Category: the Rant Board
The short version: kids are fucking annoying!
The long version:
Within the span of about a week and a half, three children have approached me while I was riding the bus and decided to come in physical contact with me because of my guide dog. And all three of them were females. Go figure.
The first chicklet started petting my dog as her mother was paying for their ride up front. All I knew was that my dog's head was stretched forward. I reached down to see what he was doing, and a small hand was there. Small hand and child corresponded too late in my brain as my automatic reaction took over. I simply pushed the hand away from my dog's head.
The mother grabbed her child and moved down the isle to go find a seat. Apparently, the little girl started crying silently, and the mother just started saying stuff like: "Don't cry. She didn't know you didn't know," and "She's only five. I could go off, but I'm not going to," and "She didn't scratch you, did she?"
Please, lady. If I had really wanted to hurt your child, I would have.
I know that what I did and what I should have done were two different things. I should have just focused more on my dog and used my words rather than pushing her hand away. Lesson learned.
I felt bad about the situation, not because the child cried, but because I knew that I could have handled the situation ten times better.
In the next instance, a female of about three was petting my dog as I was sitting on the bus and her mother was paying their fare. I only knew because I felt something scratching me from down at my dog's head level, and again, I reached down to find a small hand. This time, I simply drew my hand back and loudly said: "Don't pet the doggie, please."
Third time, the little girl didn't pet my dog, but she tapped me on the arm several times to try to get my attention to ask if she could pet my dog. I simply ignored her. The child's guardian seemed to have things covered.
My biggest hiccup about the situations above is not that people pet my dog without my permission. It happens. I knew it would from the start. My problem is that when I am sitting with my guide dog, he is positioned between my legs or immediately next to me. These people who touch me or my dog without permission are invading my personal space.
What happened to teaching children to keep their hands to themselves? What happened to teaching children not to approach strangers? My goodness! And if children are not old enough to understand such concepts, maybe let's not just let them loose on a bus without watching them closely.
People seem to have some internal mechanism that says: "I see a dog, I'm gonna pet it" and forget that you're there, too. People see a dog, and that's about all they see. Damn shame. It's rare the blind people are given the space they rightly deserve; it's like we have "touch/grab me all you want" tattooed on our foreheads.
I think this is, to somm extent at least, one of those things you'll have to get used to dealing with if you've got a dog. Get a cane, and you'll have people occasionally grab you and try to lead you. Get dog, and you'll have people trying to pet it. We're stuck. It doesn't mean it's right, but I figure the sooner you make your peace with the fact that it's bound to happen sometimes, the sooner you're apt to start viewing it more...fairly, shall we say. I'm alluding directly to your first response...shoving a child's hand away probably gave her a distinctly -bad impression of strangers, after all, and I'd say that's a lose-lose scenario. The grand majority of people out there aren't going to hurt anyone; caution is a good idea, but rudeness is not.
Well, I honestly wouldn't make a kid of five or three accountable for touching your dog without permission. Look, I see your point, but since you have questions, no matter how rhetorical, I'll try to answer them from a parents perspective.
It's a thousand times easier to go up front and quickly pay a bus fair without dragging your three or five year old behind you to do it. Sighted parents feel that having their eyes on their kids is enough supervision. And kids, whether they're told they could or could not pet a strange dog, will do it. Because that's what kids do. They run. They scream. They giggle and... they pet dogs. Because it's an impulse, and three and five year olds don't have the restraint necessary to fight an impulse that seems so innoscently harmless as petting a pretty dog.
I personally wouldn't let go of my child's hand on a bus or anywhere else. But who knows if I'd think differently about it if I could see. I hope not, but who knows. Maybe I'd be confident of his safety enough to let go of his hand for an instant. But then the issue of dogs arises, and my concern is, what if your dog wasnt' a guide. what if this child approached a stranger at a park with a particularly aggressive dog? the parent would be outraged if the dog bit the kid, and it would be the owner's fault in the parent's eyes. it's something to ponder.
Many parents these days are self-absorbed.
I'm sympathetic to your situation because you mentioned before that you dont' like kids, and I didnt' like kids approaching my dog very much when I was childless and had a guide.
But have a bit of sympathy for these kids too. They just want to make friends with what looks like a non threatening dog. I wouldn't cut a ten or eleven-year-old as much slack, but come off it if it's a three year old.
And, please remember never to touch someone else's child, even if he or she is touching your dog. You're older, you can control your impulses far better than a five year old can, I'd hope. Because, as much as you hate a kid touching your dog, parents hate when strange, blind people touch their little precious ones a hell of a lot more.
I think if my son touched a dog not his own and he got slapped on the hand, I'd definitely tell him not to touch that dog again, and I'd educate him about that sort of thing anyway. But you better believe I'd be pissed at you for smacking his hand, or shoving it away, or whatever you did.
If I can't physically reprimand my kid, you sure as hell have no right to do so as a stranger. let the parent handle her own kid next time. and you can verbally tell the kid not to touch your dog, as you did the second time, but that's the extent of it.
The girl can have a good rant though, no?
Agreed, Meglet. Sapphire's got a right to her rant. Bernadetta, she already said she felt bad for how she handled the situation with pushing the child's hand away, and knows she could have handled it better. But seriously, if a parent isn't going to be paying attention, or reprimand their kid for invading someone's personal space and touching things without permission, then they shouldn't bee too surprised or waxed too outraged when that other person does do so.
Sapphire, as your subject line says, you may be a bitch for this, but if that's the case, then I'm a bitch right there along with you. I encountered this kind of thing when I had a dog, too, and it's extremely frustrating. Heck, it doesn't even have to be a dog. A few months ago, I was in the louge car on a train, reading on my BrailleNote. A kid of about six or so got curious, but instead of asking about it, decided to come up and just start pushing buttons on it. I asked him to please not do that. Trust me, saying that was a lot calmer than what I wanted to say and do. The parent turned around from the conversation they were having, gave the child a very mild, "no no, don't do that," and went back to their conversation. A minute later, chiold grabbed the strap of the case and yanked, almost bringing the BrailleNote off the table in front of me. My hands were on the display, so I stopped it from going over, but it was a near thing. At that point, I raised my voice slightly and told the child, "I said don't touch that." When the parents turned around the second time, I proceeded to bitch them out for their kid nearly knocking an almost seven thousand dollar piece of technology on to the floor because they clearly hadn't been taught to keep their hands to themselves. Parent never even apologized, just finally had the sense to take the child away.
So I understand your frustration with kids who approach strangers and touch what they should not.
I think posts 3 and 4 have this topic summed up perfectly. kids are kids, get used to it. understand that you are in a tiny minority of people that would be on public transport with any kind of animal, and if a child sees a dog, their first impulse is to pet it because they think its ok, and the dog will be friendly. you also have to understand that a 5 year old will probably not know about such things as the concept of a working dog/service animal, what ever you want to call it. post 4 has it right also when she says you were wrong to smack the childs hand away. I would definitely not do that to a kid. some people wouldn't think twice about taking your head off your shoulders if you did that to their child, and as the adult here, you should know better
If you read my post correctly, it says that I pushed the child's hand away. I looked down, saw the hand, and simply moved it off of my dog's head.
I know that kids are curious and ignorant. But parents can still keep a closer eye on their children, and teach them not to approach strangers, and not to touch things that do not belong to them. I learned these things at a very early age before I was allowed to wander away from my parents in public. Unless a child has substandard mental capabilities, they can be taught these simple lessons.
I know that the way I handled the first situation was not the best way, but I'm not going to allow people to invade my personal space, no matter how old they are.
Okay kids are a pain in the ass but something bothers me. You just pushed the hand away? Would you have done that to just anyone? I'm sorry but you could have said "don't pet my dog." Don't you think what you did was rude?
Agreed completely with post 4. Kids will be kids. They're still growing, still learning. To me, the ways in which you handled these situations seem unnecessarily harsh.
I believe she realizes that she didn't handle the situation the best way, so I'm not sure why everyone still continues to jump at her but I digress. It wasn't the kid's fault entirely. Parenting is to blame. Many kids, so it seems, are let off the hook by their parents because the parent is too sofft. They don't want their kid to "hate them", they don't want to hurt their kid, so instead of fulfilling the job as parent the parent tries to be the child's friend. There isn't anything you can do to change that. I feel as though you have a strong sense of discipline, but that isn't how all parents think. I can understand your frustration, but just remember how stereotypical some people are. The way you act and respond to a situation will probably determine how that person judges many other people who are blind, or people that use service dogs. They don't know you and probably don't know why you use the dog. But humans judge whether they admit it or not based on experiences that they have without realizing they are judging or stereotyping.
@Margorp, yes, I most definitely would have done that to just anyone. Like I said, I will not allow people to invade my personal space. For adults who know better, there is no excuse. As for children, I now have come to a nonaggressive way of handling the situation. But I refuse to be passive in any situation in which a person is actively making me uncomfortable.
quote from @Brooke: "To me, the ways in which you handled these situations seem unnecessarily harsh."
Brooke, I don't see how I handled the last two situations harshly. In the second situation, I simply asked the child not to pet my dog, and in the third instance, I did not even address the child. How on God's green earth were those things harsh?
I understand your feelings. However, that is completely uncivilized. I am really shocked at your lack of humanity. Again, you had the option of speaking up but instead you felt that the situation called for you to shove the hand away.
Pushing a child's hand away is not inhumane, slicing the child's hand off at the wrist would have been inhumane.
I find it funny, most of the people on this board kept saying that parents don't teach their kids enough. Then in the next sentence they say that kids will be kids. So which is it, do parents have a responsibility to teach their kids, or are kids allowed to be kids?
Personally I think Raven did the right thing. She didn't harm the chld, she pused her hand away from her dog. The dog is an expensive instrument. It is Raven's, and raven has a right to defend it. Would you think it overly harsh for a sighted person to push a child's hand away if that child was touching their eye? The dog is Raven's eyes, I see no difference in the two.
Besides all that, Raven made it clear that her reaction was instinctive. She felt a hand and pushed it away. I did the same thing countless times when I was trying to figure out why my dog was getting distracted. Its better, I think, to push the hand away than to discipline the dog for being petted.
The kid doesn't know better, so it is the parent's job to teach the child that a seeing eye or service dog is not to be petted unless the owner gives them the ok. I personally believe that should be the case for any animal. You don't know if it will be vicious and attack the child. But going back to the topic. I don't know as much about seeing eye dogs because I haven't really worked with them, but from what I understand they use a harness. So for those of you who have them, would you say that most people actually understand that the harness means it is a mobility dog? Because from this and a couple other topics, it seems as though many people don't take the harness as a sign that that dog is different from other dogs.
I think most people know, they just don't care. The most common thing I got was, "I know they're in harness and I'm not supposed to pet them, but they're just so cute". Of course, as they say that, they either pet the dog, or talk to the dog.
I think what is not understood is that baby talking to a dog is just as distracting as petting it.
I’m going to go at this differently.
I don’t see anything wrong with what you did, if this is how you feel. It is your dog, your space, so that is okay.
Here is where I get different. Kids are kids, especially at 3, 5, 10, you name it, and a pretty dog for a small child is hard to resist.
In this case you were sitting, not doing anything at all, so where was the harm?
Me, I’d have allowed the petting, ask the child its name, and told it my dogs name, and a little about what my dog did for me.
I’d have allowed this touching, because it not only would have pleased the child, but by talking to the child given them a sense of blind people, the things they use, and such.
If I didn’t feel much like talking, I’d just allow the child to pet the dog.
I had 2 of them, and many times, even adults just can’t resist, so if we were just sitting, I’d allow it and smile and say hello.
If we are traveling, I felt it was my job to keep my dog on track, because people simply don’t know, and children, can’t be blamed for not knowing things the parent doesn’t know either.
In the case of the braille note, same thing. Instead of just getting mad, I’d have invited the child to read a little braille. Smile. That way they get the curiosity done, and I keep my expensive machine safe, because I’m holding it.
Sure, maybe parents should teach these things, because most people aren’t like me, but I also feel it is an adult’s responsibility to teach kids kindness, and something about the world they live in.
I’m on the bus, I’ve got time.
It's not the fact that it was a child's hand that was pushed away. It's the fact that it was a person's hand. Look at it from their point of view. This person just shoved me...how rude. More to the point, they will say to a friend, "hey, this blind woman shoved me...wow those blind people are just nasty!" I know that's stupid but that's how people are. But blind or not, it was just wrong to behave that way.
I don't think she thinks what she did was right/ in fact, that's half the point of her entire post. While it's true that kids will be kids, personal space is something they should be taught to respect very very early on.
Kids should be tought adults are caring early on. Respect comes from adults respecting them and teaching them.
Ok, Cody, to answer your question, kids will be kids, and parents suck a lot of the time. There's no contradiction.
You punish the parent and educate the child. You talk to the parent,
Haven't you talked to your child about the importance of a stranger's personal space? What if I was a harmful stranger. What if my dog hurt your kid. What if my expensive machine was broken and I sued your ass for the seven thousand dollars it took to replace it."
You can tell the child calmly that you dont' touch dogs that don't belong to you. That a blind person needs her dog to watch out for them, and if the dog pays attention to the child, he cant' watch out for the blind person.
It's not the kid's fault that the parents are stupid. Ignorance breeds ignorance, but the kid has potential, assuming he or she has the mental capacity of a normal child.
Countless times, I've shown a kid what my braille note is used for. I would definitely be mad if a child came up and started pretting buttons on my braille Note, but that's still very different from a kid petting a dog. A dog is a living, breathing thing, and though we use them to navigate busy streets and public transportation, for instance, the rest of the world views them as pets. It's our job, I think, to educate the rest of the world.
But I also suppose that's up to a person with a better social disposition than the OP. I gather right away that the OP is not a very social person. She obviously doesnt' like kids, and probably doesn't really like people in general. That's all sorts of unfortunate in itself, but it takes all kinds, I should think.
I really like your way of thinking in this instance, wayne. However, I see a few issues with the practicality of yoru idea.
Kids need to be taught not ot approach strangers, because sadly, not everyone has the kind intentions you do. As sad as that is, it's true. Secondly, no child should tough anyone's expensive computer. They can inquire about it, but pressing buttons and pulling on the strap of an expensive piece of technology is altogether uncalled for.
That warrants an outrage of some sort, because what if you were typing something important and the kid happened to press escape or delete and erased your hard work in a flash? Alicia is correct to have defended her private space in her instance.
As for dogs, wayne, most people don't allow strangers to pet their dogs even when their sitting down, simply for the sake of consistency. I can see yoru point of view, but I can see that of some one else as well, the person who was taught by the school he or she went to to not allow any social interaction with the dog while he is in harness. It's only for safety reasons. Perhaps some dogs have trouble with distractions,a dn have to be kept away from all distractions while in harness, or else they'd slip when it's crucial for them to pay attention.
I had such a dog; I had to be very consistent with my dog because he had little self-discipline when it came ot strangers and other dogs.
So you see, it really depends on the dog. Some dogs have no problem focusing on the blind person's traveling even if they've been petted and talked to as they sat down on a bus or somewhere else. Other dogs completely lose track of what they're supposed to be doing unless they're taught that in harness, the focus belongs only on work.
Yes, you had to be consistent with your dog. I understand that. But you also as an adult need to show consistent to children.
Now, here is the thing. I think it is unresponsible of someone to have a 7 thousand dollar piece of anything out on a bus if they don't have it secured.
What if the driver need to slam on the brake? It will hit the floor.
If I had to be using it, or just wanted to use it, I'd have a neck strap on it, or I'd have it press on the seat in front of me. That takes care of the kids too. Smile.
These things aren't that fragile, nor are dogs, they get over the petting.
I say, even adults will pet a pretty dog.
I guess I'm just not uptight enough.
If I was typing something important, you know you can correct it right?
The dog, won't lead you in to a post when you get off the bus, because it got petted either.
I'm the adult, and I am the leader or the person to teach the child, and my behavior is directly teaching. No, everyone is not like me, but the child will learn this as well.
My daughter had somewhat of a fear of dogs, but if her friends were out with us, I would not allow them to go running up to a strange dog and pet it, for the reasons described earlier: she could get bitten. Kids have to be taught that strange people and strange dogs are not to be approached without an adult they know. It is definitely a complicated issue, but I do not see pushing a hand away as anything sort of abuse. Note I did not make a practice of paddle-ass, and pushing a hand away is not nearly the same as striking.
Oh, and for the record, while blind guide dog handlers are expected to be all sweet and sensitive about others petting the dogs? I have seen rescue dog handlers be quite stern with people who wouldn't listen.
The family member who is the handler of a mascot dog, whose job it is to be petted and do photo shoots, people still have to ask her before petting that dog. Even if it is a dog whose job it is to get petted, if it is working dog people still know.
I just see different standards applied to the guide dog. Try petting someone's rescue dog, or drug dog, both of which do not bite by the way, and see how their owner reacts. We are not second-class citizens to them, and your dog does at least as much work as the rescue ones I have seen. I see nothing at all wrong with what either Raven or Alicia did. I would have been properly upbraided as the parent, and frankly would have apologized to either of you. It's easy to get distracted and those are times when your kid either does what they know they're supposed to, or gets to sit down and be watched, their choice.
