her dog.
I sure as hell wouldn't do it either. No way I wouldn't!, I was never suggesting that. I'm responsible for the dog.
Exactly. That's why I get angry whenI hear stories of Muslim business owners refusing to allow access to folks with guide dogs. In your home is one thing but if you operate a business open to the public you have to make allowances.
You know, even though I know guide dogs are mostly very well-behaved, and won't actually do anything silly, and while I also know they're allowed everywhere...personally, I have at least a bit of sympathy for a restaurant owner who is wary of allowing an animal into his establishment. No, this doesn't mean I think they should be banned; it only means I understand a bit of how they're feeling.
Also, I have an honest question. Let's say it's raining or snowing, and your guide dog is rather wet. Well, if there's one thing I know, it's that most dogs with any sort of coat (labs, retrievers, german shepherds all count here) like to shake when they're wet, particularly if they've just come inside. Maybe guide dogs have been trained not to do this, and if so, set me straight. But...well, what stops your guide dog from getting into a clothing store, for instance, and shaking off all over clean clothing, or all over nearby people?
I'm asking this for a reason, sort of. I guess I'm just trying to suggest that, while you are never obligated to leave your service animal outside, there might be reasons to do so, particularly if you're going to run right in and out of someplace. It's courtesy, and maybe practicality, but it's admittedly among the smaller reasons I don't want a dog.
Anyway, just my two cents' worth. I'd not condemn someone who left their dog outside. I wish people wouldn't get all twisted up at the idea of *gasp!* leaving your dog someplace safe while you, the traveller, goes in somewhere that the dog is technically allowed to go. Seriously. There is such a thing as meeting in the middle, at least sometimes.
Ok, those of you who've expressed your feelings about not judging someone who leaves their guide dog outside have not had a guide dog yet, so it's somewhat understandable that you might question the astonishment some of us have expressed here.
Every guide dog training school, at least each one I know of, would tell you that you need to at all times keep your dog at your side. Regardless of the circumstances. If you're worried about your dog causing trouble, common sense should dictate to leave him at home. Here's a whole host of reasons why you should never leave your dog outside if he is a service animal.
1. someone could take yrou dog. Then you're stranded at eh place where you left him, because, presumably, even if you do have a cane with you, it's your dog that helped you get there in the first place.
2. Someone can feed your dog something that can make him very sick. Not only would you have issues with that later on, but it could make him impossible to work with in the next few days to come. Why would someone put their dog through that.
3. Your dog can wander off with or be attacked by another dog.
Not only may you not get yoru dog back if he runs off, but if he's attacked he may have to retire because of the trauma or physical harm that was caused by the incident.
4. Someone can steel your harness and or leash, just to be funny or malicious, and you're screwed then.
5. if you dont' have a cane on you, you're then walking blindly into a store or other facility, rather literally, without your traveling guide. Foolish? I'd say yes.
My point is, there are a whole host of reasons why it would be a terrible idea to leave yoru dog outside of an establishment that you come in. You and your guide dog are a team. If he's not welcome, youre not welcome. I'd also venture to assume that because
this is a random place at which she left her dog outside, she had no idea where or how to safely leave him ther.e There are usually no places where you can tie a leash to safely, and even if there were, how can you knwo someone won't untie it, or that yoru dog will get anxious enough to try to break the leash?
To leave your service animal outside is truly unthinkable--coming from someone who has used a service animal for years. If you're apt to do that, you might as well not have one in the first place.
To answer your question, greg, no, dogs arent' trained not to shake off inside a building if they're wet. So just as we humans might come into a store with dirty shoes on, or jst as a kid can puke or shit all over a public place as you're bringing him to a public restroom during an emergency, a dog can shake off right inside a place. You, as the owner can prevent that by carying a towel with you, folded up discretely and ready to use right outside an establishment. If that's something you're concerned about, that's the precaution you take. Just as you try to ensure that your dog doesn't shit inside a classroom by taking him out right before a lecture.
Having a dog, being in charge of him and allowing him to guide you is a major responsibility. It means you're incharge of taking care of him, 24/7. If you leave him outside an establishment while you pop in for a second, you're not keeping an eye on him because you can't see him from inside through a window.
Frankly, if someone gave a school the excuse of not wanting to dirty some clothes in a store, so they left the dog outside, the training school might consider revoking your license as a service animal user, or at least make you retrain with your dog. No service dog owner or instructer would view that as a sufficient reason to part with yrou dog in public.
So yes, it's outrageous to do so, and as a former service dog owner, I had to question that poster's logic.
Think about it this way: I have a kid who might be having the runs that day. He's four or five--nto wearinga diaper that way. I'm planning to stop in at a clothing store for a few minues just to drop something off...Do i leave the kid outside by himself while I go do that, or do I rtake the lesser risk and take him in with me, knowing that at anytime he can shit all over the store's floor, puke, etc.
Same if my kid was sleeping in a carseat or a carier and I, driving the car hypothetically speaking, had just arived at my destination. Would I pop into a store, restaurant, etc. alone without the kid, or would i wait for him to wake up so I can take him in with me. Presumably, I'd be leaving him in a safe place: in a car seat with the car doors locked, etc.
You knwo how many parents do that? Too many. And believe it or not, over ten thousand babies die anually like that in north america.
So, yes, you shouldn't leave yoru dog outside for any reason. That's totally wreckless and irresponsible, just liek leaving your kid in a car seat while you pop inside somewhere. So yes, I'll question the idea of that because I dont' care about the reason behind this sort of thing. If your dog cant' come in, neither can you. There are ways of getting what you need from a store if you can't convince the storeowner to let your dog in. Leave and get a police officer to escort you back there if you have to. There just isn't an excuse for that sort of thing. If you're going to do that, I'd question if you really can or should handle a service animal if I were you.
PS: sorry for the typos. not feeling up to par today, but felt I needed to comment.
Just agreeing; good post bernadetta.
In the thirteen years I've had dog guides, I've only had three refusals; one was with a group and two restaurant owners came around when we explained it to them. But, if I had to stand there and wait for the police to get there, I would.
Don't be too hard on the person who left the dog outside though. If she was new to guide dogs, it can be very confronting when in that situation. At least it all worked out in the end.
A few points. First, about wet dogs, most places have a lobby. Its that little room where you walk in, and there's still another door to enter the actual building, but you're not outside either. Go to walmart and walk in, you'll see one. The dog is probably going to shake in that room, or under the eaves outside. The dog is not going to spend a couple minutes dripping and then shake while you're shopping. Also, if you're not an idiot and you're dog is soaking wet, you'll find a way to dry him off. I dried my dog off with my sweatshirt once. Its called responsibility.
Secondly, I have no sympathy for the person who left their dog outside. Yes, it can be annoying to have to explain to a business owner that they're in the wrong. That's very true. Its also entirely true that life sucks sometimes and you have to deal with it. If you know, which clearly the poster did, that the dog is allowed, you make your voice perfectly heard and you don't, under any circumstances, leave your dog outside. You either find a way to make the owner listen to you, or you go to a different store. Those are your choices. That's the contract you signed when you agreed to take care of another living animal. Welcome to life.
Finally, going back to the shaking dog. Why, if its snowing or raining, would you leave your dog out in it? Do you enjoy having a sick dog on your hands? I've had one, trust me, its not fun.
Lastly, to the animal loving poster, for god's sake please use sentences. They're your friend. Tap the period key every once in a while. You might start by putting them at the end of sentences.
Thanks cody. I should have just skipped writing my post, as yours made perfect sense and mine rambled because I feel like hell today. lol.
I just want to respond with a couple of things here:
1. Leaving a kid in the car for a few minutes, door locked, is arguably not a criminal act. I have no patience for the idiots who do it without leaving the AC on, in hundred-degree weather and in direct sunlight. That's just cruel, whether it's your kid or your dog for that matter, but I can't count how many times as a small child I was left in the car, sometimes for the better part of half an hour, while my parents went in and did things. Sometimes it's just easier, and one isn't a monster for leaving a child in a car, provided that the child's safety and health are well accounted for. I'm bringing this up as a means of eliminating it from the argument.
2. I've had dogs for most of my life, up till the age of twenty-one or so. Most of my extended family also had dogs. Some of them would shake almost as soon as they got in under a porch roof or, at worst, just inside the door. Some of them would come running gleefully across a carpeted floor and shake all over the nearest person rather than do the thing you suggested, Cody. However, I'll take your point, at least to some extent. Many dogs do shake immediately, in a lobby where it's no problem at all, and those who don't probably aren't creating an enormous mess. You're also right, the both of you, by suggesting that you should be responsible enough to give your dog a bit of a rub if he's a real shaker and shaking is going to be a problem. You'll note that I was asking, rather than suggesting that this is somehow a behaviour that completely justifies leaving an animal outside.
3. I actually agree on many of the points you make about leaving an animal outside, and what could happen to it, so before we go any further, let's be clear on that. My last post was a bunch of questions and musings; for once, there was nothing definitive in it.
4. If you are walking your guide in the rain and snow and he risks getting sick, then leaving him to wait five minutes potentially under a roof or overhang, or at least out of the blowing snow or falling rain, is almost certainly going to qualify as a lesser evil. Admittedly, the lesser evil still is to get him in out of the wet and cold, I'll grant that. Again, just trying to eliminate some of the more abstract bits of this platform. If we're going to cite" the dog might get sick if left outside" as an argument, then I can very easily respond with "you shouldn't use a guide dog outdoors in bad weather, period"...and that becomes a tiresome line of reasoning.
5. I will completely agree that leaving a dog leashed somewhere outside is far different, say, than locking your car with the kid in a car seat while you run in to grab milk and bread on your way home. All the points about people feeding the dog, stealing it, or just being prankish and fucking with the leash, are good ones. Only one thing I kinda wonder about. As far as I have been led to believe, a truly efficient guide-dog user should endeavour to have a cane on hand at all times, in case the dog for any reason becomes incapable of working. I know that mapping a route with a dog and mapping it with a cane are different, but surely if you know the route with one tool, you should have a pretty damn good idea with another tool as well if push came to shove. If you don't, then why are you taking that chance when you're dealing with an animal which can get sick or injured and then leave you stranded? Yet again, just trimming the deadwood. It's not a bad idea to leave your dog outside because you'd be stranded, unless you're acting irresponsibly in the first place. It's a bad idea for other reasons than that. You don't know who can screw with it, or if it'll get hurt, and there's basically no really good reason to leave an animal outside if you don't have to.
The reason I took time to do this is because I think the response was sensationalized and blown out of shape in comparison to the questions and suggestions previously put forward.
So...yeah. My post got cut off for some odd reason. Bit off the last little chunk.