The tiny ones, that is difficult but still a pushing the hand away is not inhumane or anything, if anything it's a response they'll remember, and you may have saved that kid being bitten by some strange dog. I hope you realize that part, Raven: maybe they will be more wary of a strange dog, and so won't approach so readily, and so avoid getting bit. Not saying yours would, but still.
It's like when parents tell strange kids, "You'll have to ask your mom or dad," when the kid asks for something, or if the kid wants to play with yours and the other parents are far away down the beach, we would ask them to go get their mom and dad and ask them if they can play here. I don't know if I'm making any sense, just piecing together what I remember from when ours was that little.
@Margorp, it seems that you are having problems with reading comprehension. I have already acknowledged that I could have handled the first situation ten times better, and in fact, I showed that I could in the very next instance.
Also, people will think it is rude that someone shoved them, but I'm not going to look at things from their perspective because I think it is rude when they feel it is okay to approach me and invade my personal space and physically touch me without my permission.
And while it is a part of my role as a working dog handler to educate the public about working dogs, I am not required to educate everyone any time they interact with me.
And write away is right, I have a general dislike toward people, especially children. However, I don't think that what I did in the first situation was wildly rude or extremely aggressive. I'd say at most, it was impolite and somewhat inconsiderate. But I believe I have an expectation for people not to physically interact with me in public. Why didn't the children run up to the woman down the isle? Why didn't they run up to the couple of college guys beside me who were discussing their evening plans? Why didn't they run up to the guy across the isle handling his household bills on the phone? Because those people did not have a dog. Somehow, having a dog means I should have lower expectations of personal privacy? I don't think so. I know that people will want to physically interact with me and the dog, but as I have said before, I will not allow people to do this without my permission.
I am sad to say that I had a nice post all to go then something happened and it just somehow vanished so here is my summery.
I have too noticed that in the last week kids have crawed out from under some rock and is all over the place and trying to get to my dog too. I got very upset at the store last weekend because of something like this. I had two different families of kids try to pet my dog with out asking. They even ran after me to do so.
I don't think that Raven was being as violent as some of you have tried to make her out to be. I too relish my personal space and if I don't want someone in it well then, get out.
I have seen many kids who have showen respect and asked me before coming close to pet my dog, they can be taught such humain behaviors. If the parents can't be responcible enough to keep their kid from coming up to me because they aren't watching their kids, then how can they be expected to be responcible enough not to let their kids get hurt in some other means? If they aren't watching their kids and keeping them from trying to get their hands on my dog, then they also aren't watching their kid from some kid napper from snatching their butts up too.
I have parents all the time who will tell their kids about how my dog's harness means that she is a working dog and can't be petted so they know what the deal is, just some don't care.
I charish my personal space like I said and I don't care if I am a guy on a cell paying my bills, a lady organizing shelfs in the store, a man on a mition to go to the bathroom or lady walking/sitting or whatever with my dog. Don't tutch me. If I don't wish to talk then find someone else to speak with. It would be rude if I forced myself in to someone elses space, so why isn't it rude for them?
I have noticed that when people gets kids, they all of the sudden think that their kids are in the right and everyone else is in the wrong if they go aginst their kids. I am not that old but I was raised up by older people and when I was growing up, I was told that if your told something by an adult, well then you better listen or you'll get your ass wepped. Don't matter if they are your mama or not Little Miss Shorty.
Here's the problem I see. You can break this situation down into levels of discipline. The level it should have been at is that the mom had complete control of the child and none of this happened. The second level is that the mom didn't have complete control, but had taught her daughter not to wander off. And come on, she's five, that's old enough to understand that. The actual level though, was that the daughter was not under control, the mom was not paying attention, and the child was doing something she shouldn't which technically could have been harmful. At that point, the immediate recourse is to stop the child doing that. The fastest way to do that is to push her hand away. Its not going to scar her for life.
As I say, she acted just fine, I don't see a problem there.
I see this from a teaching standpoint. Sure, parents should do this or that, but they didn't, so as an adult person I'm going to talk to the child and tell them what the dog does for me. If I have enough time I'll explain why it isn't a good idea to pet others working dogs.
I don't see it as educating everyone, and I don't see it as a vilation of my personal space, because we are talking about a child, not another adult.
I believe children are products of the community. Because we don't live in small communities, I still use the same rules. Teach a child when you have the time to do so. Make that lesson a good experience, and maybe next time they'll remember, oh, that lady explained about these dogs and I remember I'm not suppose to touch them.
That is where I stand.
See, this is one reason I won't get a dog, as much as I love them. Too much unwanted attention. My uncle's on his third one and every time we talk he encourages me to try, but ehh.... I dunno.
It's definitely why I won't get a dog. I also don't believe any wrong was done by pushing a child's hand away from a service animal. Sorry, but the child won't be scarred for life; the poster did not hit the child or otherwise harm her. Arguably she could've handled the situation better than she did, but she also could've handled it ten times worse than she actually did. Her first obligation, in my mind, is to herself and to her own protection, not to the sensitivities of others when arguably her own safety might be at risk if her dog were distracted by undue attention.
I think both sides of this have been well put and I agree with both sides to an extent;
I use to be very strict and not let anyone pat my dog at all but lately I figure that if we're standing/sitting quietly, it's OK; but everyone is different and I definitely understand and respect that.
I'm on to my second dog so I've gotten to know how far I can go with the pats before it gets in the way of their future work. it's a tough one.
I hate it when people say they know they shouldn't be patting the dog but they do anyway in the same breath; Lol!
I just wanted to say I've noticed lately that some kids seem more educated than the parents; no joke; I was standing at the bus stop a few weeks ago and I heard a kid say "don't pat the dog mummy; it's a guide dog". It took my breath away. Lol
Oh sorry, and I meant to say that I can totally understand what the OP is saying about invading personal space; I also have my dog inbetween my legs and do feel a bit invaded when people go to pat her, even with my permission.
So someone answer this:
Why are the blind some kind of exception with their dogs, expected to be all nice and sweet and just let everyone do things, say all nice words all the time, when this is never the case for rescue and other working animals? I mean,
If I came on here and said an older gentleman had a service dog, a couple of young fool teenagers were messing with it, he told them to knock it off. They proceeded to continue messing with his dog, so he said, "Listen Numbnuts, I said, knock it off!"
Now, if some of you thought he was blind, you all would have gone off your rocker about educating them and all this psychology raggedy-ass words. But, in that instance, this is a retired military colonel working using a rescue dog in a volunteer capacity, and that dog wasn't even technically working, aka rescuing anybody, at that time. I've seen different types of service dogs who are not expected to be petted, and whose handlers do things that probably make some of you go home to mama and cry about education of the ... I don't know what it would be for those people: search party bloodhounds, rescue dogs, drug dogs, etc.
Peple would say that all this verbiage would be ridiculous in that instance. And, those dogs while on duty perhaps, they are not technically working at the time. So why do we have an expectation of guide dog handlers that doesn't apply to other people? I have heard of things that are done to, and accepted by, the blind guide dog users that I guaran'damn'tee you no police dog handler, or rescue dog handler, or drug dog handler would accept, and they're not nice about it, because sometimes you have to just make it clear. Very much especially when you have situations where people say, "I know I'm not supposed to pet him, ..." and then start petting him. Same colonel's response would be something like a curt "Then stop doing that, now!" We don't let people play with rescue equipment just because some things are shiny. All sorts of other tools people can see and may be interested in, are hands-off to the public. It's called, "You can look but you can't touch."
The difference? While the other dogs are on duty, the guide dogs are always actually working whenever they're walking with you, if I understand things properly. Sorry, but your safety outweighs someone's so-called education. And, by the way, how good is that education? People think they are the exception because people are too sweet to tell them "No. and who do you think you are?"
I remember when I first saw a guide dog, as a teenager just out of high school. I knew you weren't supposed to pet someone else's dog, even though I didn't get any education about that. And, I met an older blind lady (I say older, but she was probably close to my age now). I didn't know how a dog was going to follow me, since I was leading the way, so I ignorantly. slapped my leg, whistled and said "Here boy," when we started walking. I wasn't scarred for life, or put off to guide dog users, because she rather firmly said, "Don't you ever do that!" in kind of a matronly sort of voice. She explained about the way you all teach them to follow people and even through crowds, across train tracks like where I was taking us, and all that. So I was genuinely ignorant, did something many of you would say was pretty stupid, and, well, I guess it was. I apologized, and yeah she took the time to explain about things but first said what she said, and she was in the right.
Even with ignorance sometimes, people are serious about things because it is serious. So, I don't see why people think the blind have to be all sensitive and walk on eggshells, unlike every other dog handler group out there.
I am of the belief that it wouldn't kill people in general to be a bit courteous. I don't mean that they should automatically permit everything, but you don't have to bite someone's head off either. This is particularly true for a child.
Mostly, I'm in the same position as Rachel. I see both sides of this, but I don't think it needs to be a serious issue either way.
We're expected to be all nice all the time whether we're guide dog users or not. If you're walking along with the cane and someone grabs you out of the blue and starts pulling you along, heaven forbid you should react with surprise or even refuse the unsolicited assistance. More often than not the people who'll grab you without saying anything are also the sort who won't react kindly to even a polite refusal.
If it comes down to it, politeness is trumped by my own safety, so I will be curt when I think I need to do so, although it's gotten me a "Well, fuck you then," from time to time. I'll be polite most of the time, but when you're not polite to me, you can't expect me to be the epitome of sweetness and light. And unless you're gunna be my boyfriend, you shouldn't be grabbing me anyway.
Ok, I stand mutule in this situation, here's why. First off, lets not focus on what was done, but how this same situation can be handled in the future because we simpley won't get anywhere. Now with that said, this is what I think. one, I'd not catigorize children as ignorant, just because one thinks children should know certain things doesn't mean that all know according to their age, come on! Yes, the parent is to blame. And wheather sighted or not, parents shouldn't be awayfrom their children, period! It happens allthe time, how many children are seen in the markets trying to get out of the basket or the cart while mommy is around? While theparent can see, they won't be able to get there ontime if the child falls off! , and that really upsets me. Next, remember that there are many people whoare notfit to be parents, and, many parents think that it's ok to let their children wonder around petting stranger's dogs. But I saythat whilethe dog's onit's harnis, it's, working, period! You don't distract anyone or any dog while they're performing an important task suchas working! It wasn't violent to push the child's hand away,what ifthedog haddecided to be agressivehis Then withouta doubtyou'dbe in problems with the lawthe mom andsuch,so there. andno you'renota bitchild, whatever you ddi was what you thoughtofinthe moment,notall thinkaccordingly whena situationcomes up
Lol Brian I would love to see what would happen if someone grabbed that colonel I mentioned in an earlier post. I just think if what we want is equality, lets not have a greater expectation of the guide dog handlers than we do other dog handlers. Never once in my admittedly short lifetime of 42 years have I seen this double standards be a benefit to anyone anywhere, so-called education or not. And, I don't see that people are more or less educated as a result. Sometimes telling a fool to stay away from a service dog, or quit twanging the cables used to hold up scaffolding, or any number of other unsafe behaviors is totally in line. And that may mean being absolutely sure they get the point.
Courtesy is fine of course, and I've seen people explain how their rescue dog works, or what the mascot dog is for, and those types of things, but not all the time.
I have to ask those who think we should be courteous all the time. If someone if the sort of person who would first grab us, and then get angry when we push them away, are they the kind of person we want to deal with at all? Are those really the kind of people whose opinion you want to care about?
In this instance I think, as 've said, Raven was right to push the girl's hand away. You don't always have to be a doormat for other people to walk all over in the name of not offending them.
I've read this post a few times before commenting, because I wanted to get the facts straight before commenting. Unfortunately some of these folks are correct, kids will be kids and their first impulse is going to be to see a dog and want to pet it, wether it's theirs or not. Also, it's unfortunate that not every parent taught their kid not to invade your personal space, and I completely understand you wanting to give the girl that slight bit of correction. It's not as if you slapped the girl's hand and started yelling and screaming at her, all you did, if I understand the post correctly, was move her hand away from the dog's head, which indicates to her that no, you should not do what you just did. That's not inhumane at all. Like I say, I fully understand you wanting to keep your personal space yours, but as other folks have said, this is one of those pitfalls of having a guide dog. External forces like kids are gonna be around, and will sometimes get in your way. It sucks I know. If you want to learn how to handle the situation a little better, give your guide dog school a buzz, and talk to one of the instructors there, and see if they have any suggestions as to how to handle this situation in a better way. To me, you did the very best you could given the situation. You didn't make a scene or anything, you didn't start yelling or anything, you did the best you could.
Leo. In this case this is a child. 3 and 5 I think she thought them to be.
In the case or a military, police, or anyone else as an adult working a dog, being as you described the man training the dog as, would be stupid of him in my book.
How can we teach kids being assholes?
In her case, she wasn't, but in your description, if he'd said that to a 3 or 5 year old child, he'd be wrong, even if they were petting his working animal.
I am not talking the blind here, I'm talking adult, to child interaction, and reaction.
Now, if we are talking adults, then the situation is different. You don't have to be nice to everyone if you don't wish to. I'm just like SF, I prefer to do it in a nice way. It just works for me.
If someone grabs me, and it has happened, their is an easy and calm way to get them to let go.
If someone whistled at my dog as Leo said, their is a better way to teach them then jumping on the, Don't you ever do that again." How come just explaining calmly can't work just as well?
If you are an asshole to kids you just teach them grown people are such. A military, or police personnel hopefully is trained restraint.
Yeh I think some people are forgetting that these guide dogs are our eyes.
I said in my above post last night that I was not as strict as I was. But if I'm crossing a road and someone pats my dog, of course, I'm going to get angry cos if that dog gets distracted anc veers me into traffic, not good at all.
No, I am not going to get angry at little kids; they don't know any better but I expect the adults to ahve some form of understanding or putting themselves in my shoes. If a kid pat the dog in this scenario, I would simply tell my dog "leave it", "straight on" to keep my dog focused especially in this situation.
Thank you. You are in control, and the adult.
Oh Wayne I totally agree about the kids. That I completely understand. All I'm saying though is that adult on adult the blind should not have any expectations on them that other people with working dogs don't have. And no, that colonel would not have talked that way to a five-year-old, these were teenagers horsing around and knew what they were doing.
I just think you shouldn't be expected to do anything that other professional dog handlers aren't expected to do.
Not with the adults. This post is about 3 children. Because they were such, is why I think as I do.
I personally see no harm in what the original poster did. She moved the child's hand away from her dog, nothing more. I myself might have done the same thing if I had a guide dog, particularly if I'd already asked the child not to pet my dog.
Ok, first off, who said one should be courtious all the time? I think noone, only that it's important when necessary. And, there was no harm done to anyone whatsoever! I personally wouldn't get mad at any kid for thatouching my dog, I'm not the farent, therefore I won't be imqlite to any child
courteous****
First, beer_drinker, if you read the original post all the way through, you would see that I found a better way to handle the situation.
As for Leo's question, I think that we're expected to be courteous and polite toward others all the time because people want to hammer into our heads that we are representatives of a minority. Margorp even brought it up on this thread -- that I could give someone a bad impression of all blind people. I don't agree with this point of view, I do not represent blind people, guide dog users, or service dog handlers. I can be as strict and uptight about my dog and my personal space as I want to be. Some people are super courteous and open about their dogs, I am not.
9.5 times out of 10, I don't allow people to pet my dog in harness, whether they asked or not. My attitude is that the dog is working when he's in harness, whether he's actively guiding me or sitting quietly at a table or on a bus. I don't reveal my dog's name to anyone either; I feel like that does more harm than good.
i know that people will want to pet the dogs, and will also pet without my permission. But then, they should know that once they put their hands on me or my dog, they are in the line of fire. I'm far more polite about petting without permission than I was when I first got my dog, but I will never just allow random people to approach me and pet him in harness. The rule is the same for all adults and children.
I completely agree with Nicky's post. People put children up on this pedestal and view people who correct their children or go against them as in the wrong. I am so sorry, but if you don't want other people to touch your children or even speak to them in a way that might come off as remotely harsh, then keep your kids by your side until you're pretty damn confident that they can stay safe and not rudely approach strangers. It would be wrong if I allowed my dog to walk around, sniffing crotches and sticking his head in purses and such, it would be wrong if I just walked up to someone and started grabbing their iPhone and cooing about how nice it is, so yes, it is wrong when a child approaches me and starts touching me and my dog. Just because they don't know it is wrong does not mean the action isn't. This is not my moment to teach, but the parent's. You've got quiet a few things to teach your little ones if they're walking up to people and touching them.
I'm very glad this qst came about, because I'm getting a foride dog soonot, and let me tell you I sure as hell won't alow anyone to pet my dog while it's on harnis, because it's working!, I don't care if I'm on the bus, or waiting at a stop or light, no! We're both concentrating, because we're out and about on the streets, and the last thing we ever need are distractions, I can tell you that right now. Yeah children should knowbut they don't!, and I mean come on, you're the adult who has total control of the sijuation, andI don't think you'll have time to teach all children who come up to your dog? Tough luck, kiddo, it's nota perfect world where people have the knowledge according to their age levil, sorry. I'm not putting children on a pedistal but kids have theright to be curious, they're kids, you can't avoid that. Now I'm not sayingone should pend their timegiving lectures to every child who comes about dogs, no, heck, I'm not doing it. All I'm saying isthat if thechild doesn'tknow, the aduq should know better, come on! ;
Well, get ready, because it's going to happen no matter how strict you are. You could tell them to fuck off, and say you hope they get hit by a train so that the child gets taken and given to a more courteous person who will be a better parent, but why? The child all ready petted the dog, and what's done is done. You think you can make the parent change their style of parenting, but you can not. The people in this world won't change for your benefit, so get used to it.
True, but that doesn't mean we should just let the act go unpunished, so to speak. If I ever get a guide dog I'll probably be the same way, no petting as long as the dog's in harness, and I will move a person's hand away if they pet without my permission, particularly if I've already asked them not to. I understand that as far as the average sighted schmoe is concerned I'm representative of a minority and should terefore be unfailingly polite and courteous and accept any unsolicted help anytime it's given, even if it screws me up. That's what they think I should do. But I most certainly would not tolerate someone who just walked up and started petting m guide dog if I had one, regardless of whether we were about to cross a street or sitting on a bus. Bus rides end sooner or later and I wouldn't want my dog being distracted by someone else when the time came to get off and continue the route on foot.
I agree with you, Bryan. What I meant is that it's one of those things that we can't completely avoid. You need to stick up for yourself when it happens, but as the sign on the truck said in Forest Gump said. Shit happens. Lol.
I know of a way you can avoid it, andt a sign on the dog's harnis saying please don't pet me, lol! rediculous, huh? You either speak up or act like an adult in any future situation! talking about kids here? And like I said I'm not going to be harsh en people who touch my dog, I'm simpley going to say my dog is working, please don't touch him, thank you. I can't wait! :)
Those signs don't work most of the time from what I've heard.
those signs don't work half the time. People say the same things...
Oh I know I am not suppose to pet them.
This while they are trying to pet them, and...
Oh I know the sign says not too but, I am anyways!!!
Or...
Oh! That sign. I didn't see that sign. OOPS! Still petted the dog.
Yeah, just as I thought. Just as the harness doesn't stop them I doubt a sign will. When I lived with my dad and I would go out running, he made me wear this stupid sign that said caution, blind runner. Some cars still sped right on past without a care in the world, so like I say you can take percautions, but you can't completely avoid some things. I do hope the dog works out for you though.
I'm one of the odd ones out here, cause I totally applaud Raven for handling the situation the best way she could.
I also agree with leo, and others who say being nice all the time doesn't cut it.
although I'm not a guide dog user myself, I'm a firm believer that my safety is far more important than worrying about stepping on someone's toes cause they wanna pet my dog, they have this perception that it's my job to educate society, or they feel I'm a rude blind person, so all blind people in the world act similarly, and therefore, I should go out of my way to make their day the brightest I possibly can.
I, personally, don't, and wouldn't, have a problem educating society whenever and wherever possible. however, I get that there are others, such as Raven, who think differently than I do, and that's perfectly okay. that's her right, as a guide dog user, and a woman who's grown, to make her own decisions.
Well chelslicious, actually it is looking as if your not the odd one out on this after all. LOL
The way I see it is if someone's courteous to me I'll be courteous to them right back. But if they're a jerk to me I'm not gonna go out of my way to be overly polite to them even if I don't stoop to their level.
Come on, I was not serious about this at all, what I meant was that from the sign wouldn't work, neither would the harnis!, which is why I also pointed out the idea as being rediculous, if you read correctly. Yeah, that harnis, so what they'll tell me the dog'so name, the dog is nice so it won't attack, whithat's what people may think too, so please, if you have a dog get used to it!s
I'm not saying be courteous all the time, but if someone is not being courteous just for the sake of it I won't stoop up to there levil to avoid problems for myself, but that's just me
That's why I'd have my hand on my dog at all times, particularly if we were sitting down. Then I'd be more likely to know if someone was trying to pet without permission.
Hey, all,
coming into this a bit late, but I've had two dogs over 17 years, so I have a bit of experience. First, the OP wasn't being a bitch. Okay, yes, she touched the kid's hand. Now unless she's completely blowing smoke up are butts, firmly grasping a hand, even a small one isn't the same as digging her nails into the hand and bending the fingers back one by one until the kid screams. And frankly, if the toddler is in "Mine" mode, she wouldn't have to touch it that hard to make it scream, but I digress.
One thing no one has brought up here is that kids, even well behaved ones are food magnets. If they aren't carrying something sticky and drippy then they've recently consumed something sticky and drippy and seeing the cute doggie makes them go into OMG Dooooogggggeeeeeeee Mommmmmmmeeeeeee! Then those sticky/drippy hands covered with god knows what are all over my dog, and it being a dog, even a well behaved dog, the mouth is going to seek out the hand and whatever goodness is there.
I have no clue what that kid ate. My last dog had a sensitive stomach when it came to food off his diet. Just a little would cause him to become violently ill. A violently ill dog is distressing in so many ways, the least of which is getting from point A to Z and all points in between.
It's in my interest as a responsible dog handler to protect my dog from anything dangerous. Sure, I should be polite and educate, but someone's freedom to grope and touch ends where my personal space begins. If I remember the OP's post, the dog was between her feet, which meant the kid had to get very close to her. No, this wasn't a devil kid purposely being evil, but this doesn't mean OP needed to sit down and have a heart to heart talk. Not all of us are cut out to be 24/7 embassadors for the blind. I can do this to a limited degree, but I have other things going on in my life besides letting little Johnny and Janey inflict their sticky drippiness on my dog. I'm all for making a good first or second impression, but I'm not obligated to put up with a bunch of shit just so people can feel good about touching me or the doggie. The points about this perception that it's Okay to just touch a blind person and we're supposed to be sweetness and light are dead on. Hell, my mom got pissed at me in Krogers one time because an employee was following me and my dog around and trying to give us a treat. I kept explaining that Katy would get a treat only if she sat and the person waited until I gave permission. This went over the employee's head, so I had to nix the exchange. One thing we can do is dog handlers is control, as much as possible, how our dog reacts to major destractions like this, this means keeping the dog on a short leash, literarlly and figuratively. this is true especially for a green dog or handler. A more seasoned dog might be entitled to a bit more freedom, but this depends on the dog. My first dog was awesome at the "drive by" petting. He could litterly keep walking while toddlers threw themselves at him and I had no clue because his work was that flawless, in that specific area, at least. He had other work issues, but the point is, every dog is different, and we don't need to fall over ourselves making our highly trained animals availible on demand just because it's the politically correct thing to do.
But if someone else's kid acts like a moron I will assume the parent is a moron. I will simply turn my back on the child and go about my day.
Katie? Awe, that's adorable. Or, labradorable.
Well, Yeah, Margorp, Moronoism can be passed on. What's worse, though is when parents tell their kids the dog will bite them. I've tried educating in this instance, and the parents don't want to get it. This is way worse than any thing a dog user can do.
She thinks she's Labradorable. She's actually Evil with a cute doggie face, but no one believes me.
Well, my lab was at fault then once.
We were walking along and he sucked up some kids ice cream without a twitch, and I didn't know anything had happened until the kid started to cry. Oh, the dog ate my ice cream! All I could do is offer his mom some money for it. hahaha
I completely agree with the way the OP handled the situation and would do the same. If someone asks me; can I pet your dog? then I say' no, she is working but, thanks for asking. if someone just grabs my dog without saying anything then, I will push their hand away saying; don't touch the dog. although I can be very outgoing and friendly, I do not believe it is my job to be forced to teach the public all about blindness or guide dogs. I am simply someone riding a bus in order to get somewhere. I may be on the phone, listening to a book, paying attention to the stops or, whatever. folks, children or not, have no right to touch me or my property without permission, period. the funny thing is, I do believe that breed matters in this situation. perhaps the OP should get a GSD next time? i'll bet the problems disappear. even little kids don't try and touch my GSD and, they most definitely did not touch my Doberman. lol.
First of all, I will not have time to tech the publick how I handle my guide dog and such, however, I feel it is my duty to protect my dog. And like I've mentioned previously There's a time for everything, and, if my dog is working then there's no way anyone is going to touch my dog because it's, working, hell, the mom can get mad but a child can't just go up to my dog and touch it, sorry! ...... I think the way I'd handle the situation is to tell the kid to take his hand off my dog? I think that's better than taking his hand off, you know? Because nowadays you can't touch anybody, especially little ones, with all these policys and stuff. Eventually if the kid is with the mom she;ll tell him to take his hand off, if not, then, maybe I'd take it away but I very much prefer speaking up first, and that means simpley telling him/her not to touch my dog
All right then, but don't bitch and complain when people view you as unapproachable and a grumpy bastard. Trust me, word gets around about you especially when they notice that you are blind or have some sort of disability. I'm not saying it's right, that's just how people are sometimes. So if you will be commuting from point a to b, I wouldn't advise that you act in such a manner because you will have more crap to deal with. But in the end you make the decision.
Let me ellaborate some more here. So someone comes up to pet your dog. You notice them and they are not listening to your commands to not pet the dog, and they are polite. So you get more assertive with your voice and push them away, maybe saying something that the other person finds a little bitter or rude. At that point, you have the choice of either ignoring them or explaining why that person is to leave the dog alone. Personally, I don't buy the excuse that when you are sitting on a bus, you don't have time to explain that to someone, so let's throw that excuse away now. If you are trying to get somewhere in a hurry, that is understandable. So along with it depending on the situation, you have options. And like I say before, why would you want to be an intentional jerk in an area that you will frequently travel? You know that person will remember you and probably antagonize you. Even if you don't give a flying fuck what people think about you, anything of that sort is bound to get you annoyed on a bad day or when you aren't in the mood to put up with crap. Just my thoughts.
Explain, then, why you would not have the same expectations of an officer handling a police dog, or someone handling a drug dog, or a volunteer rescuer handling a rescue dog? These people are not "nice about it" when the dog is on duty. They may not be overtly mean about it, but they will be uncompromisingly firm.
I personally think that blind people managing their dog and would-be distractors in an uncompromisingly firm disposition have an obvious interest in public safety over just ideology, like some are doing here.
Yep. Leo has a point. If the dog is wearing the harness, it's technically on duty. Period. end of discussion. If Katy is sprawled out next to me at a diner because there isn't room for her under the table, she's still on duty because the harness is on. If she's curled up under a bus seat and having a doggie dream she's still on duty because the harness is on, I don't care how cute a yipping twitching harnessed black Lab looks.
What pisses me off the most is the expectation that we should let people pet the dog. Blind folks like to go on and on about the entitlement of the blind community, but you ain't seen nothing until you've seen a sighted person have a melt down because they were denied their doggie fix. I always try to thank people if they ask if they can pet the dog. It's usually something along the lines of "No, she's working now, but thanks for asking" as I move steadily away from the questing hand. I try to do this as nicely but firmly as possible. And you know what? I've had people say the usual"Oh I know I'm not supposed to pet, but person X let's me pet their dog so. . . " Or, my all time favorite delivered in a syrupy sweet condescending tone we all know so well: Oh, I can't pet? And why is that?" The first one is easy enough to deal with. I try explaining that every dog handler is different and the best rule of thumb is to always ask and please don't be offended. The second one is much harder to deal with. Frankly my first response is because I fucking said so. Yes, sorry, but that question implies that I, as a blind person should be always ready, willing, and able to make myself and my dog availible. The bottom line is, some people allow petting in all circumstances, safe or not and some never allow it, no matter what.
I agree with you. What I'm saying is people don't always understand the reason why you can't pet the dog. They don't have the same expectations as we do about our boundaries, and the fact that some people would go up and pet any dog, and even worse yet let their child approach any dog and pet it is beyond me. Ironically enough I heard on the news about a dog attacking a child on the news last night, and the child and the dad didn't even approach the dog. They were eating lunch or something outside, and the dog came up to them and attacked the dog, biting him in the leg and refusing to let go. And what's even more mind boggling is that the people who approach random dogs would probably sue the owner if they got bit. How assinine. But yet again, I shouldn't be that surprised since a lot of people are in fact sue happy. I do agree with you guys, but I guess what I don't understand why you can't take a few seconds to explain why the person can't approach the dog and pet it while it is working. It's really not that hard.
Sorry, I meant the dog attacked the child.
Perhaps this is because I don't have a dog, but I just don't understand why so many dog users get so uptight about the damn dog. Try to educate and move on. What's with the grumbling?
They "get so uptight about the damn dog" because said dog is their eyes. I knew a guy back at the Oregon School for the Blind who went asolutely wild over dogs, guide or otherwise. Well durig this time we attended a weekend college mentoring program with one young lady who had a guide dog. This fellow I mentioned always wanted to pet the dog regardless of whether we were doing something else more important. Problem was that he could get rather rough when loving on the dog and so once the dog did growl at im. So his owner told him to back off. Well tis fellow got all upset and couldn't understand why she was so uptight about her dog as he put it. As for educating that's all well and good if you've got someone willing to be educated but not everybody is. The I know I'm not supposed to pet the dog crowd. I have a friend wo got a guide dog and not long after coming home from training had to deal with a lady who wanted tiintroduce her pet dog to the guide, unfortunately just as they were about to cross a busy street. My friend quite naturally refused and the lady got upset and bitchy. I agree with those who say we shouldn't have to educate the public 24/7, nor is every one of us cut out to do so.
as to the question of, "why not spend time educating society, if you're a guide dog user?" believe it or not, some people don't have the time to do so, and others realize that, sometimes, the person or people they're dealing with, don't wanna be educated, or don't have the time, themselves.
as has been said, it's ironic that we, as blind people, are expected to act differently than those with police dogs, rescue dogs, ETC.
those with such dogs are oftentimes firm when it comes to telling society that their dogs can't be played with, so why the different attitude when it's guide dog handlers we're talking about? I mean, are you gonna tell me that, as someone who uses two canes, I should be a walking billboard for why that is, all the time?
Okay, sense the conversation has moved away from children.
No I don’t think we should educate everyone, but I also know, and agree that there is a tactful way of doing things. Being a bitch just isn’t healthy, kind, nor productive.
Blind people should have the same rights and respects as any other dog handler, but remember, you will sometimes require some help, so it seems prudent to be tactful,.
Now going back the why people allow the kids to approach these dogs. Because you do not see, you also are missing an important factor. You can see when a dog is aggressive, or not. Guide dogs are normally friendly, and look that way.
The dogs probably are looking at the kids in an I want a pet way.
They are also normally calm, lazy looking, not threatening at all. All that can be seen.
Partly why I don't always take the time to explain all about my dog or why people can't pet her when she is working because that isn't the end of the matter. They want to know why, then they want to tell you their oppinions, then they want to tell you a story then agree with you and how they know better but oh how they would love to pet it anyways, then they will wine about how they can't pet it and oh how oh how oh how oh how is would just be so amazing if they could but your right, and they don't want to mess up the dogs trainning but only if, just once, if, they might, oh just maybe, just this once,
get to pet the damn dog.
You guide dog users who explain all this are making mne more and more in agreement with the retired colonel who called the young fools numbnuts after he'd told them to leave the rescue dog alone. Lol.
And, I never "took the time" to educate people about being a blind parent either. The one instance where a woman wouldn't stop about it, her boy nearly took a nose-dive into oncoming traffic, at which point nature took its course: blind or not, I just did what instinct calls for, grabbed him and prevented him from racing into traffic. If I had played educator card I would have been an accessory to reckless endangerment of a minor, and all in the name of educating the community and being an ambassador for the blind.
Ironic, no? LOL.
Nicky is so right. I love the way she puts it. o.o and then, you get to hear all about the other blind guy who let them pet his dog and then, all about their pet dog as well. just because I use a guide dog, this does not mean that I want to talk about dogs all day long.
I have come across another statement that is friendly but works wonders as well. stranger says; what's the doggie's name? I answer; I'm sorry but, I do not give out my dog's name because it is a command name.
stranger says; oh, I completely understand. end of story.
and why do they all call it a doggie, puppy, my loving friend, etc? it's a dog.
but, yeah, after working a dog for many many years I am really good at getting my point across quickly and almost always in a friendly voice. it's not often at all that I have to worry about someone actually grabbing at my dog. it has happened once in the past 2 years, which is how long I have had this current dog. it never happened at all for the 10 years I had the dog before her. a wonderful break from my early days with a lab.
now then, I have spoken to severl blind folks who have their dogs in order to get attention from people. just the other day I talked to a guy who says that he loves for women to come up to him and pet his dog and talk to him about the dog. but, it is these very people, who are using their dog to get attention from folks who cause a lot of problems for those of us who use them as guides.
I want someone to speak to me about other things rather than my dog and their dog etc. books, music, food, anything. lol.