In essence, I don't think in day-to-day situations you should be leaving your dog outside, particularly if it's not attended in some fashion. I do think you owe it to whatever business you're entering with said dog to handle it well, and to be courteous, even if it may be your right to be in that establishment with the animal. As far as I'm concerned, it's not about your vulnerability as a traveller, and it's not about the dog's inability to tolerate cold or rain (particularly not if we were talking less than five minutes left outside). It's about what other people might do that you, the person responsible, couldn't see, didn't know about and weren't there to stop. In ninety-nine cases you'd probably be fine doing it. You'd go back outside and your guide dog would be there to greet you, and off you'd go. It's the one chance in a hundred you'd want to avoid, and while I don't think I'd crucify someone who left a dog outside for a very short time, I understand why it's essentially dodging rather large bullets every time you do it, and thus I agree with the notion that a guide dog school should probably come down pretty hard on someone who did that without any kind of reason. I don't really believe there is a case where it's an excellent choice to leave the animal outside waiting for you, even if it's securely leashed someplace and you're only going in really quickly, but I would argue that there might be situations where, dubious as it is, the intention of the handler was good enough to explain, if not wholly excuse, the choice.
it's perfectly okay to leave a kid in the car, while you're shopping? I think not.
just tell that to an onlooker who's about to report you. "mam, I was just shopping for a few minutes, so I left my 6 month old in the car, since it'd be easier than taking her with me."
Chelsea is right on this one. I also was left in the car and didn't mind as a kid, but we were not restrained by seatbelts either and just pulled out a couple matchbox cars from the pocket and played. But no more. There are all kinds of rules now about this stuff.
Some I think are over the top. In hotter climates people get concerned about overheating, and that really is a concern. And it's harder now because the kid can't just roll down the window, like we used to.
I think that one is well-intentioned but can be wrong. I remember we sat and talked about it once when the daughter was about two months old: Take her out of the car seat into the blinding bitter coastal wind and rain at 40 degrees, or step inside the store - where she could still see her - and step up to the counter to get the refund. Small store, tiny establishment, big bay windows looking straight out into the car with a sleeping baby in the backseat.
And this baby always had trouble getting off to sleep.
No matter which way you choose on that one, there is room for judgment. So I'm not sure it's always so black and white as some people claim.
Like Oregon, it's against the law to leave your kid at home alone for any length of time before the age of ten. So at 9 almost 10, you could be charged with neglect for leaving the child at home, behind a locked door and all fire-unsafe situations turned off, and run to the store for a pizza.
Anyway a bit of a digression, but there is so much room for gray areas with a lot of these things.
Now all of that being said, I am both blind and have run stores. I have never had a problem with a blind user of a guide dog. The only dogs I ever had trouble with were those mental health dogs, or whatever those wild animals are called, they rampage around snuffling in your merchandise and all. If a blind person used only hand signals, chances are I would have never known their dog was even there.
And yes, I ran food establishments, yes I understood the health laws, and kept merchandise where it belongs.
Also an unguarded animal outside is often seen as a threat by passers by. I'm certainly a lot more secure knowing an animal is with its owner, than having some dog tied up run out in the sidewalk in front of me. Since I'm not good at reading dogs' signals, I'm not too sure if it's intentions are friend or foe.
And if you have an animal tied up like that, it is virtually defenseless, especially considering guide dogs have had their wolf instincts bred out of them. So any street person with a mangy mutt (and there are plenty of those) will come by, said mangy mutt may challenge a defenseless guide animal who is also tied up and cannot even run away. May sound brutal to say this, but I think your animal would be torn to ribbons, if not outright eaten. Among the wild things, it is kill or be killed. And since these guide animals have had all their wild instincts taken away from them, it's our responsibility as people to stand a defensive watch I think.
The problem with your premise SW is that you prefaced it by saying that you've had dogs you're entire life. You've never, as far as past postings have led me to believe, had a guide dog however. You've had pets. Probably poorly trained, if trained at all. Probably poorly controlled, if controlled at all. Please endeavor to forget any comparisons between a guide dog wearing its harness and a pet dog without control or training. There's a reason guide dogs cost in the area of fourty-thousand-dollars. Did you pay fourty-thousand-dollars for any of these numerous dogs you've had throughout your life?
For the most part I agree with you, Cody. One small thing, though: the fact that a guide dog has had years of expensive training does not mean it's no longer a dog. You can train it, slap a label on it, give it the right harness and hand it to a blind owner, but a dog is a dog, and you'll never get away from that no matter how well you train it. We can't start treating guide dogs as these perfect little robots who never never do anything they shouldn't, ever. The only reason I'm even saying this is because I have met a few either poorly trained, poorly handled, and/or badly behaved guide dogs. I've never had one myself (which is why I'm staying out of most of this debate--I'm not informed enough). But if I were a store owner, I might be wary if I had only met a few guide dogs and they'd been the few exceptions to the general rule. For example: a few months ago, while I worked for CNIB, I met a guide dog who had a nasty habit of jumping all over new people in excitement. Her handler would call her down in a very bored, unaffected tone, and the dog rarely bothered to listen. I love dogs, so I didn't mind too much, but she did surprise me, I was covered in hair, and overall I was not left with a good impression of this dog. She didn't conduct herself like a perfect little angel at all, she didn't even conduct herself like a reasonably well-trained and/or handled dog. She struck me, quite simply, as a dog--one I would be wary of allowing into my establishment if I didn't have much experience with guide dogs. Does this change the law? No, absolutely not. But it does mean I understand why some people are wary. Guide dogs are still dogs, and we can't forget that.
and small red pickups that mommys drive are still trucks, but just because a fifth-wheel isn't allowed to drive over certain bridges in Portland doesn't mean Mommy's pickup is also forbidden to do so.
I understand your point. So at its base a guide dog is a dog, dogs have certain characteristics. One of those is the ability to be controlled / trained and another is a pack instinct in need of a pack leader.
A square is always a rhombus, but a rhombus is not always a square.
By virtue of being a proprietor, you should be above personal anecdotes. This is how I learned to do business, and many I knew did the same. I have never seen a blind person's dog act as wild as the psychology therapy companions I saw as a store owner. I have seen a few less well behaved, and I don't disbelieve you about the one you saw. But anyone who is intelligent enough to run a business and keep its books in good shape ought to know better than to place his or her own experiences over the law.
I'd say this whether we're talking blind people or not. I could care less about the impression someone is trying to make: some rather unsavory salespeople wanting to sell my establishment some items made very good impressions on the people I worked for. Well dressed, talked the talk, and had such shabby merchandise no proprietor with a brain would take them on as a supplier. I'm just saying, a proprietor ought to know better than to behave like this. This is all well and good for an employee, or maybe just someone on the streets, but any of us who took running a business seriously just plain all-out do better than that. We all groused about silly fees to health departments that had nothing to do with sanitation or cleanliness, but nobody but a fool would have neglected to pay. I'm guessing no blind person with a guide dog can quite top the bad experience a health inspector can provide you, by leaving your refrigerators open until it's nice and toasty warm in there, then take a temperature and cite you for having it way too warm in there. I'm just saying, for business owners anyway, we get all the bad experiences that don't show up on your Hallmark cards about creepy bad blind guide dog users. And most our bad experiences can cost us a lot of money. So, if I was just a customer in there I'd probably have had to bite my tongue to not tell that proprietor to just toughen up a little bit and deal: this is doing business, not for the weak.
Sorry if that comes off harsh but it's just how things go. Ask people who work owning a business by day and keep their books by night. You don't do that with a screw loose, or playing around with personal experiences. You do that with a brain, and a mind like a steel trap.
Meglet... please, for the love of God... if my dog is doing badly-trained guide dog stuff... tell me... because you're my friend.
Kate
Cody, my point about owning guide dogs all my life responds rather specifically to the issue of shaking. Bernadetta contends that guide dogs are not taught any specific shaking (or nonshaking) habits, and I'm simply saying that not all dogs I've known will shake off right away. Some will wait till they've been in for thirty seconds or so, or will shake on people almost deliberately. Does this mean that all dogs run the risk and should be kept out of places? Of course it doesn't. It means that if shaking water all over someplace is going to be a problem, you as the owner have to be aware of it ahead of time if at all possible. I was not attempting to preface all of my explanations with my experience with guide dogs as a means of suggesting that they are all equal. They aren't. Guide dogs are, by and large, better-trained. However, Meglet is absolutely right when she says that, at base, they're all dogs. They all have fur, they all shed, they'll all get sick at some point, they all run the risk of snarking food and worse if given half a chance, they pretty much all have strong jaws and the ability to bark. So, okay, most guide dogs aren't going to go and eat everything that isn't tied down, but some have to be watched. Most guide dogs aren't going to jump up on people, or shake all over the diners in a small restaurant, or shit on the red carpet. But they're just dogs, so the business owner who is wary of the things -any dog might do has at least a little reason.
Now, as to the kid left in a car thing? That's getting to be a rather senseless diversion at this point. Some nutcase leaves an infant strapped into a car with the windows up on hot blacktop at a hundred degrees, and the infant cooks, and now suddenly it's not okay to run in and grab a pizza while you can clearly see your sleeping baby in the back seat of your car through the window on a forty-degree wet windy day while your heat in the car is turned on. There are lots of times where leaving your kid in the car is a bad idea, but there are many cases where it would work out just fine. No one's a monster for leaving a child in a car if all due consideration for that child's comfort and safety are taken into account.
write away
I agree with your post. It is just like having a child. You can't leave your dog like that. You can leave them at a seet and walk across a room or something but not outside a shop.
Coady said everything I have done when it comes to drying your dog off or the shake off spots. I have too used my own swetter to dry my dog off and I have even taken my swetter off and put it on my dog and let myself get rained on because me being wet is a lot less of an issue than my dog smelling up the store. Even if I had to ask for a towl and buy it later I would, or something. But your dog should be able to shake off before going in doors. i have taught my dog to shake when I tell her to shake it off for this reason.
You can also tell when your dog is about to shake off at least I can with mine. She starts to shake but really slow and I can put my hand on her back and tell her no and stop. She will. Then I can tell her in a little bit and she will wait. If she starts to do it again, I repete it. I can get her in a good spot quickly then say, ok, shake it off and she will. Its hard but possible.
I remember being left out in the car for a while in the heat with my grandfauther. Its not safe at all. Kids can open doors and get out or let a stranger in. It only takes a second for anything to go wrong. You never leave your kids in a car. Maybe twenty or even fifteen years ago you can but not anymore.