At work, I let people pet my dog but only during certaint times and they know this and leave her alone when they can't pet her. Sometimes in public, I do let kids mainly pet her, but not very often adults. I do like kids and love to see them get so happy from petting her and my dog also loves kids too. But when I do, I make sure to tell the adults that I am not all people and the next person might not want them to pet their dogs so be sure to ask first. I also will tell them that not all dogs can handle being petted and then go strait back to work after. Sometimes that is all it takes to make a dog come loose and for get how to work. Not really forget but notwant to because...
Holy doggy chews, If that person get to pet me, then maybe every one else would want to also!!! Lets go find out. Time to seek out every possible petting opertunity that my cute doggy dorible face can find.
I try to cover up behind me when I do let people pet my dog and let them be aware that I am ok with it this time, but I am not at all times, and each person has their ways of handling their dogs and all of us, in cluding me, should respect that. I feel like if i don't explain this, then I could make it difficult for the next person who doesn't want their dog to be petted, or maybe I myself, would not want my dog to be petted next time. But during these times, I am already taking that time to stop and chatt... so on, so on...
It all depends though, but I do try to let people know, that sometimes it's ok, sometimes it's not, that is our choice. If people know this, then I believe it would help alot. I have found that most people, at least here in Raleigh, really do try to respect your wishes. expesually when you let them know. LOL
To Chelsae:
Unfortunately, our blindness does make us a walking billboard. It's disgusting, yes, but a fact of life we must deal with.
Nicky
, loved both your post. Made me laugh the first one.
Do you ever get where you're going? Smile.
Now, you are saying exactly what I think, specially about kids.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it is less apparent that a person is blind when they use the dog versus a cane.
Damn blind people getting all uppity, trying to assert boundaries and to dare tell their sighted betters what to do and when to do it. Why can't it be like the old days when the blind people were obedient and subordinate like they were supposed to. "yes sir, anything you say, sir. Do what you want, sir, pet my dog, insult my intelligence, drag me where you want, pray for my healing, deny my credibility, I'm just grateful that you're talking to me, God bless you, sir." And what's all this about educating the public? I think the public is smart enough! They know who has the power in this society and who doesn't and it's the blind people that don't and that's the way the good lord in heaven intended it!
Now maybe if these blinkie blindies brought a sighted professional with them, they could explain why and we might try to understand, that sighted person is our equal so they can tell us things. A blind person is never supposed to tell us anything, just ask, very politely, even beg a little, and we might consider making a small effort to grant their wishes, but only if we can get something out of it.
Wow, I sure was in a satirical mood when I wrote that. Thanks for reading!
LOL.
I agree, this is one of the many reasons I wouldn't want a guidedog. I'm not really the confrontational type, so I would feel bad telling little kids they couldn't pet my dog. I would do it, because its the protocall (sorry for spelling). Also, this post reminds me of a similar yet different experience I had. I've never had a guidedog, but it falls into a category of kids keeping their hands to themselves. When I was like 7, I was in a roller skating rink, at that little practice area where little kids learn how to skate.. My babysitter had left me there to go get something, and this little kid (even younger than me) tried to get passed me. I didn't exactly get that, as I was very young and obviously couldn't see what he was doing, so he started slapping me with an open hand in the face and demanding me to move. Its stuff like that, along with the original poster's story here, and other examples that are completely unrelated that I've had that make me so unfortunately impatient with little kids. I know I should let them some slack, as they're little and don't mean anything, but still, it never seases to drive me crazy every time it happens.
margorp, I have two canes, not just one, as I have another visible disability besides blindness. so, knowing that, are you still of the opinion that I'm a walking billboard? cause, despite what you and others seem to think, I wholeheartedly disagree with that view.
I, like the rest of society, am going about my business, trying to quietly live my life, just like most other folks. therefore, I don't buy this claptrap about it being necessary for me to always explain things, answer questions, and what have you.
as I've said previously, I'll educate anyone when I have the time, or see a need to, but this perception that my visible disabilities somehow make it a requirement for me to do so, is ridiculous and unacceptable.
I'll save ranting about kids for another topic. All I can really say is I'm so proud to be a cane user. I don't have to deal with half of the issues that dog users do.
Me too. I absolutely love dogs, but the cane is where it's at.
Ok, take it as you wish. Honestly I never said one shall be a bitch about it, but if people may think I'm being rude because I'm assertive so be it, they're not people I'll deal with on a daily basis. Yeah people don't understand, but they don't have to all the time, you know. thank you very much. And because I'm not getting my dog for attention, personally, that's why I don't give a damn if people think I'm too strict with my dog, it's working, just like any other service dog. sorry. And I don't think "please don't touch my dog because it's working" is rude, talking about people who would be too sensitive here? It's not our job to please people and make them feel good all the time, period.
Godzilla-On-Toast
Your too funny.
margorp
I would have to say that I am glad I don't have to deal with half the problems you do as a cane user. There are goods and bads about both. I love the fact that I don't have to walk up and down a wall feeling for a door anymore. I am glad that if I am trying to find my cab again or my friends in the store, my dog will go strait to them. This gives me the freedom to brake off from my friends and run about the store fully on my own to get a few things then go meet up with my friends and it takes no time at all to find them because my dog sees them quickly and takes me to them when they aren't seeing me. It is great to do so many other things that my dog makes it possible and no amount of training with a cane can. But, like I said before, there are goods and bads to both.
Dolce Eleganza
I love your last post. I love your thoughts of your guide dog. I didn't get mine for the immage either and my dog comes first before anyone.
Canes don't puke and shit. That's what I like. lol.
Just a few points:
First and foremost: I can't believe this topic is still going.
Now on to some more meaningful points as I come across them:
1. I actually don't necessarily think it's okay for -anyone with a service dog to be overly brusque. They are, and they will be, and because I don't have one maybe I'm not entitled to say, but I think it's kind of bad when -anyone's a bit of a jerk about a service animal. 'Nuff said.
2. Almost no one seems to have stopped and thought about the dog here, and for me that's extremely telling. Obviously you wouldn't want the animal being given an upset stomach by eating food it shouldn't have, that'd suck...but seriously, odds on that child has residue of food on their hands, not so much food as to make the dog gassy or sick. In any case, it's like someone said...the dog is lying there, content, maybe even asleep, looking like a great target for a stroking. No, again, I'm not advocating that everyone should always let their dogs be petted while in harness, but almost all dogs I've ever known, guides included, love attention, and I guess what I'm saying is this: if the dog is at rest, no travel is imminent (as in, you're on a bus, have just sat down to eat), and someone tries to pet the dog...do you really have to stand on the "don't invade my space" and "don't touch my dog" thing? It makes one look stand-offish. Yt's your right, and oftentimes there are reasons for it, but...well, I dunno. Maybe your dog would welcome the attention. It leads me to the indirect thought that these animals are being treated more like tools than creatures, which is sad.
3. Last but not necessarily least...the billboard comment. If you walk around with a guide dog in harness, or with a cane, or zip about in a wheelchair, you are advertising your disability. There's no getting around it, and you really can't minimize it. Best get used to it. It doesn't mean you have to educate people or take their shit, by any means, but it does mean that trying to make yourself less visible, less obviously blind is sort of a lost cause.
You people do what you want, but this highlights a few of the many reasons I don't want a guide dog. I have the sort of heart which, to a point at least, would allow a stranger to pet my resting dog even if he was in harness because I know he likes it. If it was a drive-by petting, someone who did it without asking, I'd definitely be telling them that they shouldn't do it without asking, but we take our happiness where we can get it, whether we're people or dogs. Not only that, but this is honestly too much hassle; no one offers to pet my cane, and that keeps life getting too complicated. Heh.
shepherdwolf, I wasn't saying, or even trying to imply that I don't accept what comes my way, with regard to my disabilities. quite the opposite, actually.
back to the topic, though, I, too, would much rather have a cane, than a guide dog, and these posts have reaffirmed that.
I think no matter what your choice of mobility aid is, it's going to have its pros and cons. I'm just not a dog person, that's the long and the short of it, so I like the cane. Is it or should it be for everybody. Absolutely not. Far as the public goes, I just don't walk around being all self-conscious. I'm thinking primarily of getting done what I set out to do, not about the assorted opinions or lack thereof of theoretical onlookers. I'm mostly left alone and as an introvert, this suits me just fine. I have no huge dreams of being a total equal in society and blending in so much that the planet's population forgets I'm blind. If anything, I want people to love and appreciate that I'm blind, not fear or pity it. I suck at blending in, I suck at assimilation, I'm just too much my own individual person to do any of that, it's OK. If I do or say something that is interpretted as rude or bad behavior and if said observer decides since I act that way, all blind people do and will because we're all clones of each other, that's not my problem, that's their problem for believing any group of people has members that are all alike and I'm better off not being helped, hired or befriended by such willfully ignorant folk. Whatever.
Shepherdwolf: Dogs love attention, and, I'm not saying I'd do this all the time, but, that ow'm not going to allow every single person that pproaches my dog to pet him, simpley because dogs, like us, should be disciplined that when they're working they shall be consentrated. I think there should be a balance, not too much attention either. And I foress that's what many don't understand. It's notjust a dog like any other waling on the street, but it's a service dog. If I felt that a person would genuinely want to give my dog some attention I don't see why not, butnot while it's on it's harnis, period. Enough said.
Personal choice thing, Dolce, and I respect that. I'm just saying that, for me anyway, a dog at rest, harness or not, isn't really working. It's not taking commands, since it might very well be asleep. It's ready to work, for sure, but while it's lying at your feet it's not really working. In that mentality, I'd want to permit the dog to be petted, though as I've said, I'm not saying it's for everyone and I'm not even saying it's the "right" thing to do. Hell, I'd just want the dog to enjoy itself that little more, so if I had the means (a hand free, the time and inclination), I might well be petting him myself sometimes. Having travelled with a previous partner who had a guide dog, I often had to resist the urge to pet her; the partner didn't mind horribly if I did, though I always asked. Asking is best, I'll definitely still stand by that.
And Chelsea, I'm not really in disagreement with you. I'm not saying you aren't comfortable with your disability, only saying there's no way to hide or play it down...and it's like Godzilla said, the opinions of others, who may or may not mark me as a statistic, don't really concern me overmuch unless they're getting in the way.
Oooooh, Shepherdwolf, can I pet your cane? Pleaeeaeaeaease?
No SW, it isn't a personal choice. You don't get to decide when your dog is working and when it isn't. If the harness is on, it is working. That's the rules of guide dogs.
They have that rule because the dog doesn't differentiate between it being ok to be petted when lying down, and when its not ok to be petted while standing up. Plus, being at rest does not mean your dog is not doing anything. You could need to get up at any moment, and you don't want to have to extricate your dog from a gaggle of petting children. Trust me, I've done it, it sucks.
Your logic also doesn't extend very far. Cars are made to be driven, but if you came back to your car and found someone sitting in the driver's seat, you'd be upset. Your house is made for living in, but you don't let homeless people walk in and have a picnic in your bedroom. The dog is mine. I went to school to get it, I know what's best for it, and I know when it is or is not ok to pet it. Add to that the fact that its between my legs, and you are now messing with something that is not yours, which you are not familiar with, and is very much in my personal space.
As for why guide dog users can't educate everyone on their dog, the reason is simple. I don't have time. I can't answer every question ever asked of me. Add to that the fact that I'm usually trying to get somewhere, and talking to a friend of mine or what have you, and its just not possible.
I never understood why people think we would represent all of blind people. I've asked sighted people, and none of them have ever said they'd think all blind people are angry simply because they met one angry one. They also don't assume we can all play the piano just because Ray Charles could. No one does that. We need to stop worrying about it.
I have to so agree with Cody here in his last post. When my dog is in harness, she is working. If she is laying down sleeping, her job is to be on her best behavior. She is still working just not by leading me around things but being good. I too have faced issues where I have let her get petted in harness and then next thing I know, she sees someone and swings her pretty little head toward them and here we go in a new direction that I didn't decide on going. It is so important to teach the dog that when in harness, it is work time or they will try to get petted.
And yes. Dogs do need to be loved on but you have to realize, they aren't in the harness 24 7. Sometimes it works out fine for the dog to be petted while in harness but it is better if you teach your dog that they can't just go up to someone without you okaying it to them first. I have taught my dog that she is not to just go up to someone, if she does, I tell her no and she doesn't get petted. She has to wait for me to ask her if she would like to say hello. I use this as her command to allow her to visit, because you never know what someone might be trying to feed your dog or what could be happening. It is important to teach your dog to listen to your voice and not the voices of others. My dog, I have just learned yesterday, won't even go outside with my roommate unless I tell her too. This is funny but she knows I am boss and this is good because you will have people try to call your dog to them when you walk by and do you want your dog to be so friendly that they just pull you off to those people? It can disorientate you if you’re unfamiliar with your location. This will happen if you’re not careful about when your dog gets petted.
For those who chose their cane instead of a dog If that is what you wish, than great for you for realizing that and sticking with it. I rather see someone stick with what they are happiest, than to get a dog and hate it.
here is a little story. I knew this guy who saw me going around a lot with my dog. he thought I was, oh so strict about the dog. he could see pretty good but was legally blind. i.e. he didn't even use a cane or braille. so, off he went to GDB and got himself a dog so he could pet it all he wanted to and be really lax like he thought I should have been. he let folks pet it all the time etc. then, guess what? you got it. he lost the rest of his sight and was almost totally blind. and, gues what again? you are right! that dog would not work for him worth a crap. he called me up and said to me; you were so right about the way you handle your dogs. I wish now that I would have done the same thing because, now I need the dog to work for me and it won't but, I have bonded with it and don't want to give it up either.
also, remember strangers are not always nice people who want to pet the dog. I have had 2 poisoning attempts on my dogs. once, when I was on a bus, someone got on and just hauled off and kicked my dog in the ribs. etc. BTW the bus driver saw it and pulled the bus over and told the guy off.
best to keep what's yours to yourself I say. and, it is more important to have my dog focused on me and my needs than seeking attention from strangers any day.
and, for the person who said that the dog is doing nothing when it is lying there, I completely disagree. the dog is on a down-stay. that is a command. the dog is to be ready to follow another command when it is given.
my dog is my guide not someone else's pet. they will not suffer if they don't get to touch it. really, really, they won't. even little kids won't suffer, they will forget all about it in 1 minute. but, the dog, on the other hand may very well remember it for ever and continue to seek attention from strangers.
wow, I'm def so proud to say I'm a dog user! I hate the cane; Lol :)
Oh, I'll use it if I have too, but guide dog all the way! :)
When my dog died, I was of course forced to use the cane. It showed me better than anything what the differences are between the two. The cane simply can't keep up.
It is personal choice whether or not you allow people to pet your dog when your dog is at rest but in harness...lying down on the floor of a bus or train, let's say, when you know you're going to be there for the next forty minutes. Remember that I am not calling into question what other people do, not really...I was actually saying that it might be one reason I'm not cut out for having a guide dog. One among many, of course, since it'd be awfully silly if this was the largest or only reason for it. I'm sure if for whatever reason I had a dog, I'd actually get to know it first, follow the rules quite judiciously (because you're right, they're there for a reason in most cases), and then, if I got the sense that my dog could actually differentiate from being petted at rest and being petted while walking, I'd be open, as I stated earlier. If I knew my dog couldn't handle it, then no, I'd be a fool to encourage it. I'd pick my spots either way though. I've known of dogs who loved attention but who would ignore it while on the move and lap it up while still, but I'm sure some animals can't differentiate.
Let's dispense with the logic espoused in the house and car thing though, all right? For one thing, your house and car don't have feelings, they are raw property without sentience. For another thing, your house and car, lacking said sentience, do not make up half of a team. They are objects which, by themselves, never do anything to anyone or anything else. To reason that I wouldn't tolerate someone sitting in the front seat of my car as a means of justifying that I shouldn't allow someone to pet my dog doesn't work on so many levels. My car isn't going to enjoy someone sitting in it. My car will have to be broken into in order for someone to sit in it, as would my house, and these things openly break the law. I see where you're going though, so I'll take the intended point now instead of continuing to quibble.
It is personal choice. I'll just come back to that. Do what is best for you and your guide dog, as a team. You don't have to seriously inconvenience yourself or risk your dog's safety, but not every petting I've mentioned is going to do that either.
an awesome working dog thrives on consistency and routine. you feed it at certain times of the day, this way it does not beg or wonder when it is going to be fed. you take it outside at certain times, this way it does not pee on the floor. you expect that dog to stop at stairs, all stairs, whether they are on a street, in a building, at a school with loads of children trying to grab at the dog, at a train station. this way you don't fall down a flight of stairs and break your neck. now then, sometimes you let strangers pet the dog and, sometimes you don't? where's the logic in that to the dog. just read above and you will see, someone stated that the dog will actually forgo guiding to seek out attention from others. sorry but, more fool me for getting myself lost and confused as well as having some dog drag me around in order for it go get petted. you want to talk about a blind person not looking competent? that's it.
it's a dog folks, it's not a person. it thinks differently. the dog gets pleasure from having a confident pack leader. it gets pleasure from the constant companionship and care given to it by the handler. it gets joy from being praised for a job well done. it gets confidence from knowing what is expected of it at all times. i.e. I stop at stairs. I stop at curbs. I watch out for traffic.
yes, guide dog handlers can do as they choose. hey, who am I to say that you shouldn't let folks play with the dog, feed it, pet it, whatever. but, maybe, just maybe, one person will read what I say, think about it, and have a better working experience with their guide.
so, you want to be super interactive with the public? go ahead, talk all you want to them but, don't let them confuse the dog. don't be that helpless blind person being dragged around by a dog that is not even paying attention to you and your directions because it is seeking attention elsewhere.
I hardly think that the aforementioned judicious allowances would totally ruin a dog. Do it to excess and you're sure to have problems, but if it doesn't come up all that often then I daresay it's essentially a nonissue. Forgive me, but you do make it look as if any "rule-breaking behavior" is going to totally ruin the experience, and having seen enough of guide dogs myself to have an opinion, I respectfully disagree. I sure as hell don't want an animal who isn't going to be safe, or who's going to seek out attention while on the move, but that dog isn't a robot, and it's going to probably enjoy a little attention now and then.
You do make a good point about consistency, for which my only adequate answer is this. I wouldn't have people petting the dog while it is in harness and moving, but I may allow it if the dog is in harness and at rest with no plans to move anytime soon. The dog may or may not know that further work is imminent, but if he's doing the same route every day, and that route has a forty-minute bus ride, and we've just got on the bus...well, maybe he would and maybe he wouldn't remember. Point is, I'm still being consistent; I'm just changing the variable. Instead of the dog thinking "I mustn't have attention while in harness" he's going more for "I mustn't have attention while in harness and being active". It adds another layer, some dogs can't handle that. Again, it's very much up to the individual team as to whether or not it's viable, I think.
To Shepherdwolf, if I need to be brusk or impolite to someone about the way they want to interact with my dog, then I don't think I'm in the wrong. The dog belongs to me, it is my property. This is what Cody was getting at concerning his comparisons with a house and a car. The point was that those things are yours, your personal property, and people cannot just enter in without your permission. Same for a service dog, people cannot just interact with them without the handlers permission.
Secondly, the dog sitting in between someone's legs is in the boundaries of personal space. And yes, I will hold the view that people should not invade it because they wouldn't do that to anyone else, so why is it okay to do that to me? Just because I have a dog? I don't think so.
As for your view that dogs at rest are technically not working, you're mistaken. As a previous poster said, the dog is in a down stay, and ready to obey the next command whether that is "sit" or "let's go."
Of course a dog would welcome attention from other people. They love to be petted and rained upon with adoration. But there's a million other things I'm sure my dog would rather do than sit in a class with me for three hours. I'm sure he would love to be petted by everyone, go around and sniff them, lick any hand that smells like something tasty, and sniff out the room for interesting scents in general. All those things beat lying down under a table, but I don't allow it because I need him to be ready at a moment's notice. I need him to understand that the harness means you are working. Yes, he is a dog with needs and wants, but he is also a mobility aid, and so he needs to behave, and be committed to the job he was bred to do. Guide dogs are tools that are creatures. The tactics handlers use to motivate their dog are implemented because they are creatures. It is not sad to treat them like working animals because these dogs want to guide. They are confident enough to do it, they are able to handle the different challenges, they are able to consistently obey commands, be disciplined, and they love it. If they didn't, they would not be guide dogs.
These dogs receive an abundance amount of praise, without the public's help. I praise and pet my dog a lot while he is in harness. That is his reward for working hard and working well. And people can pet him while he is out of harness, and I'm sure he appreciates it just as much. But while he is in harness, his priorities are me and his guide work, and that's whether we're walking, waiting around, or sitting for an extended period of time. The difference should not be whether the dog is standing, sitting, or lying down, the difference should be whether the dog is in harness or out of harness.
To Ryan, there are some people who do not associate blindness with the dog. I do reception work for the American Cancer Society, and I have had people ask what the dog is for. Apparently, some of them don't believe I'm blind because I am on the computer. I will tell them he is a guide dog, and they'll ask: "Who is he for?"
This weekend, I went to a church, and I think some of the people thought the dog was for balance because a couple times, I dropped the harness and leash to do something, and people immediately put their arm around my waist, saying: "Don't fall now."
Also, there was a bus driver, who now knows I am blind. But when I first got on her bus, I asked to be dropped at a certain stop. When she got to the stop, she just opened the doors and sat for a bit, then finally said: "We're at the college," kind of in a let's-get-moving way.
SW, since you don't have a guide dog, I can understand your logic. However, its flawed. Let me illustrate for you what would happen in your bus scenario.
You teach your dog the route. After a few times the dog gets the hang of it and figures out the layout so that you can give gentle commands and it'll go where you want. You have an hour long bus ride lets say, and during this time you let people pet the dog. the dog gets used to that. The next time you board the bus, rather than staying as yu ordered, the dog belly crawls over to the child across the aisle and gets petted. Then you have to punish your dog for doing exactly what you allowed it to do.
A few weeks later, having continued to let the dog be petted, you board a shuttle which you will only be on for two minutes. During that two minutes the dog spies someone down the aisle, and scoots over to them to be petted. You arrive at your destination, reach down for your dog, and its gone.
That's what would happen in your scenario. Its why you don't let people touch or talk to the dog while in harness. Its not to be cruel, it to prevent that from happening.
That sounds like a sound explanation.
I agree with Cody's last post. In harness means working, regardless of whether the dog's laying down or not.
ok, so you are one of those people who thinks that your dog just has to be petted and fawned over by strangers. you are one of those people who thinks that a dog should be able to know when it is ok and, when it's not. you are one of those who feels so bad for the poor guide dog, who is just sitting there doing nothing. do you realize just how many times you may have to judge whether your way of doing things is appropriate? once! that's right, once only! because, after you just got yourself killed because, your dog was not paying attention to you and walked you out into traffic, you won't have to worry about it any more. or, maybe, just once, that dog is screwing around on the bus and you fall down the step and under the bus or train. or, maybe your dog just doesn't stop at the stairs once because it's trying to get attention from children and, now you have a broken leg.
this dog has an important job. and, that job is to pay attention to the handler, end of story.
it's just beyond me why people don't understand this. many that have dogs even don't get it. I go to blindness conventions and I see it all over the place. many many dogs that I would never trust to take me anywhere. I see it in my own town. a woman has a guide dog and, that dog is so distracted by people that, it's up and at the next table in a restaurant seeking attention and begging for food. and, yep, I wouldn't be at the end of that harness either.
hey, we have enough troubles when the dog makes mistakes sometimes, hopefully rarely, but, why make the chances of that so much more likely? it's very rare that my dog makes a mistake and, when she does it's something like overhead clearance or finding a window instead of a door. it's certainly not running after strangers and putting me in harm's way.
ok. I think I have made my point plenty. smiles.
I don't think that guide dog owners will see it as the same as those of us who prefer to use a cane instead of a dog. We have not received the training and therefore do not grasp the same understanding about why the dog is to be treated a certain way, and whether or not it is appropriate to let people pet the dog. This is why I've stopped posting, because I realize I have my own opinions about dogs, and like a few I prefer the cane.
The wa I see it is as long as the dog's in harness there should be no petting, at least as far as any dogs that i might have would be concerned. And I'd also attach the dog's leash to the chair I was sitting in whenever possible, which wold make it muchahrder for the dog to sneak off even if it were so inclined.But I agree with Dana. I'd much rather have people angry with me for not letting them pet my dog wne he's in harness than risk having the dog be so distracted by his quest for attention that he runs me into things on a daily basis. Now if I took the dog to a local park for a play session and took the harness off for the duration that might be a different story, but once the harness goes back on it's strictly work.
Cody, you've brought up many excelent points. And, because I mentioned dogs not getting distracted is the reason why I will not, by any circumstances, let my dog be pet by strangers while on harnis, period.
Exactly. Some dogs can handle being pet while in harness but not all of them can. And it seems to me that like drug addiction allowing in-harness pets can potentially be a slippery slope. Once can lead to doing it again and again and so on and that can be dangerous. Now if my dog was out of harness for a time then I'd certainly let some folks pet him or her, but they'd still have to ask first.
Cody, you make a good point. I can't really argue with it, so I won't try.
Dana, you do too, but the point you made to me is actually the point I started this with. This is why I'm not cut out for a dog. I'm sure I'm perfectly capable of buckling down and not allowing my service animal to be petted, and to lose focus; bear in mind that I did say I was capable of that, not incapable. I do not need attention, and definitely don't appreciate the way you're phrasing your responses, as I find it condescending and rude. However, I'll take the point itself, which is this: I don't want an animal which might get me killed because it gets distracted or makes a mistake. I want to trust myself and my own skills which, at twenty-nine years of age and counting, have kept me alive and kicking and unhurt for the better part of that time. That's just how I am, it's my personal preference to trust myself, and my own inanimate tools (cane, is what I'm referring to here) to get things done. Dogs do many wonderful things, and the likelihood of a fatal lapse is extremely low, but the very distractibility and unpredictability of the animal, for me, makes it a bad choice. Plus, I've never utterly loved the notion of service animals, but that's a whole ddiferent kettle of fish.
Nicky:
I can indeed walk about without holding onto a wall. I do "break away" from my friends and walk freely around. Sheesh, what ignorants you display. You go on and suggest that dog users are more indipendent...go on, you dog folks do it all the time. Shame on you.
Oh boy... it's not just a dog user stereotype because people on both sides are guilty of it. Not everyone does but some cane users do it as well. Personally I believe if you are a dog user you need to be able to use a cane proficiently as well, but both methods allow independence. One is better than the other because of preference, not because one gets the job done better than the other. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.
Margorp,
You're taking Nicky's words completely out of context. She didn't say you couldn't walk about without "holding onto a wall." She simply said it's nice to not count doors or feel up and down a wall because the dog will take you right to your door. Her opinion was actually fair and balanced.
But it's funny: as I've explored the reasons behind why people choose to partner with dogs, I've come to realize that, whether or not they'll admit it out loud, both dog users and cane users often tend to secretly think they're more independent than the other. You and I are glad we don't have to deal with the problems of owning a guide dog. We think it's great to get up and go as we like, not have to worry about wearing dog hair on our dress clothes, organizing and even rearranging our schedules around taking them out, packing their food and toys on trips, booking possibly shorter or transfer flights to accommodate their schedules during long trips, wondering if it's okay or not to take them to certain places or venues, such as loud concerts or foreign countries where the requirements for entry are different, grooming and bathing them, paying for vet costs, avoiding small children with distracting hands in public, ETC ETC. We think this makes our lives fairly streamlined, hassle-free and independent. Guide dog owners are happy for a variety of reasons to partner with their guides, all of which have been outlined in admittedly convincing detail on these boards.
And to be fair, I think a lot of people really make their decision based on whether or not they want the responsibility and companionship of a dog or not. I love my family dog, but in general I don't really go crazy for dogs or pets all that much and, regardless of the benefits, I like looking after myself and doing my own thing. I suspect a lot of cane users feel the same. It's less about the advantages or disadvantages of each and more about your personality and temperament.
So instead of opening up this debate again, just do what works for you and let others do the same, I suppose.
The bottom line is we should all use what works for us. It does, however, seem to me that we have so much arrogance from both cane users and dog users. I personally don't feel along walls and so on just because I use a cane.
Ok cane users, if you don't walk along the wall, explain how you find doors.
I'll bite. Sometimes I trail the wall and sometimes I don't. It depends on whether I can sort of hear/feel that a door is up close or indented or whatever. I seem to have this thing called facial vision. Plus, there are times when doors are already open, so you can hear what's going on inside. Sometimes all you have to do is look for a step on the one side or the other and determine that a door must be near. And yes, there are times when you do have to trail the wall to feel for a door if the door is not indented with the wall. It doesn't make any of these methods either more or less better than what a guide dog user would have to do. Ultimately, if you have to go back and forth to a particular establishment often enough, you're gunna be more familiar with where the door actually is. Or, at least, that's the theory if you're a good cane traveler. But it really also depends on your particular set of circumstances at any given time.
If you use a cane, there's really no need to trail the wall with your hand. It takes a light tap on the wall, note the word light, and you can find the door by the sound change.
Also, Cody, if you know the area well enough you don't need to use your hand to trail the wabbl bea@ like Ryan said, you can use a light tap on the wall and the sound will change, or, sometimes in a building it may be a bit wider, therefore, you may trail, but I don't think anyone using a cane can really be withou trailing at least with the cane because it helps find whatever land marks one needs.
Not to mention you can hear the change.
And can you tap the wall without walking along the wall? Seriously, do I need to spoonfeed this to you guys? Either way you cut it, you have to walk along the wall with the cane. Whether you use your hand or the cane or your tongue, the fact is you're walking along the wall, so what're you getting all pissd off and offended about when a guide dog user says that you have to do it?
What the hell? Maybe that wasn't directed at me because I don't think I said you don't have to walk along the wall with a cane. In a new area you usually do but once you are familiar with the building and where your destination is there isn't much of a point in doing so.
Why so confrontational? Cane users don't always have to tap the wall or walk along the wall. If you know an area well, it's easy to walk down the middle of the hall and find your door without any hassle. In a building at college, I knew where my room was because there was a bench next to it and a coke machine on the other side, so I simply guessed where the opening was based on the clues around me and didn't need to hug the wall. As others have said, it's also easy to hear sound changes when you're walking around (a door opening here, voices over there, a large pole there, ETC) which I often use as landmarks. That's how I find doors when I choose not to walk along a wall.
Posts 127 through 130 were simply explanations. Sounds like you're the one getting pissed off here.
I guess it really is a rivalry. I've used both cane and dog. My motto, whatever gets me where I want to go is just sweet.
Sometimes you can hear a door, sometimes you have to keep asking the dog to find it if you've not gone in there before. Sometimes, you can't pass the bar, because of the good music, laughter, and such coming from it with your cane, so you step in, even though you were on your way to church. Go to the bar to often with the dog, you get embarrassed when you just told that lady from church, you don't drink, and your dog knows exactly how to get to church, but soon as you get to the bar, the dog does a quick turn and you're leaving her standing on the sidewalk.
Smile.
There's a key phrase in all those explanations though. Every single one of you said, "When I know the building". That's the point a lot of the dog users were trying to make. We don't have to know the buiding. can, and have, gone into an unfamiliar building, asked for directions to an office, and gone there without trouble or guidance. No trailing, no nothing. I've even done it by looking at a tactile representation of the building. (that time was cool, they should have more of those in buildings)
*sigh*, not sure what you're trying to prove here. Looks like arguing just for the sake of arguing to me. It's rather amusing honestly.
Yes, the go to response when you don't get the argument. Must be something wrong with them, cuz it can't possibly be that the point is going over my head.
I'll be more blunt for you. Dogs are better than canes. yes, you have a choice and you might feel comfortable with a cane. That doesn't mean that by their very nature dogs aren't better. Dogs have more capabilities, more abilities, better response, better safety and a better interface with the world around you. Your choosing not to use one has no bearing on any of those facts.
I'll give you an analogy. A corvette, by its nature, is better than a vespa. You may like your vespa just fine, and it may suit your needs and all that. None of that will make it better than a corvette. You are settling for a vespa, you are not improving the vespa by choosing it.
Canes are more limited and less capable than dogs. You want an example, walk under a low hanging tree you didn't know was there with a cane. That knot you now have on your forehead will be all the example you need. Simply because you like the cane, or because you are good with it, does not negate the fact that there are things it cannot do. That is a simple fact of nature.
oh, and parenthetically, those cane holsters make you look like a dweeb. Unless you're a cop or a cowboy, don't wear a holster.
So what? Unless you are sprinting a knot on the forehead won't give you a concussion or kill you, shit happens. And shit can still happen to you if you use a dog versus a cane. When it comes to traveling maybe I'm different, but I want to get where I'm going quickly. Grabbing a cane and going is much more convenient to my city-like go go attitude. Oh, and I've maybe hit my head on a low tree limb once or twice, and I think there was only one that hung low over a sidewalk. And that wasn't even in a highly used area either.
Ok, the next time you're in a debate, you should try defeating the actual point, not every single example given. Just a little tip.
Dogs are better than canes? That is one of the most arrogant, immature, stupid, inacurate statement I've ever heard/read. Now let me tell you something:
I happen to know that the dog needs to learn a route just as a cane user needs to find a door. Another thing, one can use other senses to detect a door than feeling or tapping along a wall.
Nope, I see Cody's point, and speaking as one who will never get a dog ever. I don't have this religion about independence, or the idealism about a cane being better, I am just more comfortable looking after myself alone. And, the daughter has finally moved out, so who wants a new kid? lol.
But seriously I have many reasons to not get a dog. That doesn't mean I don't understand their advantages. You just have to be big enough and grown-up enough to bypass the goddamned idealism about cane travel. I mean, c'mon, it's just walking down the street with a stick, listening to ambient sounds and traffic, it's not something worth a war over. And I'm happy to be one, but begrudge nothing from guide dog users, and furthermore I have had several follow me to somewhere through a noisy crowd that none of us could have heard one another through. Oh and if their dog knows you, they can have the dog take them right to you in a parking lot.