Leo, you're absolutely right: no one's personal impressions should be put above the law. But that's not what I actually said, so I'm not sure why that was relevant. What I actually said was that I can understand a business owner feeling wary. I don't support them not allowing a guide dog inside; I don't support them making a huge fuss about it. I only empathize with their feelings of wariness, especially if they've let guide dogs (or any other service dogs) in before and had their business damaged in any way or had their patrons upset by the animal's presence. All I'm really saying when I mention that dogs are dogs is that guide dogs are still animals, and therefore imperfect. They are often very well trained, but some are not and there's no way to know which kind of dog you'll be facing when you allow one into your establishment. As for the square and vehicle analogies...no more than padding for your argument, I'm afraid. Those things are true, but my statement has nothing to do with either of those cases. What you said appears to knock my argument over, but it doesn't actually say anything. It just sounds very logical and impressive without really adding much to your point. Don't get me wrong, I wish the situation were different, but it's not ideal, and never will be ideal, and understanding why it's the way it is does not mean I support it.
Kate, of course I'll tell you, though from what I know of you and what little I know of Jen, I'm sure I won't have to.
The thing we're all failing to address is the fact that if a guide dog is a nuisance it is within the rights of the business owner to ask them to leave. However, a few bad apples here and there don't change the facts. Fact is that the basic guide dog, well trained and well watched and well handled, is not going to shake all over everything. That being said, a dog shaking rain water is not going to ruin anything in a store anyway unless you still set out cracker barrels for your customers. My basic point in my last post is this, SW does not have a guide dog, I believe that SW has not had a guide dog, or at least not for a long period of time. Thus, SW does not know enough about the lifestyle to actually have the opinion he does. He can sympathize and empathize all he wants to, but its inane either way you slice it because he doesn't know enough about the subject.
I disagree with this. I can still have cogent opinions about guide dogs even though I don't own one. I had a partner who had a guide dog, lived there for seven weeks straight and observed a lot of interaction. I also have a fairly good sense of the real world and a fairly good grasp on the notion of extrapolation. If I was trying to invalidate claims made by guide dog users with fraudulent information, that'd be one thing, but I'm not. Cody, quite simply, I'm not in any way diminished, and my points are not in any way shadowed d, by my lack of a guide dog. Not in this.
Again, I agree with you in part. A few bad apples should not be enough for someone to disobey a law, or change their feelings towards an entire group because most of that group will be just fine in a store.
But I don't think it's really fair to say that just because SW has never had a guide dog, what he contributes is inane Never mind that he can do research, talk to guide dog users...never mind that he lived with a guide dog user for a couple of months. . Why, you yourself have been given that argument before: "you don't know because you've never actually done it" and you refuted it by pointing out that even people who have personally gone through an experience know less than people who do their research and make a sufficient effort to understand the facts. So I'm not sure how you get off getting angry when someone throws this argument at you, then turning around and using it on someone else.
If you don't know what I'm referring to, it's a board concerning babies--quite an old one; you were arguing with Bernadetta I believe. She used that argument and you didn't agree with it then.
The difference here Meglet is that SW has never been a guide dog either. I've been a child of bad parents.
And yes, I will give you that you may know a bit about the lifestyle from living with a guide dog user, but that's nothing. You haven't gone through the training, the emotional roller coaster, the blistered feet, and everything else that goes with it. Sure, you can read a couple testimonials and you might pick up a few facts. But there's a reason you can't have a guide dog just by reading the laws. There's a reason you have to go through training to get one. Its because of the simple fact that until you actually go through it, you don't have a frickin' clue what you're talking about. You just don't.
I used the same arguments before I went to my guide dog school. I'd had dogs all my life, I'd done research, I was all ready to do this thing and I was gonna be great. Then I got there and I had to forget everything I ever thought I knew. Because having pets, and talking with people, and reading stories is nowhere near the same thing. So, in essence, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, which is perfectly displayed by the fact that you don't definitively say that their is absolutely no reason in the entire world which might even come close to excusing the abandonment of your service animal. If you had a clue what you were talking about, you wouldn't have said that.
You have a point in that Gregg may not be able to know what it is to -be a guide dog user until he can be one himself. But you are wrong in saying that Gregg cannot understand what a user should and should not do. It's not as though guide dogs are some great, cherished secret. I don't have kids, but I know that you should not leave your child out in a car in the blistering heat. I also know that you can leave your child in a car, briefly, if the weather is neither too hot nor too cold, if the child is in full view of the parent at all times, etc. I don't have to be a parent to know these things, so why should Gregg have to be a guide dog handler to know anything at all about guide dogs? I'm not suggesting that he knows what it is to handle one day in and day out, because he doesn't and he can't until he lives it. But details like this are not beyond the understanding of people who are not guide dog handlers. If that were true, then most of us wouldn't be able to contribute to virtually millions of discussions. It would be the end of contributing to parenting boards, or any other board about which you do not have personal firsthand experience. Would you suggest, based on this line of reasoning, that one should not contribute to a board about same-sex relationships unless one has been in one? Because if you would, then you have broken your own rule. Would you suggest that people who have never had children should not post to boards about childbirth? Because if you would, then you have broken your own rule. Would you further suggest that people should not post to boards about countries you haven't visited, people you haven't met, foods you haven't tasted, etc. on the grounds that you have no personal firsthand knowledge, despite the fact that you know a lot from others who have? In that case, Cody, we have all broken your rule numerous times, and we should all just stop trying to have discussions except in tiny, niche groups.
Meglet, thank you. You said just about everything I would have said if I'd gotten here first.
This whole thing is awfully rich coming from such a strong advocate of free thinking and free speech.
I don't have to be a parent to know that you don't leave a child of three in a kitchen with cleaning chemicals at kid level for any length of time. My not being a parent has nothing to do with my understanding of risk assessment in such an instance. I fully admit there are many things about having a guide dog that I don't know intimately. However, it should be mentioned that at no point did I ever say that leaving a dog outside is a good idea. I think the closest I came is to say that it might be the lesser of many evils, and that you'd be dodging bullets every time you did it. It should also go without saying that only in a very few select cases might it be even considered the lesser of many evils...for instance, if you're on your way home, absolutely have to stop somewhere really quickly, and your dog is having serious stomach problems...the kind that's got the animal having trouble with its bowels or with throwing up. Personally, I don't envy any of you who has a working dog that gets sick mid-trip for some reason. I'm also not saying that other alternatives couldn't potentially be arranged (such as having the wherewithal to realize your dog can't work anymore and using a cab).
But I tell you what. Rather than toss rhetoric back and forth, I'm going to put it straight. Here's a reasonable scenario. Cody, you tell me what you'd do, and if it turns out that somehow owning a guide dog gives you a perspective I wouldn't have thought of, if that link can be clearly determined, then I will accept your claim at face. Otherwise, I'm afraid it's mistargeted.
Scenario
You're on your way home from work. You're single, live alone in the suburbs, have a guide dog, and your trip home takes approximately forty minutes, the first twenty of which are spent on a bus and the next twenty of which are spent on foot with your dog.
It's approximately five-thirty in the evening on a nice day in early May, about seventy degrees, sun and cloud with a little wind. It's not too hot, not too cold.
About ten minutes after getting off the bus, your dog gets sick. You can't be sure exactly what did it. You happen to be fairly near a convenience store you planned on stopping at on the way home. Shortly after the first episode, the dog does it again, and this time it's clear his stomach is rather upset. It's not just a one-off issue, and it's further complicated a moment later when the dog has to squat, and makes a mess on the sidewalk. Poor pup's got stomach flu, or whatever the dog equivalent might be; you don't know this for sure, but what you do know is that your dog may not exactly be trustworthy in a building just now.
So, you had to stop at the convenience store because you're out of toilet paper. You have no Kleenex or paper towel or anything at home, and this is the nearest convenience store. You've got a spare cane on hand.
You manage to get to the parking lot of the convenience store. There's a bench out front that you could easily hook your dog's leash to, if you wanted, and there appears to be no one around. The store is small, and has a large window in the front. You're going to be in and out of that store in maybe two minutes flat. You don't know everyone who works there, but the owners know you as a fairly regular customer and most of the employees you've ever seen in there seem pretty kind and attentive. They keep a very clean establishment.
What do you do?
Sorry for the triple post, but anyone should feel free to respond to that scenario with what they might do. I'm kind of curious now, guide dog user or not. Where will priority fall? How will it be dealt with?
Option one:
Take out your cell phone and ask google for the number of the store. When the phone is then answered, ask the nice person on the other end to set out the purchases you need. Explain your situation and ask them to come to the front of the store, take your money and make the payment for you. (also a great argument for carrying a twenty dollar bill around with you)
Option two:
Take one of the doggy bags you take with you from its container. Roll the edges of it down just slightly to make a bowl-like bag. Then, when your dog begins to dry-heave, put it over the dog's muzzle to catch whatever comes out. (this is more an option for inside the store)
Option three:
Find a nice bit of grass beside the sidewalk: they're not hard to find. Remove the harness of the dog and let it work out whatever is in its stomach. Feel free to call your girlfriend while this goes on, or play a game on your IPhone, read Cracked.com, whatever. After a few miserable minutes your dog's stomach will be effectively empty. You can then go to the store with the knowledge that if the dog does throw up again, it will be liquid and easily wiped up with papertowels, or the toilet paper you're conveniently buying.
option I've lost count now:
Go home and treat your dog, make them better and forget about frickin' toilet paper. If you need to wipe your butt that badly rip up an old newspaper, or just wash your butt like people in Europe do.
Option you never ever take:
Tying your dog to a bench and leaving them to the whims of anyone who might be passing by. Worse, tying the dog to the bench and leaving it to the whims of whatever disease is afflicting it. Worse still, tying your dog to the bench and leaving it to be fed chocolate by the child you didn't see approaching because you left it tied to a bench. Worse still, tying your dog to a bench and leaving it for the person who just so happens to be looking for an enormously valuable pure bred lab worth several thousand dollars on the market.
Now that I've answered those questions, let me ask a couple. Why would you leave your dog when you don't know what's wrong with it? Just as an aside, the symptoms you listed are the exact same ones displayed by my dog when she had a brain tumor that led to a stroke. What would it matter that the store has a big front window? You're blind enough to need a dog, do you think you're sighted enough to use a window while shopping for toilet paper? (an item which most stores keep in the back of the store, usually third or fourth aisle from the refrigerator section at the very back)
This is exactly why I say you don't have a worthwhile opinion. You simply don't know these things, and seven weeks spent in the company of someone who does isn't enough to teach you the things you have to start considering as a guide dog user.
Cody, I just have to say thank you for talking sense here. it's obvious you know your stuff. your last post, especially, was great.
Gregg's point, Cody, is that all the scenarios you've just pointed out are pretty common sense, even the doggy bag one. It doesn't take a guide dog genius to know these types of solutions. Gregg was not trying to show that his scenario was solution proof. He was trying to show that it's not about trade secrets or magical guide doggy wisdom...it's common. freakin'. sense. I'd wager most cane users who know even a little bit about guide dogs would be able to answer that scenario with several options. I know I could. Did any one else find the options Cody put forth particularly exotic or foreign? I bet not. Know a bit about dogs, and you can answer this question pretty damn easily without much effort.
Oh, and by the way: the front window was to suggest that an option might be to ask the "nice people" to send someone out for, say, the sixty seconds it would take to run in there, grab your stuff, and get out again. After all, one purchase at a convenience store takes very little time if you pay with cash, so it's easy to get someone to watch your dog for a few seconds. Surely that's acceptable? If it's not, I know at least three fairly capable guide dog handlers who have done this in a pinch. I highly doubt a store employee would take off with your dog, feed it anything scary, or otherwise harm the dog while they're very conspicuously being entrusted with its safety in front of a big window where anyone can see them.
Thanks again, Meglet. You got here first again, and said most of what I would have said myself.
I'm going to add to it yet again though, but this should be much quicker and more direct.
All you've really done here, Cody, is make yourself look like a hypocrite again. You seem to have assumed that I was challenging you, or anyone, against the odds, to find a scenario where leaving the dog tied to a bench was the best choice. I was not. I engineered this scenario with all those things - brain tumour/stroke potential, large window, conspicuous lack of mentioning whether or not you own a cell phone - deliberately. You found the holes. Good for you. But I put them there, and I knew them for what they were. I own a cell phone. I've been around long enough to know that a large window and friendly people might conspire to mean that your dog is safe enough outside (key word, might). I've also had dogs all my life, one of whom died of brain cancer, so I know a little bit of what it's like to watch a dog go downhill. I even know what it is to carry doggie bags and make a sort of bowl-shaped catch-all out of one, in the case that the dog is heaving...learned that one, if I'm honest, from my previous partner.
I knew all of these things, and many more besides, because I, alongside most people, possess common sense. I can reason both deductively and inductively. I can respond to stress. I can extrapolate even if I haven't been in exactly this situation before. I can do all of these things because I have a brain, thirty or so years of life experience in some fairly related fields and the honesty to admit where my knowledge is weak. You seem to be failing to account for this. You assume that I was trying to get one of you to say, "Oh, yeah, well leaving the dog outside is clearly the best choice", and I can only reason that this assumption is based on the "people are stupid" premise...because it certainly can't be logically dependent on my never having owned a guide dog.
The only way you were going to prove that I'm out of my depth here would have been to put forward responses to the scenario that no average person would be able to grasp, owing to their lack of guide-dog-handling experience. That scenario wasn't possible. Thus, you're stuck.
Any time someone tells me I don't know what I'm talking about, I weigh the accusation for merit. This time, I decided you could take a little heat in defense of said accusation. That you weren't able to maintain your stance in any meaningful way is of no personal importance to me beyond the fact that I have now rendered baseless the notion that I shouldn't be discussing this. Thanks for your help in proving my point for me.
At the very outside edge of this scenario are options where the dog is tied to the bench because it's not safe to go inside with it, while someone is keeping a sharp eye on it. Something like that is, as I've said more than twice now, not the best idea, and definitely a matter of dodging bullets. Might someone do it and get away with it? Sure. Might it be a little more justifiable than just tying your dog up whenever you can't be bothered bringing it someplace? Again, yes. Does it mean I condone it as the best, or a good, response? No, it does not. It smacks of a lack of forethought, a split-second decision that puts priorities in the wrong place; it is wrong, but might be forgiven more easily than a much more selfish choice would be. There are greater and lesser evils, after all.
I feel I should make something clear here: I, at least, am not saying that being a guide dog handler is easy because everyone knows all about it anyway I'm not stupid, I do realize that a lot of it is beyond me. It's a complex role, it really is. . If I tried to talk with you about, say...navigating street crossings with a guide, I'd be out of my depth and would be fine with admitting that. But there are cases when knowledge really can be possessed by those who have not personally done X or Y. I am curious, Cody, (and anyone else who can answer me) about how to define which subjects a person should contribute to and which they shouldn't? I've never handled a guide dog, and this seems to suggest that I shouldn't be contributing because I can't know what I'm talking about. Fine, that's fair enough. But when -can I contribute? Am I limited only to experiences I've had firsthand? Clearly not, as you yourself have demonstrated, Cody. So how do you define which experiences I'm permitted to talk about and which I'm not? Or, even better, which experiences is SW allowed to contribute meaningfully to and which not?
You'll have to demonstrate a lack of a priori there SW. Besides, there's much more to the situation than you even seem to think of. The big thing is not coming up with a scheme, the big thing is not having that scheme be necessary.
You presented your little scenario as if it happened out of the blue. If you knew the bond between guide dog and owner, that would never have happened. Guide dogs don't just suddenly vomit, or suddenly stop and relieve themselves. They give you signals. Signals you'd know about if you'd ever been behind the harness.
This is my point. I told you earlier there are things about owning a guide dog that no amount of questioning or research or a piddly amount of time living with one could teach you. Unless you went through the training. Unless you woke up the first night because you're afraid your dog is afraid. Unless you've spent hours obsessing over every little twitch of the harness. Unless you've felt the sync when you and your guide dog absolutely click on something. Unless you know, first hand, through your own fingertips, what it feels like, you don't have a clue. What's more, nothing I or any other guide dog user could ever explain it to you.
That's why your opinion doesn't matter, because you don't know enough about the knitty-gritty of the life to know that letting go of your dog is not an option. You don't know enough about the connection that you've never felt to be able to say definitively that under no circumstances would you ever drop that handle. You simply don't have the knowledge base to know. You've never felt it, and judging from your past posts I doubt you ever will. So until you do, your opinion, though you may be incredibly proud of your means of gaining it, is absolutely unimportant.
As for Meglet, your question is simple to answer, and you should have figured it out already. If the only means by which you could gain a piece of knowledge is through first hand experience, and you've never experienced it... shut up. You asked earlier if you can talk about foods you've never tasted. The answer is yes and no. You can say that you've always wanted to try it, or that you've never heard of it. What you can't say is how it tastes, because you don't know. That's what's happening here, you and SW are talking about the taste of food you've never wrapped your lips around. So your opinion, which again you may be very proud of, is entirely pointless.
Feel free to point that out next time I give an opinion on something it would be impossible for me to know.
There's only one problem with what you've said there, Cody and it's this: you're still a hypocrite. Because guess what? A mother could say the exact same thing about childbirth--about which you've express opinions--as you've just said about handling a guide dog. A mother could tell you that, until you've physically carried that child for nine months, nourished it inside your own body, given birth to it, and bonded with it through breastfeeding, you have no idea what you're going on about. So if I have to shut up, then so do you.
Never mind that what you would think of as inconceivable may not be shared by absolutely every other guide dog handler in the world. Since you can't demonstrate that one hundred percent of all guide dog handlers possess the same kinship you do with your partner, you cannot use it as a means of excluding my opinion from consideration.
Remember, I'm not pretending to know everything you know. I don't. I'm not pretending to feel exactly the same way about a dog as you would. Again, I don't. However, I am suggesting that one's mileage will differ when behind the harness, in a few areas at least. Some handlers are more in tune with their animals than others. Some will see dropping that handle as more unthinkable than others. This is something I know from observation, as you are by no means the only guide dog handler I've ever known and spoken with.
As far as my scenario not being possible, well, let's just say I hope you never have to learn in painful fashion that you're not as perceptive as you thought, since that will undoubtedly mean trouble for your dog, and possibly for you, which I don't wish on anyone. You may have a tell on 99 percent of occasions and be able to head my scenario off before it reaches critical mass, but there's a chance you may not. Just because you yourself are an excellent judge of your guide dog's tells does not mean you always will be, and does not mean that every other guide dog handler is in the same echelon of perception. I commend you for being that aware, that sympathetic and that selfless, I really do. I just tend to think that it is in large part personal rather than universal.
I am not proud of my opinion. As I said before, I did this because I wasn't going to sit here and be told that my opinion holds no weight purely because someone else with differing life experiences believes that his viewpoint trumps mine purely by weight of familiarity. I have known many pet owners who are extremely protective of, sympathetic toward and almost obsessive about the needs of their animals. I've known a couple of guide dog owners who are as well, of course, and that's all well and good, but I'm not sure that level of commitment and understanding is exclusive to a guide-dog team. Some of these self-same hypersensitive people are still capable of not reading a tell, or misreading one, or of being willing to do something that you, Cody, would not be willing to do. I think that to use your own experience as a general case, as an absolute, is far more self-centered than anything I've said or done so far in the presentation of my own stances. Take that as you will.
Nikki, I apologize for this board having been derailed as it has. The discussion wasn't tightly focused in the first place, but it appears to have devolved again, and for what it's worth I'm sorry for my hand in it.
Yes Meglet, and the next time we're talking about the act of child birth, you can feel free to point that out. And, for the record, someone being a hypocrite doesn't actually make them wrong. It just makes them human. You should address the argument, not the person delivering the argument.
Sw, you're right, not all guide dog owners have that connection. We have a term for those kinds of guide dog users. We call them, and this is a really technical term, bad guide dog teams. Its those people who are less attentive, less firm, less emotionally bonded with their dogs. Those are the ones you see with the dogs jumping up on people, and barking constantly, or snuffling food, or eating things off the ground. Those are bad dog handlers.
Another sign of bad dog handling is the act of tying your dog to a bench and leaving it outside in a public area. That is a terrible practice. Doing terrible practices makes you a bad dog handler. That's the thing you're failing to understand here. You've never been a good dog handler, so you don't know what constitutes a bad dog handler other than your own ideas which are only based on personal preference. You know what you think it should be like. You have no idea what it should actually be like, because you've never done it or felt it or gone through it.
That is why those of us who have a dog, or have had one, immediately went "oh hell no". You went, "well maybe you have a reason that could possibly justify it". You pussyfoot, its what you're good at. If you'd been there and done that, and done it well and successfully, (especially if you'd gone through the act of losing or retiring a guide dog), you wouldn't be pussyfooting. You'd know that under absolutely no circumstances do you ever do that.
I understand that you were just trying to be fair. That you wanted to think the best of the situation. I'm here to tell you, what was done was wrong. I know because I've gone through it and done the right thing more than once. That isn't personal preference, its training and experience. Leaving a dog tied up alone in a public place is inexcuseable, no matter the reason. The personal opinion part is that I think it should be grounds for losing the dog.
And please stop acting sanctimonious. You'd think if you were really so sorry for derailing posts you'd eventually just stop doing it. Either improve the behavior or stop apologizing for it.