I have no issues getting around where I can with a cane, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the downsides. I mean if you have a six-cylinder car it will do certain things for you a four-cylinder won't, and yes, it's better at those things. But, if you simply wanted a 4-cylinder for environmental or other reasons, that would not negate the advantages of a six-cylinder one.
I think the pissing contest - usually fellow cane users trying to prove their religion or ideology about independence, is stupid. I mean, I'm a liberty lover as much as the next guy, more than many, but that means do what you will, and let others do as they will, and where they have an advantage you've got nothing to prove it's your life and your decisions.
So there ya go: a lifelong cane user who cares nothing for the religion about the cane some people have, and who will never get a dog, but understands the unique advantages a dog does provide.
wow, a dog is better than a cane? really? margorp said it best. that's the most idiotic thing I've heard in a while.
still, it isn't about who thinks what's better, but rather, personal preference, as has continually been said throughout this debate.
I, personally, do feel my cane allows me to be more independent than a guide dog user. however, I'm not criticizing guide dog handlers choices in choosing their dog as a mobility aid. I'm saying that a cane is what works best for me, and is one of many reasons why I'll never get a guide dog.
Plus, I lived in Manhattan for 17 years and found I did more than adequately with a cane. I didn't always know where I was going; didn't always memorize routes, but 99.999 percent of the time I ended up getting to where I was going even if I sometimes (gasp!) had to actually break down and ask a sighty for directions! The shame of it all! Yes, there were probably times that a dog could've detected something overhanging that a cane obviously wouldn't, but pardon my ignorance. Isn't there some potential to get a bad guide dog who might not necessarily be up to some of the tasks? You can say a dog is simply better than a cane, but when I have to trust my life to something animate that may be just as imperfect as I am, then I guess my answer comes down to this: Dogs aren't better than canes if the cane user is more independent than a dog user. Canes aren't better than dogs if the cane user is incompetent. Really, it depends on the dog, the dog user, the cane user. To some extent it even depends on the cane. Get the wrong kind and it can snap in half in a bicycle spoke. I know; I've had it happen. I'm not religious about canes versus dogs, but I am religious about what I prefer, and I say that for me, canes are better than dogs. I frankly don't like the cutesy attention you get from strangers because you have an adorable dog, as I've said in other threads, and I'll reiterate it here. I've been accused of sounding like a dick in that other post, so I guess I'm gunna sound like one now. And as I said, you don't always trail walls when you use a cane; it really depends on what the circumstances are at any given time. But I'd say the same is true for dog users.
I concur about the cutesy comments, I see my sister-in-law and other professional dog handlers deal with this. Guess if I ever did break down and get a lower life form to guide me around, might have to get me a wart-hog. You know the animal lovers out there are only gushy over things that are furry. They would not try to kiss a warthog and make self-effacing gestures and incoherent babblings at it. Though if they would I'd stand there and laugh, I'll admit it.
You guys are still missing the point. We're not talking about users here. I'm not saying all cane users are less independent or more independent. What I'm saying is that a dog is better than a cane. Just because something is better does not mean you can't use it incompetently. However, your being good or bad at the use of something does not negate the princciples of the thing itself.
Going back to the car example. As I said, a corvette is better than a vespa, but to a blind person who can't drive either, they're both going to suck. We're going to crash both of them. That doesn't mean the corvette and vespa are equal to each other, just that we are equally bad at using them.
Your liking or disliking of a dog does not change the essence of the tool itself. A dog has more capabilities than the cane does. A cane is a stick, it can't do anything except in a small arc right in front of you and below your waist. That's all it has, everything else is up to you. The cane will warn you only of what is inside that little arch. The audio feedback, the directions, the face shadowing, that's all you, that's not the cane.
However, a dog is not restricted to a little arc right in front of you and below your waist. A dog can see across an entire parking lot. A dog takes that arc and expands it out to the distance which the dog can see. The arc becomes much wider, and much longer.
Real world example. You are walking across a field. You know there is a sidewalk somewhere in the future, but you have no idea where, just that you are heading toward it. A dog will know exactly where that sidewalk is long before the cane will tell you. For the cane to tell you, the sidewalk must enter the tiny little arc in front of you.
Do you guys get it yet, or would you like to continue spouting off vitriolic and hyperbolic claims without ever actually presenting any evidence to back them up or defend them?
One thing that really bugs me is when dog users try to claim that they--not the dogs, they--are somehow more skilled or more independent simply because they can find doors or garbage cans or sidewalks or what-have-you whereas cane users have to tap around with a stick to find such things. (and, before the fur starts flying at me, I'm not claiming anyone has said such things on this board in particular, this is not aimed at anyone's post) But here's my little hair-splitting issue with this mentality: *you're* not doing anything. You are saying "spot, find the door" or "find the sidewalk" or whatever. At least, this is how I am given to understand the process to work. That, or the dog just automatically goes towards whatever you're looking for, like the sidewalk (in an earlier post) in the middle of a field. I am not suggesting that it does not take an enormous amount of skill and training to use a guide in general, by the way, please don't misunderstand; I have a ton of admiration for guide dog users. But you're not amazing or extra independent just because you know how to tell another creature what you're looking for; fact is, the dog found that landmark, not you, just as cane users need canes to tell them where something is, along with sound cues and the like. Just my little gripe.
To address this whole debate though: I stand by what I said: a cane is not better than a dog full stop, and a dog is not better than a cane full stop. A dog can't give you the tactile information a cane can, and a cane can't find a door or memorize a route if you get lost. They both do different things, and depending on what you like, one is better for a specific person than another. You can't justify a blanket statement, I'm afraid. And, yes, I too get annoyed with either dog or cane users who go around acting arrogant about how they get around. Sighted people don't necessarily go around saying to people "I drive a car and it's better than all other methods of transport". If you want to travel cheaply and have a consistent route in a city, public transit is better than a car, and if you need to get around quickly and independently of anyone's schedule, a car is better, provided you can afford it. So a car is not better than a bus, they just have differing advantages, to suit different people. So why should we look down our noses at each other for how we choose to get around? Why not just accept that it's a matter of choice and move on with our lives?
Well, my dogs, and I had 2, were better than my cane.
I use to work at night, get of at 12 midnight, and I'd not get home until sometimes after 1. At night the sidewalks are clear, so with my dog I could jog for a mile with confidence that he'd stop us if something were not suppose to be there. Really nice.
When I lived in LA, I'd also travel unknown routs at night, maybe 2 or 3 in the morning. It was faster, and easier to get to a place I'd not really been to, and I didn't really have to worry about if it had sidewalks or not. In the Hollywood hills, sometimes you have to walk on the side of the road. It was just a breeze with a dog.
I can't say it made me more or less independant, it was just smoother all around, faster, and I could go shopping and do some blind window shopping I call it, because I didn't really have to pay attenchen to where I was going.
That's fair, Wayne. Clearly, a dog is better suited to what you like as a traveler. And I really think that jogging with a dog to watch out for you would be really nice. Did you ever have to worry about really small things, like larger stones or small dips that could hurt your ankles? I almost never free run, even when guided, because I just don't know if the way is totally clear.
Let me start out with saying that a dog is only as good as its handler. some dogs sucks. And the same for canes. The cane is only as good as the person using it.
A wart hog as a guide?
I think I love that idea. It would make people fly out of my way. LOL!
margorp
I wasn't saying that as a cane user you could not do this. I was saying that I, as a dog user, am able to but I, as a cane user wasn't.
Hope that clears that up.
ArtRock1224
Thank you. You explain things well. I do remember that when I first got my dog I had to start to leave afew minutes early because you can't always rush a dog. If you do you end up walking in frunt of them wich is no different than dragging your cane behind you. There were lots of adapting i had to do for my dog that makes it more work than having a cane. And yes, those of us who likes having a dog decided that those extra chorse are worth it. Again, a cane or a dog are good tools, if used correctly.
Coady is right when he said that dog users don't have to know a place or ever have been there to find things quickly. At least this is my expirences. i know when I used my cane, I had a hard time finding my way in new places at first. Much more than with my dog. i pay more attenchen to a larger distant around me than I did with my cane. A dog frees up my attenchen and allows me not to have to worry about running in to things and tripping over stuff but to primarily focus on trying to find where I am going.
I do still at times use my cane and I have nothing aginst canes at all. But I much rather my dog. That is my choice though.
I too love to run with my dog. Something I couldn't do with a cane. I would hit a crack and nock myself out by slamming my cane in to my stomach. Ouch.
I freely admit I don't know a ton about guide dogs, having never handled one, so I take the last poster's point. I do know that a cane is only as useful as its user, so that's also a fair point.
Ugh, just ugh. I can hardly believe this is still going, and has wandered so far afield. Nevertheless, I hae a couple of things I want to add.
First and foremost: dogs don't know routes before they're taught. When I started college in January, I could not have told my dog, "Okay, find I219" and then just gone on autopilot. I'd have needed to know where I was going, and as for "find the door"...well, I can hear indents even when I'm not trailing along a wall, so I know where doors are. That first little while learning a new building is always a bit of an adventure, but I enjoy it. There'd definitely be an advantage in wide-open space finding a sidewalk, or in a building with a nonrecessed door and a front of plate-glass windows on either side...that'd be handy, I won't lie.
However, I'm sorry, but I don't think dogs are automatically better than canes. Yes, they can do more than canes. I can't admit that. BUT!!! Before you go any further, bear this in mind. They can also screw up a lot more than canes. They can in some ways slow you down. They can snarf up food they oughtn't. They can get confused and mislead you. They can get distracted. A good dog does this much more rarely, but heaven knows it happens to the best of us sentient creatures. Canes are just tools; dogs are not. That being said, the Vespa vs. Corvette argument doesn't work, because it fails to acknowledge the drawbacks of the dog while highlighting the admittedly long list of good points. If the dog had no bad points, then it would be a better guide, but the fact is that no dog, or person, is perfect, and with two members of a team both more prone to mistakes, the inherent risk of problem is greater. True, you tend to learn to cope with these things, but cane users don't have this problem unless their cane breaks or something. Their cane won't get them confused, it won't mislead them, it won't give bad information. It's up to the user to screw themselves up, and it does happen.
Incidentally, I'm nearly thirty years old and I think I've been whacked by exactly three overhead branches while using a cane. In no instance was the damage serious. A dog might have saved me from that worry, but I've also heard of stories where dogs don't notice and, owing to the increased speed allowed by guide-dog travel, the person really takes a good one across the head or face.
It all goes back to personal choice. I think we need to stop throwing egotism and absolute statements about who or what is better back and forth.
Wow, although I agree that the comment that guide dogs are better than a cane is highly immature and lacks so much thought, Cody certainly has made some extremely valid points here as well.
I'm on to my second guide dog so let me try my best to clarify a few things here:
As someone else argued, yes, guide dogs generally need to also learn a new route but I think the point Cody has been missing is that over time, once handler and dog have bonded properly, the need for someone to physically show us a route becomes less. We are more capable and confident to be able to simply rely on verbal instructions and let us figure it out on our own.
Yes, as I've said above somewhere, I personally believe a guide dog is better for the reasons Cody and others have described. It is certainly true that it's easier, way easier to walk in open spaces to get from A to b, and to find paths etc. However, obviously the dog has to be trained to find paths, and this can remain in practice due to good old repetition.
Eg, I have no hope of navigating shopping centres with a cane; it's so easy to veer.
When I used a cane, it would come into contact with every single pole at the train station I'd frequent but ever since I've used a dog, I've not contacted any.
Yes, these dogs can have their bad days too; they're not robots.
But also we must remember in this argument that not everyone is capable or wanting of that responsibility to look after the dog. They do take a lot of responsibility; it's not like you can get home and forget about it.
I wouldn't give up my dog for the world but she has ongoing problems with her ears which has meant Vet trips every few months lately, and medicating her daily.
But making sweeping statements is so not a good look and idea. Everyone is different.
I personally see all of Cody's points and in no way do I see what he's saying as immature. Hell, I will most likely never get a dog because I really don't bond with the animals much and am not very into dogs.
But let me illustrate an example most of us can relate to:
Some of you who have gone to the centers for blind people have learned how to use power tools: table saws, lathes, the works. I never have. So, to you, my planning a piece of wood with a hand plane, routing the edge with a belt knife, or cutting a length with a hand saw must seem awfully slow. Since there is no dogma or religion surrounding manual tools, I am free to readily admit that power tools are much better, and that I may never end up using them, save the electric drill, electric screwdriver and maybe a jigsaw or something. By me saying electric and gas-powered tools are better has nothing at all to do with independence, getting a dowel cut for a curtain rod, or anything else. In fact, you would think it silly if someone said that, since there is no spaghetti monster of a religion around tools, like there is around the cane.
So, I'm a cane user, and even once had to use a tree branch to get home after someone ran over mine with a bike. But that doesn't mean Cody's statement or his practical assessment is immature. People just take things personally when we use words like "better" or "worse."
If Grandma usually uses the hedge clippers to clear out brush, and I come along with a machete, yes, that machete is going to be better. It's superior: I can clear an acre in an hour with that, while she snips away one shrub at a time. But again, there's no spaghetti-monster of a religion surrounding hedge clippers like there is around using a cane.
Cody and Wayne will never win this one with the stalwart, though, because they're arguing against ideology rather than rational thought.
It is possible, though, to rightly assess a tool as a superior tool, even if you yourself do not use it and probably never will.
Thank you Leo. Finally someone who stepped back and remembered to take the person out of the issue. As I believe I made inescapably clear in my last post, I am not talking about users. Maybe I hadn't made that clear enough. Let me try again. I am not talking about users, I am talking about tools. Just that. The tool of a guide dog versus the tool of the cane. Stop, period, nothing else.. Am I understood yet?
Now then, just cuz I think people should be fully educated, let me clear some things up. SW, at no point in a guide dog's existence could you ever just tell it to find I95 and have it take you there. Its a guide dog, not a GPS. The find commands are for things in the immediate vicinity, not destinations.
Meglet, the dog doesn't take away sensory information, it just transfers it to another source. Rather than having the cane tip tell you what sort of surface you're walking on, your feet tell you that. Honestly I never understood the need for that sort of information. I never gave two licks about whether I was walking on grass or concrete or gravel. Seemed like worthless information to me.
Cody, I'm fully aware that a guide dog is not a GPS. In fact, that's part of my point. To say that you learn a route better with a guide dog is questionable, because you, the user, still have to know the route in order to utilize your tool effectively wile navigating that route. Cane or dog, it's up to the user to figure out the root and then make use of whatever tool they possess.
And on the subject of tools, I'm going to present the practical fallacy of the "guide dogs are better" argument. First of all, I believe it was said to get people fired up, since the person who said it originally is both good at that particular trick and perceptive enough to know what pushes people's buttons. Anyway, onn with it.
If we for a moment accept that a tool's superiority over another tool is based on nothing else than said tool's good points vs. the inferior tool's good points, then yes, a guide dog is better than a cane. It does more, by itself, than a cane does.
Here's the fallacy though. Particularly in cases like this, it is illogical to separate the user from the tool. A tool is useless without a user, and its existence as a tool is entirely dependent upon it being used as such. Furthermore, when describing a tool's overall merit vs. another tool, one must also bear in mind the negative points of said tool, and that isn't being done to a reasonable extent if the "guide dogs are better" statement is being presumed to have any weight. The discussion wasn't about raw tools in any case, because that becomes purely philosophical, and if there's one thing that keeps getting stressed, particularly by guide dog users I might add, it's the unity of a guide dog and user tag-team, the way they work together. And surely, you're not suggesting that you, too, are a tool? Because if a guide dog user is a tool, then so is a cane user, and that turns the whole superiority angle on its head.
I'm sorry, but the statement can be used as an opinion, but it cannot be maintained as fact that pertains to the discussion. You can't use it to tell people that they're willfully using a weaker tool, for in so doing you are apt to bring out the very ire that some have already protested. It comes full circle to personal choice.
In summary, it doesn't matter how excellent your tool's potential is if 1. said tool is faulty,or 2. your ability to use said tool, no matter how you try, is incorrect or otherwise deficient. That being said, "guide dogs are better" is not a supportable global statement where it comes to personal choice. It is a statement made with no purpose and, unsupported as it is, does nothing except get people upset.
I should add right here that no one has as yet addressed the point I made about guide dogs being "faulty", as it were. Sentience leads to this, it can't be helped, but canes don't lead you toward smells they like, won't belly-crawl for a petting, won't spy someone they adore and beeline across a parking lot, won't get so used to a route that they will try and turn you wrong even when you yourself know where you're going. None of these things make a dog a bad choice, necessarily, but they definitely demonstrate the inherent fallibility of the tool, and while each of those traits may be rare, correctable or both, it's still not directly the tool-user's fault. Canes...well, they can break, and they can be popped out of your hand if your grip is weak or the contact is sudden, and that's...about all I can come up with. Thus, even if we took the purely philosophical, nonpersonal angle that guide dogs are better raw tools, there is some doubt on it because, while they provide a huge set of perks, they also come with more risks. It's kind of like a hacksaw vs. a power saw, but the power saw sometimes has a habit of going too fast or shorting out or something. Maybe you can fix the parts, maybe you get warning when it's about to do something it shouldn't, but it's still a faulty tool. And hell, those saws aren't even sentient, and we all know how fickle sentient creatures can be, humans foremost, at the very best of times. This needs to be borne in mind before any further sophistry on the subject is attempted, I think.