The point is that it takes more than one person to derail a post. I'm never alone, but I can be sorry it gets out of hand. I have a thing with letting something be, particularly where I feel that my opinion or right to said opinion is being impuned. You're good at that, and I tend toward responding.
Who is "we", this collective who labels someone beneath your standard as a bad dog handler? Are they the majority of dog handlers, or are they a snobbish minority? That hasn't been addressed, and unless there's some sort of hidden statistic that someone can pull, it's probably an unanswerable question.
So you would never do that. You have very strong feelings about what makes a good team and what makes a bad one. That's cool. Just don't make the mistake of juxtaposing your view atop everyone else's. Just because you have a point of view doesn't make that point of view universal. You're good at that too.
Beyond that, we've really got nothing left here.
Cody, it's rather rich of you to tell me not to address a person but rather to address the argument. Once again, you are being a hypocrite--excuse me, you are behaving in a hypocritical fashion. It might not make you rong, but it does make you pretty unproductive in a discussion. Arbitrarily excluding a person from one discussion but then wanting to be included in another is entirely illogical, especially when you have yet to actually explain why you do it. You have given me no way to define, in precise measurable terms, which discussions I should be included in and which not. It leads me to believe that perhaps you have no definition--you will only value those opinions you agree with, and any opinion you disagree with is inane or worthless because you randomly decide we don't have enough information. . And you yourself value your own equally ill-informed opinions, yet you would devalue mine. This is not logical, it is not productive, it is not helpful and it is not even a good debate tactic. There is no good reason to do it except to throw your weight around. I cannot see how you could enjoy being that kind of poster.
oh wow and I was a new guide dog user at the time and there is no need for personal attack on posters and good points have been made but no one is being right or wrong, trying to take part in a topic which for some will think is a mistake to do because of people's reactions that sound negative.
Well Greg, I think that the schools would definitely agree with the handlers who say it's wrong to leave a guide dog unattended, even for a second, in a public area. they'd be all over that in a second. And they're the so-called traning experts who make these teams possible through their knowledge and their guidance. So you dont' need statistics here. You only need common sense. I dont' think anyone wants to be called a bad dog handler, anymore than anyone wants to be called, say, a bad parent. And there may be aspects of either a parent or a dog handler that may be excellent, but when someone exersizes poor judgment and does something idiotic with either a kid or a dog, they're bound to be called out for it. Dog handling is more of a science, though,and there's a more definite sense of what is acceptible and what is not. And so, just because something may be acceptable to someone personally, it doesn't mean it's acceptable in general in the eyes of guide dog handlers. No one wants to be judged. I get that. But sometimes that's what it takes to give some people a wake up call.
I seem to still be misunderstood, so let me make this painfully clear.
First, if you do a bad thing, you should expect to be called out for it. I am not expecting that a bad decision, even if it was split-second and regretted immediately, resulting in no harm to anyone, should just be blown aside. I am saying that it differs from much more deliberate cruelties and that it is an error formed of bad judgment rather than malice. Some distinction should be made for this.
Second, one mistake does not make you a bad anything...parent, engineer, guide dog handler, the list goes on. Ideally you want to limit your mistakes (and the more important and vulnerable your charge, the more vital this is), but everyone makes slips now and then, does things they shouldn't, thinks they know a worthy course and then comes to lament having taken it. This does not make them bad people, and does not immediately make them bad at what they do. Are you a bad student if you do poorly on a test, even though everything else you do is of high quality? Are you a bad parent because you got angry once and yelled loud enough to scare your child when you should have kept your temper? No, you're a student, or parent, or guide-dog user, who did the wrong thing. There's an appreciable difference.
Last, schools should by all means not be allowing slipshod treatment of the animals they train you to use. They shouldn't accept flimsy excuses on why you thought it was okay. But the reason they shouldn't do this isn't because they're experts. It's common sense, the same way it is common sense that if you know bleach is corrosive, you don't let a toddler drink it. I don't need to be a pharmacist or biologist, or even well-versed in science, to know that certain things just...don't work. I've spent a long time explaining how the vast majority of what is or is not okay in these kinds of situations is not specialized trade-secret training, and constitutes, by and large, the application of reason and common sense. I really can't be any clearer. You don't need to be an expert to know that certain things are wrong, nor do you need to be an expert to know that not all harms are equal.
Ah a few things here.
Ok Meglet, well-aimed and I am man enough to say you're right on my account.
In fact, I am so misinformed on the topic I will say this: Cody, I could not have answered the questions from Shepherdwolf's scenario. Don't listen to them saying everyone could have, because I was honestly befuddled until I read your responses. You sure you don't wanna become a Coast Guardsman / volunteer with us? Because you, sir, do have Readiness down pat. Semper paratus and all that.
I, however, read through Shepherdwolf's post a few times and couldn't come up with a better answer. It wasn't the Scotch I'd just had, it was the fact I really don't know about taking dogs into the public. Sure we had them growing up but that is quite different from how I have seen blind users of guide dogs, or rescue dog handlers, or even mascot / media dog handlers. Maybe unpopular of me to lump all you in that bunch as each dog handler type does different things, but still.
I am man enough to say Meglet had me pegged and I've no excuse on that front. And equally man enough to say there is no way I knew the answers to Shepherdwolf's scenario, because there is a lot I really don't know regarding dogs in public.
As to Cody's boot camp blistered feet descriptions, hmm, sounds kinda reasonable to me.
I will try and clarify what I said in my last post, Meglet. It wasn't directed at you. What I was saying is, proprietors of businesses need to be a cut above personal experience. Because as a proprietor you get really bad personal experiences from the IRS, inspectors, Department of Labor, the Unemployment Office people when you fire or lay someone off, that's how you play ball as a business owner. I'm just saying this having been one of those several times over. So I'm wrong in the analogies I used, but I'm straight shooting right in what I said: Too bad boo hoo cry to mama and all that, to any proprietor who lets their own personal deal / bad experience dictate policy on whether to let in a guide dog. Next we'll hear their bad experience with the IRS made them opt out of payment or play fudgy pudgy on the books.
Sorry, it's just how things go: the way to play ball as a business owner is leave your emotions and upsets / panties in a wad at home, except bring your passion and drive to work with you. That's just how you do things with a clear head and succeed as a business owner.
If, as you said, he had had a bad experience with a dog guide before, that means, if he's worth anything as a business owner, he knows how much actual and colateral damage was even done. You can bean-count that, and every proprietor who is worth anything keeps an eye on his or her own profits and losses, even if they have someone else counting the beans.
So Meglet you were right about the analogies but not the implementation. If a proprietor is so wishy washy and weak as to allow their own personal experiences drag them into breaking the law, or opening the door to potential lawsuits, they're weak and deserve to lose. That's not entrepreneurship. Every one of us kept the laws that we disagreed with. It's way more expensive to go outside of that and pay up later. Even if this person doesn't press charges, the proprietor will either get a reputation for that, or because of that weakness be more likely to allow desperate times to call for desperado measures and do something funny with the books or the till at some point.
I don't know a single proprietor friend of mine, when we all owned stores, who let a dollar go unaccounted for. None of us were good Christian choir boys, in fact none could accuse us of that. lol But you let yourself slide, it starts costing you to make that up.
If someone's dog came into my store and shook all over things, the damage would be minimal. If someone's therapy companion animal came in and snuffled around in the merchandise sounding a bit like the pig from Charlotte's Web, the damage was greater, but still contained. If I booted them out, the damage is not something I can count, predict, or really prepare for. There is enough of that that actually happens in business all by itself. So why would I as a proprietor set myself up for more?
So I indeed stand behind what I said. Not because "Oh how terrible, he didn't let doggie-cakes in the store," but because he's a fool for opening himself up to damages no insurance will pay for and no accounting can predict, but he could have single-handedly prevented. Too bad,so sad, boo hoo.
That's not directed at you, Meglet, that is directed at any proprietor weak enough to let personal experiences trump real regulations with real consequences. That's just not how to play ball as an entrepreneur.
The only time I ever paid any attention to that Donald Trump show with those apprentices, was when he caught the guy cheating via texts, and he gave that kid the same song and dance, in his own, CEO big-haired way. And I agreed with him 1000%. It wasn't a preachy moralistic argument, it was a you're-stupid-and-deserve-what-you-get argument.
To me from a business perspective, there's not any practical difference between lying like that kid did, and denying service dogs entrance, because in both cases you can be caught and busted for it. There have been cities in California in the 90s I think it was, where cops used fake guide dogs to conduct sting operations on businesses and cab drivers who weren't letting service dogs in.
It's like selling cigarettes to uncarded guests, or liquor to minors. If I gotta tell a proprietor not to do that, s/he should pack their shit and go home, get a job, and let someone else run the business. If that sounds harsh, maybe, just maybe, it's near the same level as some people who level accusations at dog guides / handlers. I'm never been a dog guide handler, but I've owned businesses. But go out and ask your favorite entrepreneur in your area, someone whose business runs smoothly and consistently, and just see if I'm right. Ask when nobody of the wrong persuasion is around so they don't have to keep up the politically correct professional money-protecting front, and see if I'm right.
So while I'm pretty ignorant on what you do or don't do with dogs, I kinda know something regarding owning a business and how to play ball that way.
I never even heard of putting a bag like a bowl over a dog's nose. Sounds like that would work, though.
And I, too am hypocritical in some way, and you will find holes in any of my arguments. But I can't respect anyone who is in Charge of an operation letting personal experiences trump regulations, and putting themselves at risk of damages. Waddya wanna bet this boo-hooer is gonna be out crying like a Glen Beck on some conseravative talk show about how everyone's picking on him. My words for someone like that is, "Go home, weakling, let someone else better than you run the business."
I'd love to own the store next door that guy though. I'd have discounts for service dog animal handlers, nothing that would put me off, but I'd take so much advantage of him doing that, it wouldn't be funny. Shit, get a few inexpensive towels, put them on a rack, and showcase your accessibility to dog owners. And I don't even like dogs. I don't mean knock yourself out financially, just take advantage of the situation and have a ball. All those people who think it's humanitarian to be nice to doggie-poohs would shop at your place for a cup of joe or whatever, even pick up a cheap chew toy gift thing for granny's poodle, just because you'll welcome the dog in unlike "that meany next door."
That's more effective than grubberment regulations any day, even though I'll not be one to violate those as a proprietor.
Sorry to hog this thread, but here is real life example.
Someone whose companion animal acted a lot more like a truffle pig was a regular at my store for awhile, and also a regular across the street from me. We both knew each other, weren't even real competitors because our product lines and target audiences were different: some crossover but different. I mainly served the white collar county workers and he the quickstop type establishment across the way.
Anyway Truffle Pig and handler made their stop at both places, something some people did since I had a full service coffee bar, and his prices on chips and sandwiches were cheaper than mine. Typical, since food at full-service coffee establishments is usually pricier for practical bookkeeping reasons.
In both cases, we knew the Oregon Laws: We had to let Truffle Pig in. But we could ask Truffle Pig's owner to take him and go for certain damages, that part is a bit fuzzy and you usually have to settle that one in a court with a lawyer. Ah, there we go with the unaccountable expenditures.
So what's a guy to do, right? I mean, Truffle Pig is several cuts below the worst dog guide story I've heard of. I have to balance Truffle Pig's existence with other customers and potential damages. Turns out dude across the street turned him out, and decided to bank on him not settling for much or not going to court. No real loss for him, since Quickstop customers aren't going to care that much.
I decided to suffer with Truffle Pig. We had little old ladies in there saying they were hoping I wasn't going to be a mean heartless business owner who cares most about profit. Well, since I was a "mean heartless business owner," and I did care most about profit, I sat down one night and calculated how much I'd lose if a certain pack of old birds took off and flew because I booted out Truffle Pig and his would-be manager. Well well well, Truffles is quite the nuisance but his handler has to pay for anything truffles spoils, so at most I am inconvenienced, and the handler is motivated to at least keep the animal away from the racks of merchandise. Of course, anything sanitation dependent is inside of refrigerators and behind glass cases for all sorts of reasons that don't depend on Truffle Pig.
And yet, had I booted the motley pair, I'd see quite a loss since the flock of crows would migrate somewhere else, and tell all their friends just how bad I was, and how much I was just like those people at the convenience store across the street. Now, I didn't like Truffle Pig. In fact, once when its owner was getting a coffee drink made at the coffee bar, I caught it by the scruff of its neck and restrained it from a trach-basket-mining expedition. I don't even know how to propperly manage a dog in that situation. But upon hearing one of the elder ladies cooing about how wonderful therapy animals are for people, I deigned to stroke Truffle Pig's grizzled head.
For that level of disruption, I could have formally written paperwork in Oregon, and told the handler to better manage his animal, and even got him booted. But for the sake of the Crows I let Ol' Truffles stay. Ironically, it was precisely because I *was* that "meany" whose primary motivation was profits, just like the Ladies hoped I wasn't. But you should have seen how pleased they were with themselves for having a positive influence on a store owner regarding therapy dogs.
I'll admit though, my Barrista was better about learning the language and all the words them birds use to coo and describe those things.
And your dog guide handlers are just not going to be that damaging. I mean, the therapy animals don't have a leash and can be sent to retrieve things for their owner. Some states are more regulated than Oregon is about these things. And I even agree with the debate going on now about certifications. If I could have certifiably thrown Truffles out because of lack of paperwork, I would have, and when the Ladies said how terrible that was, I'd have been the gentleman to print them off the form letter for people writing their congress person about changing the law. Just leave a stack of those conspicuously out there.
I'm just saying, a proprietor doesn't have to like the animals. In a different place and time, I'd have run Truffles off my land, for instance. Were it my house. But what are you gonna do? Upset all the posh types who are laden with ideals about these things? All for a few bucks' worth of damage?
I'll not say some can't speak up without owning a business, but I will say owning a business does grant you a little perspective.
Leo, with all due respect, I think this would carry a lot more relevancy if Meglet had been suggesting that it'd be okay to bar a guide dog from an establishment based on personal experience. Correct me if I'm mistaken but the furthest she went is, like me, to have said that she has sympathy for a desire to do it, without actually condoning it. She understands how that business owner might feel, how they might wish they could just turn a potential problem aside, without suggesting that doing so is a good idea. Clearly it isn't, because all those anecdotes and examples you gave about owning a business are spot on. It seems like perhaps you've gotten the idea that sympathy means consent, and that's not the case.
Hi Leo,
I'm not sure if my post awhile back wasn't clear, sometimes I ramble and I know it so I'll try and make myself a bit easier to understand. lol
You're right, I didn't like your analogy, but I agree, absolutely 100% with your actual argument. I remember saying that I empathize with feelings of wariness. Feelings and feelings alone. I do not support doing anything about those feelings because the law is the law, and also because you're right in that you can incur a lot more damage by kicking a service dog team out of a store than you could by letting them into your establishment. So I actually don't disagree with you at all. I do think it's weak and unwise to boot. My only gripe was with your analogy. I hope that makes sense.
Thank you for admitting that Leo. Though honestly I'm not convinced even SW there had thought of those before I said it. Its easy to claim after the fact, "Well yeah, that's exactly what I would have said had I volunteered any information on my part".
You keep going back to this idea of common sense SW. Now, I'm a big fan of common sense, simply because its so unique and rare a thing. However, if you'd gone through guide dog school, you'd know that a lot of the time common sense goes out the window for training. One example leaps instantly to mind, the manner in which you board a bus. But, you know guide dogs, so you know exactly what I'm talking about, don't you?
Meglet, read the posts again, the directions on what you can and cannot post to are in there if you read carefully. I have faith in you that you will find it if you take a few deep breaths and forget the fact that I'm badgering your boyfriend in the post.
I refuse to debate any further with someone who is happy to make accusations which have no evidence whatsoever behind them. Those of you who pay attention to my posts will know that I sometimes disagree with Gregg, sometimes even argue with him on boards. I defend him the way I might defend anyone with whom I agree; there have been times when I disagreed with him and told him so straight out for everyone to see. He does not need me to fight his battles for him, nor would I if he wanted me to. . I have outgrown such pettiness long since, and I hope that others realize that. It saddens me to see a poster I once respected use such a low blow in debate, though. It really does. I feel that any further argument on this thread at least, with this poster in particular, would be fruitless, and so I bow out hereafter.
I'm curious what is a therapy dog? not heard of them before or seen any before either.
Shepherdwolf and Meglet, I take both your points.
Except one Meglet: You said something about the fact you rambled? I can never and will never accuse anyone of ramblinb because I am the worst at it no matter what I do. lol
Therapy dogs are dogs which are basically companions for people. Honestly though, I'm not sure how they differ from pets. Its not a subject I agree with on a lot of levels.
yea...sounds sort of new agy to me. I d0on't know anyone who has one mind you so maybe they really do help?
Well I think there are two kinds.
The kind Cody mentioned and also the what I mentioned.
But just for the record there is another therapy kind of dog, the Chick has told me about it. A handler uses it, but the handler does not need it for therapy. They are some kind of therapist themselves, or something social worker-ish like that, and bring the dog to little kids, something to do with traumas and things, just little dogs mostly. And their job is to be petted, while people like the Chick help the kids do what they call interact appropriately with it. Guess that means don't pull its tail and all, also she says to help them not be scared of it.
So anyway, I think that word therapy dog has two meanings, since she told me about her and them having one come into their facility now. It was no rampaging truffle pig though.
Maybe they should come up with a different word for the different kinds.
I know there are dogs who are geared to help autistics, children in particular. These animals are basically trained to endure children (more so than the average dog, I mean), and are taught, I believe, to recognize and account for serious emotional behaviour of their charges. I've heard of stories where an autistic, maybe with serious Asperger's Syndrome for instance, having a meltdown, and instead of careering all over the place or attacking someone, they're held in check by the dog...either comforted or physically blockaded in some fashion. According to this, it seemed that the proximity and interference of the dog did a lot of good.
There are a lot of different kinds of dogs. Some help people in wheelchairs, or people who are diabetic. Some help people who are prone to seizures, others help children not be afraid. In fact, the first dog I was issued was career changed to be one of the latter kinds of dogs.
Then you have dogs that seem just to be a companion, or worse the people who just have their pet take the test. These dogs I don't get. They're pets, nothing more. Yet they have legal rights to go into public places. I don't know the full story though, so that's as far as I can take it. Maybe someone else knows more.
It's a touchy issue, to be sure. Honestly, I don't like being exclusive, but I also don't necessarily see why if I were a restaurant owner I'd want your pet dog in my restaurant. Even assuming your pet is extremely well-behaved, has taken classes and passed tests like a service animal has...well, I don't think I'd get all mean about it, but I would be wondering what the point is. One's main reason for allowing a service animal, a lot of the time, is that said animal is deemed necessary for its handler's safety or well-being. This isn't really the case for a pet.
Agreed. I actually feel similarly about people who insist on taking pets who are not service dogs to other peoples' houses, whether they're wanted there or not. My cousins have several small dogs between them, and even though they know full well that my grandfather doesn't like them at all and my aunt is allergic, they insist on bringing them along anyway. These dogs can be left at home, so why aren't they? Seems discourteous to me.
I am to agree that sounds unfair and thanks on responding to my question and it is interesting hearing about the different dogs out there whom are allocated for a person whom needs there assistance because of there disability or illness.
Okay, I'm going to post about several things, so here goes.
First, I don't think fraudulent service dogs are the only ones ruining the image of the assistance/service dog, or even the general attitude and reputation of an assistance/service dog handler. There are legitimate handlers of assistance/service dogs who just don't give a fuck about how their dogs are behaving or what they are doing. Or, they just don't even bother to correct behavior that gets worse by the day. They too give us a bad name, and I'm not sold that taking steps to filter out fraudulent service dogs would change this situation.
Concerning the certification, hell no! There are a number of political/economic issues surrounding the matter of certification, including:
who will establish the guidelines necessary for obtaining a certification? Will it be one service dog program, one assistance dog program, or a combination of multiple service dog and assistance dog programs? Which one/s? Will consumers or clients who use service/assistance dogs have a say in the certification process or assessment?
Who will provide the certification?
Who will cover the costs of the certification?
Who will provide transportation to and from the area where the certification assessment is given?
Why should careful, attentive handlers have to pay for the wrongdoings of fraudulent and neglectful handlers and their dogs?
How late in the game of owning/handling a working animal will someone have to obtain certification?
Is a certificate truly representative of the fact or likelihood that all or most service/assistance dog handlers will maintain and ensure the training and good behavioral habits of their animals through the duration of the working animal's career?
Under what circumstances can or will a certificate be revoked or voided?
Who will conduct the investigation for or the voiding of the certificate revocation?
I'm sure there are a number of other questions and concerns with implementing certification as a solution to the fraudulent service/assistance dog handler. These are the ones I thought of for now.
Next, tying your working dog outside for any reason is uncalled for, unnecessary, unreasonable, and irresponsible. Anyone who thinks it is okay in today's world under any circumstances is wrong, and knows nothing about, or lacks, the bond between an assistance dog and its handler. Cody is right all the way.
Also, yes, there are bad guide dog handlers who consistently allow their dogs to misbehave in-harness, who fail to care for their dog properly, who possess poor handling skills, and who pay little attention to their dog's body language. Dog handling is more of a science than child-rearing. There are several solutions to every problem and situation, but there are definitely some solutions that you should just never resolve to, tying up a working dog outside included. This is the United States and the federal law says that a person with a disability who utilizes an assistance
dog is allowed to be accompanied by that dog in all places where the general public is permitted to access.