I keep reading about dogs needed to learn a rout, but so do we as the user. No matter what you use, you'll need to know where you are going, and that is even if you are sighted.
Here is the thing. A dog user relationship is a 50 50 thing. You dog won't get confused if you aren't confused. You dog won't get distracted unless you allow it to be so. You've got your hand on it, so if you feel something not correct, you have to help your dog fix this.
This is a communication thing. You talk to your dog, it talks to you in a way.
Now, suppose I know were I want to go, but I haven't actually been there. Some streets are not straight. You can hear the traffic, you know when to cross, but what you don't know is 1. There are maybe turning lanes, so you've got to get to the next point to actually be crossing. 2. These curbs are at an angle, so as you cross, you need to aim left or right. 3. traffic is sitting in the crossing, so with a cane that might be a bit confusing, because you think, did I go straight?
No, a dog isn't the be all, and do all, but because it is a living thing, it can make choices, and these choices are extremely helpful in some situations. It is much like walking with your sighted friend. They don't always lead you correctly either, but with some communication, you can get them to pay attenchen to what you are telling them when they are looking at the pretty girl over there. Smile.
I can feel with my feet what I'm walkkiing on. Here in Denver, it is pretty neat. Downtown businesses have put different types or textered walk ways so that the look different.
I have never thought about sticks or small stones, using a cane or a dog, so no, I never had problems with these hurting my ankles.
I'm sorry to be blunt here SW, but you clearly don't know how dogs work. If you did, you wouldn't have said half the things in your last two posts.
I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I've used a cane for seventeen years, and a dog for five years. I've been in big cities and in the country with both. Lived on my own and with family. I can tell you categorically, through both personal experience and evidence, that A. you're wrong, and B. dogs are better than canes.
I'll withhold the personal experience because its pointless, but here's the evidence, you actually made this argument yourself. There is more potential with a dog. All the things you listed as going wrong with a dog are based on you misusing it. A dog won't get distracted unless you allow it to. Won't belly crawl for smells unless you allow it to. If you use a guide dog perfectly, it will be a perfect tool. The variable is the user, not the dog. You're not going to get a dog that isn't good enough to be a guide dog, they don't give you those. If it isn't good enough to be a guide dog, it isn't a guide dog.
Canes, on the other hand, are not perfect, which I've already demonstrated. You keep talking about fallibility, and that's fine, there is a lot that is fallible about the cane. However, what you fail to be taking into consideration is the usability. I'll explain.
Since the cane is, at its heart, a feedback tool, that is to say it is designed to transfer information from the environment to the user, we can judge its usefulness by the amount of information it can give back. As I said in an earlier post, the cane can only give you feedback about what is within a tiny arc of space which extends about four feet in front of you, shoulder width, and up to about the level of your waist. Even this is inaccurate because the zigzag pattern of the cane is fallible in and of itself, and commonly allows objects to get within the arc before alerting the user to that object's presents. To explain, how many times have you hit a light pole with the body of the cane rather than the tip of it? Happens all the time to me. That is a failing of the cane. This is when the cane is working at peak performance mind you, it is the simple nature of the cane.
A guide dog, at its peak performance, not only has a wider range, but has built in responses to objects in the arc of its vision. A guide dog does not have to let you touch a lightpole to tell you that its there. In fact, what is the base setting of a cane, hitting the object, is actually considered failure by the standards of a guide dog.
Now you're going to say, but Cody, guide dogs can get sick and so on, and that is true. However, you cannot compare the virtues of a tool by there status when broken. Obviously a broken hammer is not a good tool. that is because a broken hammer is not a tool at all, it is a broken tool.
In order to compare the virtues of a broken guide dog to a broken cane, you would have to do a whole different comparison list. I'll cut it short and just say that a sick guide dog can still guide. I've done it. Its heartbreaking, but it happens. A broken cane can't do anything, its broken.
The mistake you continually make SW is that you are trying to compare the two tools as a whole. You can't do that. You have to compare the base elements of the tools. When you do that, the cane fails on all points. Now, feel free to make the same emotional retort without actually saying much of anything. I'll wait.
Cody, I feel like you're still missing my point. You make some decent ones, yourself, but I don't think they are enough to validate your response.
1. The dog's vision and other senses, not to mention its reactions, are not perfect. Increased reaction to stimuli and increased scope is all well and good so long as the reaction is suitable; with a dog, it is sometimes unsuitable.
2. Sentience = fallibility, beyond the average nonsentient tool. I have seen well-handled guide dogs make mistakes more than enough times to justify what I've said in previous posts about their aking mistakes. No, it's not going to happen every day. Yes, you can probably minimize the risk. But you absolutely do not have complete control over that animal, no matter how you kid yourself. And even an inch of leeway is enough to shoot that point down.
3. Canes are meant to strike things in order to give feedback. Forgive me, but it appears that you are saying that, since this is failure for a guide dog, one standard is higher than another. This is unsubstantiated; you're comparing apples and oranges here. When my cane hits a light pole, a door frame, the lip of a curb, it's doing exactly what I want it to, and never mind that the dog wouldn't hit those things because I'm not being hurt or inconvenienced, or playing down as it were.
4. Pursuant to the last point I've made, whether or not the cane's scope is as great as a guide dog's scope is kind of irrelevant if both are sufficient. If in 99 cases out of 100, both will keep you safe, then trying to say that one is better is academic at best. The dog and the cane are both tools to keep a blind user safe, and both satisfy that requirement. To say that one is better is, as stated before, unsupportable. At best, it is a germain point with no practical application.
5. Far from being offended, and far from responding from my gut or based on emotion, I am analyzing what you say, and how you say it, quite clearly. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I am illogical, and just because you have a viewpoint you see as infallible does not hand you the right to become brusque or to taunt. I have thick skin. I can take it. However, I have no problem telling you to your face that you're in the wrong in some areas.
6. I hope your sick dog never makes a crucial mistake and, heartbreaking ordeal that it is, gets you, or itself, hurt. You cannot categorically blame all of a dog's faults and mistakes on its owner and since you can't, most of your other attempts fall like ninepins.
At this point, the most productive thing I will do, since doing else is probably pointless, is pose a question to all and sundry:
If one mode of travel is superior to the other, practically speaking, and if both have existed for long enough that the weaker could have and should have been fazed out, why hasn't it happened yet? Why are there probably more cane users than dog users if the dog is so universally superior, to enough of an extent that people are trying to justify a "dogs are better" mentality? You'd think that decades of hands-on experience would teach the blind community of the wisdom (or apparent wisdom) of this stance, yet it has not been adopted.
I was wondering when this question would come up. I can usually predict the arguments that are going to be made, and this one was one I was expecting a while ago. Fortunately, it has a relatively easy answer. Personal preference.
A cane user, when asked why they don't use a dog, will almost invariably reply that they don't like the clean up, or they don't like dogs. Never once have I heard a cane user say that they feel the cane can do something the dog can't. So, basically, its asthetics, not any principle of the dog or the cane themselves. Thus, not an argument for one being better or them both being equal. Its like the old guy who still uses his old brick phone. an IPhone is clearly better, but he's comfortable with his brick. Its basic human nature, change is hard.
Now then, as for your other arguments, take a look at all the provisers you had to keep using SW. You always have to say, sometimes, or usually, or maybe, or might. You're not able to say won't, or never, or can't, or will. That is the textbook sign of a bad and weak argument. Clean it up and try again.
It is actually the textbook sign of a person who is attempting to be more civil and permissive than not. I'm not in a boxing ring after all. If you fail to address the points mentioned above because the aren't to your taste in phrasing, I can consider myself fairly safe from further discourse from you, I think, at least where it concerns guide dogs. You're clearly grasping at straws if that's the best you've got, and in so doing you've shut the book on it. What follows this will be my last word on the subject.
I am a cane user who likes a cane over a dog for many reasons. A couple of them are indeed the extra hassle of having a service animal. A couple of them, however, are indeed things that a dog doesn't provide me. I like knowing more about the environment than a dog will provide, so it doesn't bug me if my cane bangs a trash can or bonks off a door frame. Call me weird if you like, but I like having both cane and feet as tactile sensation as far as walking surfaces go...if you're in a large room that has carpet in part of it and tile in the rest of it, you're going to know a split second ahead of time that your cane has gone onto or off of that carpet. I guess if the room is quiet, you might know that the dog's claws aren't clicking on tile, but if it's loud, I still have tactile sensation where I wouldn't before. It's tiny, but having grown accustomed to it I do quite like it. Hardly vital, but it does help to know what's coming so you can respond to it very quickly if need be. Quite simply, I like being the active member of the team, I think. If I'm with a dog, I don't have that, not really. I am not swerving around obstacles. I am not finding the door, or finding the sidewalk. I am telling the dog to do it, that's true, but the dog is the one leading. I guess it comes down to the fact that I like leading myself and, given my lifestyle and habits and all, I prefer to be my own guide. I like being confident in my ability to know as much of a route as possible. I like relying on myself. And if I have a dog, I sacrifice at least a little of this. That may be just a little too much. Thus, I'm not the blind person who won't give up his brick; my brick, as you put it, may not have all the fanciest or latest tricks, but it has a few perfectly viable options that have simply been overlooked, blended out or otherwise aren't cared about by users of newer models. That's fine. Live and let live. Notice how that keeps coming up?
There, that's me done. You won't see me in here again.
You used a cane that only went up to your waist? Damn, no wonder it never worked in your favor! A cane should be wayyyyy taller proportionately to you than that, at least coming up to the area above your stirnum, I think that's the name of the chest bone. My cane comes up to the area above my chin which gives me plenty of time to react to a drop off, not to mention should I need it, I have a much wider arc. And even though I'm a fast walker, another thing I like is that I am able to investigate and see what is around me. There is much that would be missed by using the dog. Now, many might disagree, but I'd rather know if there was a cliff beside me than zip right on past it without a clue.
The thing is though, if you really wanted to see what was around you in a given location that's why you'd carry the cane with you in a holster or something. Then you could give your dog the heel command and just hold the leash while you explored with the cane. In fact I've heard that's how some guide dog handlers acclimate their dogs to routes they themselves have taken with canes before. If you have to take, say the third sidewalk on the left, that would be how you might show your dog which sidewalk to take.
For any who are curious, the reason I didn't go through and answer all of SW's questions was because I already defeated the points, and didn't feel like going through them all over again. this is exactly why I keep trying to tell people to stop being polite. Say what you think and be done with it.
Anyway, I have a few questions. First, what possible good does it serve you to know what surface you're walking on? Do you walk differently on carpet than on tile? Perhaps you can only duck waddle on tile, and so need to know when its coming up?
Next, why do you want to know if there is a cliff beside you? You're not falling down the cliff. Do you also want to know if there are flowers in the field next to you, or if the cars passing you are green or not? Cuz it makes just as much difference to your travel.
Next, gump, when you're walking, do you holdyour cane vertically up to your chin? Cuz if so, you went to a different school than I did. I was taught to extend the cane out in front of me, which puts your hand at about the level of your waist, or jjust above it. That's why people complain about being stabbed in the stomach by their cane, not about getting stabbed in the throat with it. That damned logic thing, right?
Lastly, I'd just like to make one thing clear. There is nothing a cane can do that a dog can't do better. I know that every cane user on here just felt there anal sphincter tighten up at that, but its true. Users is a different story, but I'd be willing to bet I could tell more about an environment than the vast majority of cane users. I've met enough of them to be confident in that.
Cody, I believe the purpose of knowing what kind of surface you're walking on serves as landmark information. For instance, when I am walking between bus bays at the transport station downtown, I take note of whether I feel the path or the tactile strip under my feet. If I feel tactile strip, then I know I'm too far over to one side. For another example, when my dog and I were learning a new route, I learned that we needed to be walking on sand as opposed to the asphalt to head in the right direction. If I feel us walking on asphalt, I know we're too far over to the left. Of course, this information can be learned whether one is walking with a cane or a dog.
If I ever said a cane was better than a dog, I wouldn't be using a dog as a mobility aid. In my opinion, the dog is better. I don't have to hit things to find my way around them. Things like that are important when you use a cane for landmark information, but as a dog user, I don't need so much of that anymore. It's great that there's a tree across the sidewalk from the bus stop I need, and it's awesome that there is a cement flower pot outside that shop, but those things don't need to be noted now that my dog knows right where the bus stop and shop are located.
Frankly, I do see constantly hitting things then having to find a way around them as failure, or an impediment at the very least. Why do I say this? Because from the sighted perspective, you're still running into shit, no matter if you or your cane hits it. I hate running into shit, so I got a dog. I hate hitting chairs that are pulled out as I walk through a cafe. I hate walking through the dining hall and hitting people's bags and backpacks; I hate searching for a line of people or getting through a crowd of people and having to hit feet. Maybe other cane users don't mind, or have found some great way to get around this stuff without using a sighted guide, but I haven't.
Also, I can never wrap my mind around the whole idea that using a guide dog is less independent or somehow not relying on oneself. Just like a cane, you control how much information you gather from your dog. Telling your dog to find the door is the equivalent of trailing a wall to find a door, or counting doorways, or picking up on a doorway by hearing an opening off to the side. You still have control over the fact that you're going to a door and which door you're going to. When I tell my dog to find the curb, it's equivalent to finding the curb with my cane. I still have control over the fact that I'm going to a curb and which curb I'm going to. You get far more information and a better response quicker out of a dog, but ultimately, you control where your going.
Furthermore, I believe the saying "Two heads are better than one." I don't believe that because there are two sentient beings that there is more room for error. For instance, let's use the classic traffic check scenario. I walk out of a store toward a parking lot. My dog puts the breaks on immediately. I tell him forward, and he continues to stand still. Come to find out, there was a car backing out several feet in front of us. If I had been a cane user, I hope I would have figured that out before coming into cruel contact with the car. With a cane, you can only know what you can find out through your cane, which is not much, or at least not enough to make decisions ahead of time about how to react and which way to go. With a dog, you and the dog both know an abundance of information about your surroundings. Some things, you and your dog know, some things only you know, such as this street is under construction, or there's an alleyway if I pass this building, and other things, your dog knows but hasn't communicated them to you yet, such as the car blocking the cross walk, or the construction barriers blocking the path, or the big ass pile of snow six feet ahead of you.
I have been in the all-for-canes-and-totally-against-dogs boat. Dogs get distracted, cost way more time and money, and need far more attention. I tell everyone this whenever they talk about getting their first dog, or about how they push so-and-so to get a dog. It is not the same. You have to learn to trust another being, and work with it when it gets distracted. Some people couldn't handle it; I get it. But that does not mean the dog isn't better as a mobility aid. I walk faster, and find myself more comfortable and confident traveling through certain environments with a dog by my side. With my dog, it doesn't matter if I forgot that a trash can was in a certain place, or where the bus stop was exactly. I believe my dog is better than a cane as a mobility aid because he gets me where I need to go as quickly, safely, and conveniently as possible. We don't run into things, I don't trip, and I don't veer or get disoriented as often. The dog is better because I am given the better part of the ability to react to my environment similar to the way that, or exactly as a sighted person would react.
I had a feeling after I wrote my response that I might have misunderstood you, Cody. I do keep my cane out in front of me when I walk and it is usually at the level of my belly button or lower. When I switched to the NFB type of cane I've noticed, as opposed to the cane with the roller tip, that I was stabbed in the stomach less frequently. Another interesting point that Raven braught up is how people get irritated if you tap them with a cane, or hit a posession of theirs with the cane. I understand what you mean, and it goes hand in hand with what you meant earlier when you talked about personal space. That's a respectful point of view. However, the difference is intentional versus unintentional. It's not as though cane users are swinging the canes without caring about their surrounding people and objects, and they aren't doing it to hurt. I don't mean that's how you guys view it, I just thought it was an interesting take.
Doesn't really matter how you intend it if the person being hit by it thinks you're being evil. I was once pulled into the security office of my middle school because I'd tripped my principal with my cane and they weren't sure if it was intentional or accidental. That kind of stuff just doesn't happen with the dog. You don't run into people, or doors, or walls or anything. You look like you're normal.
Plus, and this is just a little bonus, for most people you're dominant hand is now free to do other things. I can use both hands almost equally well, but my right hand is still dominant. Using a dog allows me to use my right hand to hold a beverage or open doors or any number of other things.
I was never actually pulled into the office on account of using my cane properly but there were times when kids would position themselves in the halls in such a way that there was absolutely no way I could avoid hitti at least one of them or their bags, then they'd run to the nearest teacher to tell them I was doing it deliberately when in fact I wasn't.
When I said Cody made an immature statement, it was because he made one that obviously him (and I as it came down to it) believed but, like i said, guide dogs aren't for everybody. Some people aren't even capable of looking after a guide dog so yes, it's the best for some people not everyone.
But yes, of course th Cane can only give you so much feedback; that's a given.