Trying to understand, or understanding, where a store owner weary of permitting a disabled handler to be accompanied by their animal who could have or cause an accident, is somewhat similar to sympathizing with a store owner who is weary of allowing blacks, Hispanics, or people of a certain ethnicity because of xyz stereotype or past experience. Seriously!
Also, SW, I have taught my dog the "shake" cue, which cues him to shake off when we come in from any kind of precipitation. All or most handlers probably don't teach this cue, but it doesn't hurt to wait a little in a lobby or entry way until your dog does it, and it doesn't hurt to have my golden shake all over shelves of bags of chips either. A handler who is attuned to their dog can usually tell when their dog is about to shake off, and if there is concern, they can prepare for it.
Lastly, emotional support dogs are the dogs who are canine comfort buddies. Therapy dogs travel with their handlers into hospitals, senior homes, homes for the severely handicapped, homes for war veterans, and so on. These residents are allowed to pet and interact with the dog, providing a sort of therapy for these people.
you've asked good questions and it will be interesting to see what answers posters will respond with.
One small difference: racism is founded upon hatred, while nervousness associated with service dogs is founded upon a lack of experience and/or knowledge.
I don't think that just because someone is wrong I shouldn't try to at least understand why they feel how they feel. It's much easier to influence someone's thinking if you can walk a few steps in their shoes. Few people respond well to a passionate lecture: people are generally far more willing to listen if you make it clear to them that you get where they're coming from, even if it does mean they need to seriously change their attitudes. I certainly don't think that trying to empathize with someone is akin to racism. That's a heavy accusation.
Consider an example: you're applying for a job, and your employer--because he has little experience with blind people--is unsure of whether you can do the job. He hires you, of course, because the law's the law and you have the qualifications, but he's wary and wants to know how you plan to accomplish your duties. That's not a crime, is it? A crime would be if he absolutely refused to hire you, point blank, without even making an effort to give you a try and see if you're capable. I do not sympathize with people of that latter type, but I do understand an employer being wary in the former case. So, I don't think it's wrong to empathize with someone who is unsure but lets you in because they know they must. Someone like that will probably feel more comfortable with time when their uncertainty is proven groundless. I do not, for example, empathize with the person who would not let one of the previous posters in at all. That's just ridiculous.
The problem with your example Meglet stems from you never having gone through being refused because of your dog. They don't say "I'm slightly nervous about allowing you into the store with your service animal". They say, "That dog isn't allowed in here".
Now, sure, I could sit back and say, "They're probably just worried about the health inspecter or the welfare of children in their shop". But the fact of the matter is that whether its because of health inspectors or the fact that they were once molested by a puppy, and that puppy licked them in their no-no square, and they felt violated and still have nightmares about it, I'm still legally allowed to enter that store with my guide dog.
If you ever do decide to get a guide dog Meglet, you will learn quickly to do a few things. First, you'll learn to grit your teeth at the dozens of people every day who ask to pet your dog. Then, you'll learn to grit your teeth even harder at the people who ignore you when you say no and do it anyway. Then, and this one applies here, you'll learn that your ability to travel independently with your dog, and the freedom it gives you completely outweigh anyone else's comfort with or acceptance of the dog's presence in their place of business. You may try to be nice for the first month, but after that you will actually be furious with anyone who tries to kick you out. Its a feeling you'll come to know intimately.
Imagine, in order to make you understand a bit more, if someone tried to say that you are not allowed in walmart because of your cane. They're worried you'll trip an old lady and she'll break her hip and sue the store. How would you react to one of your basic rights being denied you like that? would you sit back and say, "Well, they're probably just trying to be safe with the little old ladies. And they're right, I might actually trip one of them and break their hip. Maybe I should just deny myself the ability to navigate the store independently." Or would you say, "Oh hell no. I want my orange soda and cheese doodles, and no amounts of little old lady hips is going to keep me and my cane from getting them".
to add to cody's post, meglet, you can also say that, because racism is born of ignorance just like denying a service animal into a business is born of ignorance, the person being racist is also uncomfortable. How many whites were scared of black people, and still are, in the south at least? How many hated them being intheir stores because they presumed that the blacks are filthy, inhuman, dumb? you can really say the same about racism, yu can attach the same arguments to it as you did to this. the only reason you think that this is different than racism is because you, personally, find racism atrocious and inhumane. that's all.
Not to mention that most racism actually stems from fear, real or imaginary, just as most encounters with dogs stems from fear in my experience. There really is very little in the way of difference in the two.
Thank you Cody and Bernadetta for very clearly seeing my point.
Meglet, people will listen whether we sympathize or understand their feelings or not. The fact is this: the damn law says a disabled person who uses an assistance dog is permitted to bring their dog into those establishments where the general public is allowed. So no, I will not sympathize with anyone who tells me: "You can't have that dog in here," "You can't bring that dog in here," or best of all: "Get out of this store with that dog!"
Now, maybe you can sympathize with these people, but a guide dog user cannot. To not accept my dog means that you don't accept me. My guide dog is a part of me, and if you kick him out, you're kicking me out. But see you don't understand this because you don't have a guide dog. I want you to just notice how no guide dog user has disagreed with Cody. He's not bullshitting, I promise.
Oh for heaven's sake. This has got to stop.
You folks really, really need to read a whole post rather than just seeing half a sentence that sets you off and then running with it as if you've seen the entire point. People get embarrassed when they miss the point that way. All their carefully constructed emotional grabs fall flat on their faces, as they're doing here. It just makes you look dogmatic and bullheaded.
Meglet did not say that she would be patient with someone who refused her, or anyone else, service. In fact, she said the opposite. Your example about the cane in Walmart is thus invalid and meant to make her look foolish. Sorry, it doesn't work.
Racism may be based on fear, and wariness of dogs may be built on fear, but an appreciable difference exists because blacks and Hispanics aren't usually on the news after they slip their leashes and savage someone. Guide dog attacks are virtually unheard of, I'll grant you, but for some who have been terrorized by an animal, one breed or type is just like the next. Does this mean it's okay for them to bend the law? Of course it doesn't, and Meglet never suggested differently. However, it does suggest that one might be able to have some sympathy. For many, fear is not something you can just switch off.
I know many guide dog handlers who have a stance almost exactly like Meglet's, so let's stop with the "if you had a dog, you'd understand" crap. It's clearly more a matter of the person, and not the person's use of a guide dog, that determines how much crap they're willing to listen to in the pursuit of being big-hearted. If you happen to believe that as a guide dog user the best thing you can do to someone who's wary is to just put your head down and bowl them over, trumpeting your rights the whole way, all I can really say is that I think you're missing the point. Generally, when a person does that - responds to uncertainty with that sort of contempt for feelings and a focus on themselves - it would be considered self-centered at the very least, and downright cruel at the worst. Never mind fraudulent service dogs giving other service dogs a bad name; people who have no regard at all for the sensibilities of others give all us other blind people a bad name.
No, I'm not saying you should be meek, or that you should just slink away and be willing to be patient at all times. Also, I do accept that a lot of business owners will outright try and refuse you rather than explaining themselves. That's a whole different situation, as force may be necessary in the face of active resistance from a business owner. But if we use Meglet's case where active resistance is not occurring, then to try and use responses to active resistance in order to invalidate her stance is illogical and silly.
I swear, some of you will try and twist, modify or imply anything if it means that the alternative might suggest you're being unfair. Do you have to resort to underhanded slights of character, as seen in previous posts, in order to maintain some tenuous sense of righteousness? Because personally, I see that sort of grasping as mighty desperate; it's the sort of thing that works very hard to undo some of the other good points that have been made in your defense, and it makes a mockery of rational discourse. It stops being about facts and starts being about your inability to admit that you might actually be wrong. It stops being about differing viewpoints and starts being about personal slights slung in multiple directions.
Let me make the end of my last post a lot clearer.
It was once implied that Meglet was only involved with this discussion as a means of defending me. Frankly that's bullshit, and shows how low one may try to stoop when one's logical arguments are collapsing.
It was also implied at one point that I might well have simply tagged along with Cody's responses to what would happen in a scenario as a means of saving face. This is an unfalsifiable claim made because the alternative means the invalidation of your stance. Never mind that there is no evidence whatsoever of my having done this.
And now, yet again, we have the "if you had a dog, you'd understand" attempt at dismissal of a rational point that you missed by a country mile. It's not the first time a guide dog handler has missed this point and it won't be the last. If you're going to try and knock something down, at least look where you're swinging first.
This whole thing smacks of twisting or ignoring points to suit your view of the situation, but frankly, if you're trying to imply that the response to any show of uncertainty whatsoever is a brazen display of self-righteous rage, I'm not surprised. If you are such a person and do possess such an outlook, however, just do the rest of us a favour from time to time, and remember that your bad behaviour is going to sour the rest of the world, who has a little more understanding of how things really work, on a minority that already faces its share of problems in this area.
Having said all this, I'm bowing out completely on this topic. I'm thoroughly disgusted by the lack of forethought going into these posts and the blatant falsifying and misrepresentation of what is being said by your opposition.
SW, the example with the cane in Wal Mart is perfect. The point of that example was to illustrate why understanding or sympathizing where someone is coming from is not always realistic or reasonable.
Also, regardless of what is on the news, racism is still a huge problem, yes, even in 2013, even up here in Michigan. Blacks and Hispanics are still portrayed negatively in the news, and many news stations/sites/papers still take on those stories where ethnic people are aggressors or assailants. So please, don't try to mitigate it or make it disappear, because I assure you it has not.
Now, racism and weariness of dogs are both primarily based on fear, and just as many people think all dogs are vicious, scary, or dirty because of a past experience, many racists think the same way about people of a certain race/s because of a past experience. The issues are not that different, and the fact that you don't see that speaks volumes.
No one is saying shove your foot up someone's ass just because they don't know about assistance dogs and try to tell you that the dog is not allowed. But when I hit you with some knowledge and inform you of the law, or show you the law in print, you'd better accept it and move on, no matter what happened to you as a child, or what your religious/superstitious beliefs are. I have no respect or sympathy for anyone who refuses to acknowledge this access law, and chooses not to accept my dog. To say I can understand discrimination of this kind would be problematic. I don't understand it. I can't. I understand that some people fear dogs or view them as dirty, but I personally cannot wrap my head around those feelings. I understand that certain people don't know about the law, but I don't understand refusing to be educated or accept the law.
For anyone to say that they understand where these discriminators are coming from, is to say that you agree with them in a sense or on some level. If you know guide dog users who agree with these people, then I feel sorry for their dogs.
I always find these topics to be heated, yet educational. Lots of great points were braught up here, things I would have never thought of being a cane user myself as opposed to those of you who use the dog. I can not speak for anyone else but I will speak for myself. I would not have taken a lot of these points in to consideration without reading this and other topics, or going to a dog guide training program. I feel confident that I have common sense, but it is like Cody said earlier, that certain situations call for more than just common sense. I am not a big animal person so I haven't felt the bond that a few of you keep bringing up, and I won't sit here and say it doesn't exist because I haven't experienced it. Thinking of the bench example hits home. No one in their right mind would ever do that to a child or relative who is unable to fend for themselves, and any animal for that matter is a living creature that could be left vulnerable in such a scenario.
Whether it is a dog, a position of authority, a person who is desperate to get something that they want but don't necessarily need, etc. you will have some idiots who will take advantage of / try to beat the system. You will probably at some point, if not all ready, be taken advantage of. Likewise, you will come across someone who doesn't understand why you have a dog or what the laws are in regards to having a dog. If someone refuses to abide by these laws after you have tried to explain the situation, or if you need to get going and get shit done, stand your ground. It is against the law to refuse someone because they have a service dog, and you don't want anything happening. If the person isn't handling the dog the way they are supposed to, then you have a reason to tell that person to get the hell out of the store. Otherwise there isn't an excuse.
Be prepared should your dog get sick. Cody and others have firsthand experience and were kind enough to share what to do to prepare, so again there is no excuse. If you notice that the dog is sick beforehand or that something is wrong, obviously don't work the dog. A guy here on campus who has a seeing eye dog could not work his dog for a few weeks because the dog caught lime's disease. The people at the dorm in an authority position were bitching because they noticed he wasn't working the dog and the dog got sick a couple times in the lobby, so he had some explaining and educating to do. It is understandable if you have things to do that you don't always have time to explain some things, but don't be surprised if you cop an attitude because of being questioned, and end up being confronted on it.
I hope this is of some help to some, and I hope if anything I say doesn't make sense then question me.
I feel more sorry for them. I'm sure they take perfectly good care of their pets. Cuz really, if you let other people control what you do with your guide dog, it might as well be a pet.
SW, I know you hate this, but I'm going to say it again. You've never had to do this before. There's a reason we carry the law around in print and we have licenses to use a guide dog. There's a reason I got to the point where I could quick draw that license. You've never done any of those things. You are approaching this from an idealistic bent, and that's your porogative. However, we, the ones who have gone through it and done it and come out the other side, are telling you that you are dead wrong.
I promise, we wer all pretty much the same as you before we got our dogs. We all had these fluffy notions about how everything with our guide dog was going to be lollypops and gumdrops. Then we got the dog, and started dealing with people who were deathly terrified of dogs. You learn how to deal with it, and the way to deal with it isn't to back down and go home, or tie your dog to the bench outside. Even the poster who started all this realizes they made a mistake. Doesn't that tell you anything? You now have three guide dog users telling you the reality of the situation, doesn't that give you a little bit of a hint?
I understand where you're coming from, and how you got to your conclusions. The problem is that your conclusion is simply wrong. Now grow a pair and admit that. Take the knowledge we're offering you and go get a snack.
Well said runner. You get what we're trying to say.
Meglet may or may not have been misrepresented, but people used her exact wording back in the 1980s to prevent gay people from renting in buildings, because of people's fear about gays and children. Even AIDS. Yes, AIDS, which we all know now (and many did then but not all), is sexually transmitted.
You saw arguments like, what if the gay guy falls on the floor, hurts himself, there's blood, someone else picks it up and gets AIDS?
This was before the AIDS-preventitive CPR.
Any man who has been told to not board an elevator because a woman will feel trapped in an elevator with a man, will understand. Any black man told not to be alone in the back stock room with a white woman because white women fear being raped by black men will understand. None of this iss the law, and it all has happened in my lifetime. I've either observed it, been one of the parties involved or just read about it.
I don't buy the let's try and understand arguments anymore, because in my opinion that leaves people outside in the cold most times.
Are people supposed to try and understand a person from another country doesn't know what a handicapped parking sign is? But people like my mother-in-law need it. And who cares about all the ideological fantasies about bad experiences, usually written in testimonial fashion for the enjoyment of the masses?
I'm not meaning to be hard on either Meglet or Shepherdwolf: I have done or recommended as they described, including to a friend of mine who was gay and had AIDS, and is now no more. I'm sorry, I can never accept that.
If you back down and start understanding, it always leads to you being left out in the cold, you are the one outside. I'm not above quid pro quo and have done such things for people scared of the disabled suing or whatever, but honestly this has a lot of precedent.
How about this: Yuo have a very competent woman who is either a trained firefighter or active duty military personnel. Now, if someone or organization wants to have her removed, because they have had experiences (usually over the Internet), where women were given lower fitness standards and couldn't hack it. They didn't ask to see if she could meet the expectations. Nobody is going to say let's all understand these people and try and educate first.
So what makes service dogs handlers, especially disabled dog handlers, the gum on everyone's shoe? I'm sorry I just can't anymore ascribe to that sort of thinking. I spent a lot of years trying to do that all the time and every time I did, I lost. Not with service dogs, I don't have them, but in other ways.
And if a person has a child, you can forget your education of the community. People can think all they want about the blind, burn me in effigy if they like, but when push came to shove for the daughter's sake, I did what needed to be done.
Maybe we have missed some of the point, I'll grant you. But there is way too much precedent on this one. And Meglet you're too young to probably appreciate this, but women twice your age were told these very things regarding trying to serve as active duty firefighters, police officers, and certainly in the military.
Is what I've put here anecdote? Certainly some of it, as I have no sources directly here. But what's been said either needs to be disproven, or we need to show how the blind service dog handlers are second to everyone else in terms of needing to apologize and explain themselves all the time. Because that is a terrible way to have to live, it's absolutely miserable and the internal corosion that results from it is very difficult to undo.
Well said Leo. I'm afraid, to put it bluntly, where this particular subject is involved Meglet and SW have shown themselves to be naïve. Naivete isn't a sin, and isn't even their fault. But here we have more knowledgeable, more trained and more experienced people telling them they're wrong. Its time they admit they were wrong and move on.
that's just it, they can't admit they're wrong. they'd rather disappear from this discussion altogether, as they've accused others of doing in past discussions, all under the guise of those posters not wanting to admit they were wrong, when in reality, those posters just got tired of the back and forth bullshit that came about.
I've learned a great deal from those who have posted who are either guide dog handlers, or on the business side of things, as leo is, and I'm grateful that you all are thoughtfully and honestly contributing to this discussion.
some of this stuff, I couldn't have thought of myself, so thanks for helping me think a little differently.
SOS and SL, thank you for your points... while I may disagree with the delivery of some points, I can understand it. Question for you (forgive me for further derailing this discussion): as a new guide dog handler whose dog still has a penchant for trying to scrounge on the floor (as an example): if is it the bahvior that would make us a "bad guide dog team" to quote Cody in an earlier post, or myt lack of correction?
I was at a public library last week and my dog was seriously distracted by another service dog. I scolded her, made her sit down, and when she made to say hi to the dog I tugged on her leash, made her sit again and asked the other guide dog handler to go ahead. It was encouraging to speak with her later, because she told me I did the right stuff. That being said, perhaps this isn't the forum... but what makes a bad team and what makes an imperfect team, if that makes sense?
Kate
An imperfect team, which is all teams, asks for directions. Its the ones who will call their school to ask for advice. Its the ones who have lost sleep worrying about whether or not they know the right commands for the new route they have the next day. The ones who know what its like to get searched at airports because they refused to let go of the harness handle to go through airport metal detectors. More than anything though, you'll know you're imperfect rather than bad when you can't think of your guide dog as a tool, and don't remember what it was like before you had them. When they become part of you that you can't imagine being without, that's when you know.
Cody,
Fair enough... that makes me feel better.
OMG... did I actually just say that something Cody said made me feel better....?
I'm off to go check for falling stars because this must be the end of the world!
ROFL, kidding!
Kate
Haha, glad I could help.
I've had some encounters, which make me question whether some dogs are service dogs. One time on the bus, a lady in a wheelchair came on. She had a little yappie dog. It kept barking and growling at my guide dog, as well as other people. The bus driver asked her if it was a service dog, and she said yes. He responded with, "are you sure, it's sure not acting like one." Another time when I wwas in the bank, a lady came in with another yappie dog. It to started barking at my guide dog, and tried to attack him from the sound of it. I was very upset obviously, and informed the bank maniger that something needed to be done. He felt really bad, and made the lady leave from a different exit. He told me a few minutes later, that the lady would not be allowed back in the bank with her dog, because this had happened before.
Truth be told I don't think you can always tell. There are so many different purposes that service dogs, as you call them, serve. Without question any dog that is used for mobility is permitted to be in public places. But the question is what about the other ones, like the ones that serve as theraputic dogs and others. I'm ignorant about this but why should a person with a theraputic dog be allowed to bring it in to a store with them while they are going shopping? It doesn't make sense. Not long ago some lady passed my family in the mall, and my uncle saw she had this tiny dog that looked like a pug. As far as I know there was not a pet store in this mall so that reason is elliminated. We couldn't tell if the dog was some sort of service dog. But had we seen a much bigger dog like a German Shepherd in a harness, we wouldn't have looked twice with a question of whether or not that dog belonged in the mall.
Yes, you make a good point. However, if it's a service dog, it should be well behaved reguardless. Even if those two dogs were lagit, I didn't appreciate them growling and barking at Tripp and me.
I believe according tot he ADA a "service" dog is one specifically trained to provide a service of one kind or another, such as guideance for a blind person or what have you. Of course even they calegally be barred from a public place if their behavior disrupts te day-to-day operation of said establishment, which a guide dog who's just doing its regular job generally does not do.
i agree though in small towns such as mine you don't see many though there was one dog that was going through and i was unsure as if it was a service dog or just a pet because of the way of its behaviour so it can be a difficult one to know whether they are or not unless they are in harness
I know a lady who pretends her dog is a service dog. She has a harness for him and nobody usually asks questions…then again most of the places she has brought her dog in to with me have been in Chaina Town so maybe the language barrier has something to do with it. The dog is a pit bull mix, but she, like all the other people I know with pits, says the dog is technically not a pit bull, but a plot hound. The dog is so huge and not always behaves…it makes me feel weird. I get it, the dog's old and maybe doesn't have much time left, and I know if I could bring my little puppy everywhere I would but it's still kind of weird.
yeah that is weird and unusual as I've not heard of that breed being used for a service animal, do you know what colour the harness was that was being used?
I forgot.
not a problem was only curious, smiles.