And by the way Cody, with all due respect, you do start to make your posts about the people, that's obvious, if you can't get them to see your side.
Furthermore, you've said to me plenty of times that you'd love people to point out when you're "acting stupid" (your words), which, the majority of us were blown away when you made such a sweeping statement, just something to think about.
sorry, another post as I keep remember points, sorry.
Cody is only too correct in that if you have a distracted dog, you have to look at your handling skills; the two go hand in hand the majority of the time.
It's up to you to keep up the training of you dog by just continuing to work him/her how you were taught in class.
Ryan, I was not referring to people getting irritated when I would hit their feet with my cane. I never really cared about what they thought of that. I would apologize, but really, I needed their feet to gain certain information, and so it was whatever. I was specifically talking about how I hated having to hit people's feet, or any object for that matter, to find my way around. If I hate hitting things to find my way around, that pretty much means I hate the cane since that is its purpose. The dog solved that problem for me since he does everything he is capable of to prevent me from making physical contact with poles, furniture, other people, etc.
You guys keep saying its an immature statement, yet no one seems to be able to properly refute it. You guys do realize that not all blanket statements are wrong.
Cody, I apologize if I used the wrong wording; maybe that isn't accurate for what I was attempting to convey in this instance.
I myself was surprised that instead of saying that was your own opinion, you want to make it a generalized statement to fit everyone, but as I keep saying, and yes you can address me as I'm curious, not everyone is capable of looking after a guide dog, and not everyone wants too.
Look, I myself, as I say, agree with you; I'd never go back to a cane but some people just aren't capable of the extra responsibility so a cane may be best for them.
I know some very happy cane users; they say the day they'll get a dog is the day they'll have to pick up after their cane.
I can see for some people, picking up after the dog would be a hastle. No, the dogs aren't supposed to toilet on walks but sometimes they do, especially if they are not as comfortable with their handler as they should be.
I'm not denying that people may like canes better. But liking something better does not actually make the thing itself better. To steal an example from leo, I love to use hand tools to make things. Its just something I enjoy doing. Power tools are better because they are faster, stronger, less work intensive and more accurate, but my personal choice is to use hand tools. That doesn't change the fact that power tools are better.
Now, a big thing that seems to be misunderstood here is that better does not always mean easier. A good example of this is in the medical field. Brain surgery today is much better than surgery of any sort used to be. Its also a lot more difficult. It used to be that pretty much anyone could be a doctor and get along just fine as long as they had a sharp saw. But today, it takes a decade of training just to be allowed to have the license.
Guide dogs are better, period. That's a simple fact. They are better tools that do a job better than a cane can. That does not in any way equate to them being easier or less intensive. Does that make sense?
I guess I'm the odd one out here.
First, I always have been, and probably forever will be, a cane user. Considered a guide dog at one point, even got approved, but gave up the idea before class, and I dearly hoped at the time I gave it up in time for someone else to have gotten my spot.
Now, honestly, everything the dog users hate about a cane, I also hate about a cane. I hate running into things and more do I hate running into people. You don't like getting run into, I don't like getting run into, and neither do they. I do try and use what they call the echolocation or sound shadowing or whatever other words there are to describe mammalian radar to identify things and people around me. And yes, I've said excuse me to a coat rack with clothes on it, because I bumped its jacket and slid away quickly enough so as not to bump its "person". But it was tall enough like a human, and it had clothes on, so yes there are these silly things that do happen.
Some have even mentioned loving the cane: I don't love it any more than I love a screwdriver. I don't identify with it, though naturally it serves as legal identity at a crosswalk, but your wits are your friend whatever tool you use.
I see nothing at all wrong with Cody and Raven's posts, and I will probably never have a dog. I'm not surperior or more independent because I don't have a dog. I have no reason to believe I am anything other than a average cane user, if cane use follows the rest of my very average traits.
Cody's right about how you use it: Mine goes up to just the middle of the chest bone, because when I need length all I need do is extend my arm. And, when I have lived in downtown (hopefully soon again here), I am quite comfortable traversing sidewalks with tables stuck out all over, only because I do use a shorter cane.
But Cody is simply laying out practicalities that can be measured. The other cane people are laying out dogma. I always lean towards the side of practical measurements personally.
So why not get a dog, if I see clearly like Cody does? Because I don't want the attention a service dog brings, I don't want to pick up dog hair, dog poop, have another mouth to feed and veterinary care which, by the way, is not going to be covered by your health insurance premiums you pay each month.
But as a guide, a dog is a superior tool. And someday when there is a guide robot, I will no doubt use one, since it is not sentient and does not need the type of bonding and attention that a dog does.
I think Cody spoke with real clarity on this topic, and I am surprised at the spaghetti-monster-esqque dogma expressed by the cane users on here. It's just a damn stick, people, we use it, sure, and we use one that is made to be light enough to give better feedback, and is colored in a way to identify us as blind in the case of an incident with traffic. But it's a stick, no more no less. And dog users use them also when the dog is not guiding them.
Well, and here's my immature statement. A guy needs a girl that comes up to about his elbow. A girl, should probably have a guy she comes up to his elbow.
Now these are the best guides. They can read, tell you about things, laugh at your sorry jokes and many other things.
I try to always use a girl when I go out, but if not, a dog, than a cane.
Seriiously, I have to agree, a dog simply can work and is better. I currently use a cane, but I still think dogs are best when you travel. You don't have to like them, but you will be hard pressed to do better iin a contest with a good user of a dog. It is like John Henry and that stem drill.
I agree, a dog is the better tool. It has functionality my NFB cane simply lacks. Just as shorter/heavier canes I've used can't be used as effectively as the cane I choose. I think the smartphone analogy really works here...the dog is clearly the iPhone. Its fast, efficient, and can make choices, and react the to the commands you give it to help get you where you want to go, as your environment changes. If you are just trying to navigate threw a place with a lot of tables/couches/chairs, and someone stands up in that crowded space, now blocking your way, your guide can choose another path which will get you back to the door. where as with a cane, if I had sleep shades on, I wouldn't know someone stood up in a crowded space full of people who is now blocking my path until I ran in to them, with the cane, or otherwise. Same thing goes with hearing hybrid car, on extremely windy days, even with my perfect hearing, I am not able to here them 100 percent of the time. I don't care how good your hearing is, you're not going to here every single one, every time... Same thing goes for rainy days... and it only takes one wrong choice, on either your part, or the drivers, and you're toast. A dog may give you that chance.
Dogs can see doors, and thus can directly navigate you to them. This is generally faster than working out where a door is yourself, as a cane user if you've never been to an establishment before, or don't have a very good memory for where things are located. that being the case, the dogs capabilities come with a higher price, both financially, and in flexability. By virtue of keeping your dog in working order, you're more or less locked in to a schedule, that doesn't allow a vast window for flexibility. You need to take them out at the same times each day when possible, feed them at the same time each day when possible, make time to get out and about with them every day when possible, etc. You are giving up the personal freedom to do when, what and how on your own wim, to a degree. Same goes for how you approach travel arrangements. Some forms of transportation are complicated with the addition of a dog. either because you need to take in to account the dogs limitations/schedule, or because the law not withstanding, some people will do everything in their power to avoid transporting your dog. the conveniences of a dog come with some inconveniences that at least in my case, make it impractical to have a dog. with my future a little up in the air, I don't have a garintee of living in an environment best suited for the dog. and until I do, getting a dog for me is out of the question. I'm not going to become a dog user if I can't be sure i'm able to do best by the dog.
So, that leaves me with a cane, or dum phone.
Its just a feedback tule. that being the case, once you learn how to properly use an NFb Style cane, you do get access to ways of using a cane that are unmatched by slower, heavier and shorter iterations of our simple feedback tool, and my wits. this unfortunately means that yes, sometimes I will run in to things with the cane, or that I may need to worry about breakage from time to time.
this being the case, I can still run while using my cane, navigate myself just about anywhere I'd like to go in familiar and unfamiliar environments using a cane, and in general get the job done. I've learned the little tricks of echo location to help me avoid things like cars, people, overhanging tree limbs, sudden steps up or down, light posts, pillars, and so on, but I do egnolage that all this requires making use of my own personal skills, which are separate from the cane. and no one, human, dog, or otherwise is completely infallible. But, with a dog, you've got another creature that can tell you "hey, you didn't here that car."
that being the case, i'm completely confounded by dog users implying on this board that cane users can't be as confident, or travel in unfamiliar areas effectively, and so on, and so forth. I know a lot of confident cane tralvers (me included) that are comfortable traveling new cities we've never been in, taking trips far from places we've ever been, finding places we've never visited before, etc. I think there is a real error in taking personal experience you've had, and applying it to everyone, and everyones uses of the tool they pick. some people can become comfortable with themselves and confident in their abilities using a cane, while some feel that a cane isn't good enough to enable them to travel in confidence... I think this goes back to how we feel about our tool, and as a personal preference can't be attributed to the benefits of the tool, itself.
Guide robots? Probably not in any of our lifetimes. And what happens if it malfunctions? Like the dog you'd have to take it to be fixed.
Sure but it won't piss and shit all over.
actually guide robots might not be too far away.
James,
I don't feel that anyone has implied that cane users are unable to confidently and effectively navigate unfamiliar territory with their cane. At least, for Nicky and I, we were only saying that we are more confident and secure in traveling through certain environments and situations with a guide dog than we were with a cane.
It's all a matter of personal preference.
Sigh, no it isn't. I've proven it isn't. Stop continuing to give the same tired argument that didn't work the first time you used it.
Which one you go with is personal choice, which is better is not.
Maybe I'm a masochist, but I'm going to try this one more time.
The link between tool and user is intrinsic. It cannot be denied or downplayed.
When acquiring a new tool, a user is best served, in determining which is better for him, to examine his circumstances and weigh them against the possible benefits or risks of a tool.
It is also logical to suppose that the possibility exists where a tool's list of features is outweighed either by the tool's drawbacks or by the user's circumstances. Imagine, for instance, a power saw for a person who cannot use electricity for some reason. Now, imagine the planned purchase of an iPhone for a user who is unused to technology, who is nervous about learning, who is financially hard-pressed to commit to a contract upwards of fifty dollars a month and who has never before owned or felt they needed to own a smart phone. In both of these cases, it is logical to argue that the "better tool" is the one that the user will best be served by: a hand-saw in the case of the first user, let's say, or a very basic cell phone (or the continued use of a land line) for the latter one.
If you cannot utilize, for whatever reason, the features which separate one tool from another, then in your own personal case, the comparison of which is better, as defined solely by a list of features, becomes moot.
Following that train of logic, the only person who has the right to make any sort of weighted judgment about which tool is better is the user of that tool, and even then, the judgment is made only on their own behalf.
Supposition, discussion and the like are more than welcome, but there is no grounds for anyone but you to tell you that x is better than y, insofar as it pertains to your use of tools x and y.
I think the ascribing of "better" or "worse" status to tools, globally, and based on a list of features, is unreasonable and insupportable.
If a dog is better for you, that's cool. If a cnne is better for you, that's cool. I know what my choice is, and I will not impinge on your right to make yours. I fail to see why at least a few others feel it is their right to do otherwise.
And that's...really all I need to say on the subject. Perhaps people have been defining things in a different way than this, but in the matter of tools vs. tools, contextualized by user rather than by a list of features, there's really no way around this one. Anyone telling me a guide dog is better than a cane, as a blanket statement, is failing to take personal circumstance into account and is presuming to believe that global standards apply to individuals when, in this case especially, they simply cannot.
Sure, and a Mercedes requires gas, a bike doesn't, but, if I've got gas, and the money to purchase the Mercedes? Smile.
You are confusing utilitarianism with being. Simply because you cannot or will not use something, does not mean that something is not better. It simply means, to put it bluntly, you're not good enough to use it. Yes, I said it, yes its insulting, no I'm not saying cane users are sniveling cruds who can't do anything. I'm saying that you are either unable or unwilling to use a dog. Thus, not good enough to use the dog. Its unfortunate that I have to phrase it like that, but I can't think of a better word right now.
to use one of SW's example, (welcome back to the thread I never thought you left in the first place SW), a power saw is better than a handsaw. You having no electricity makes you backward and far behind the times, it does not mean a handsaw is better. It means you aren't good enough to use a power saw. Maybe qualified is a better word, but that sounds clinical. I'm sorry, I'll think of a better word.
No matter how much you try to infuse the user into the situation, it doesn't change anything. You like your cane, and that is fine, love your cane, marry it for all I care, but it isn't better than a dog. You might be able to use your cane more effectively than a dog handler uses a dog, or you may use it more often, but that doesn't make it better. I know people who use nothing but pocket knives to carve gorgeous things out of wood, but power tools are still better. The viet kong made weapons out of sticks in the Vietnamese war, and used them to beat the American and the French armies. The American weapons were still better. Are you getting this yet? Cuz honestly I'm getting tired of repeating myself against the same useless evidence you wrongly used last time you failed to prove anything.
This reminds me of many times when I have gone to get something that I am ignorant about, or something I haven't used before, or had any preexisting knowledge of. So what did I do? Asked a professional expert who has worked with that product, plus a variety of others that are meant to complete the same basic task. I'll give you the example of when I went with my uncle to get a washer dryer set. Neither of us knew much about the washer and dryer brands themselves, what the benefit and draw backs were, and which one would be the biggest bang for our bucks. So we asked an older gentlemen in the customer service for his opinion. And believe it or not, he recommended we go with the cheaper set, because with his experience he noticed that the more expensive one had more reported problems with belts, the touch screen pads, etc. Hadn't we known this we would have picked what looked more appealing to us. Now, that example is somewhat different, but I think it has the same idea. You may have a preference to stick with the old school way of getting something done. It is more appealing to you. However there are more benefits with the newer, more advanced methods of hundreds, even thousands of activities. I believe the seeing eye dog has been around for a long time, but not as long as the cane. Just as the telephone has been around for over 100 years, but the IPhone has not been around for a decade yet. Tools have been used for thousands of years, but we as a society are far past using animal bones and the first ways of using tools. The basic idea of acquaducts, (forgive me if I spelled that incorrectly), has also been around for many many years. If I'm not mistaken I think that was invented by Roman engineers. However I'm sure modifications have been used to improve their purpose. This list goes on and on, but I see the sense and significance of that logic. In short, we all have preference, but our preference is not the same as "the best way."
Ok, it all goes back ! what Cody Stated as the lack of willingness to care for or use a guide dog. I can see your point, sw, however, Cody is not saying a guide dog is better simpley because he thinks it's better, but because he has had experience with a goide dog, have you had that experience? Because if not, I find it difficult for your points to have full valititty unless it isn't your preference to use a guide dog, which is fine too. Hence, we all know what we are capible of handling, therefore, if you're not good and somethingor can't work with it, it'sa whole different story
Cody:
Please learn to recognize that your opinion is, in fact, opinion. Pull your head out of your ass. Good...now I'll say it again. It is a matter of personal preference. What does this mean? It means that you cannot dictate what a person uses. Start realizing that the world does not revolve around you.
Margorp,
I don't think Cody is being arrogant or conceited. Guide dogs are better than canes. It is a fact. The facts don't dictate personal preference, they simply state the truth. Guide dogs are better mobility aids than canes. The reasons why have been previously stated by me and other posters, so I won't go over them again. I will say this: you have yet to refute the given evidence for your opposition. Personal preference does not make one better than the other, it simply means one is more preferable. Some people prefer pen and paper to computers. That does not make pen and paper better than a computer. Others have used comparisons for cars, phones, and tools. What does it take?
I've also heard about thhese guide robots to replace guide dogs; I dunno what to think about them. Better probably than any dog can be on their good and bad day as they can always be distracted; the bot obviously won't. The bot can prob get softwear upgrades. The bot won't be pleasant to touch; I mean I heard that they may even have fur but it won't be the same; etc etc.
Aww but there's nothin' like having a real dog lick your face. Lol.
I'm with the last poster...guide robots...somewhat creepy, say?
This topic has helped me see things from a different perspective. It went a bit off topic but in my case I think it was for a good reason.
What Cody, Raven, and a few others are speaking in terms of is NOT personal preference. It comes down more so to which one has more benefits that outway the other. I like Margorp and many others looked at the dog and its negatives and ignoring the benefits, even after the users have told us several times, dozens of the benefits. And of course being dog users, they won't look completely at the negatives. Us cane users didn't do that either did we? So why should they? This is something we won't ever completely agree on partially because of preference, but perhaps also because we don't have the experience of using a dog, or we don't want to step out of our "known" comfort zone. Now, I can't afford a dog and I'm not sure if I'd want to have one, but I'd hope to experience working with one so I can make a decision based on experience, not based on the only thing I've experienced up to this point.
Meh, not into fur unless you count the Chick's beautiful hair but so far as I am concerned the guide robot can be PVC plastic. For decoration I might like it to have what amounts to a turtle shell or lizard skin but that is all decoration to me.
I am not a lover of things furry, though. I think you're right, the fake fur would be creepy in comparison to your experiences with a furry creature, especially if you bond with furry creatures.
Even if you don't bond with furry creatures, trying to make the robot furry like a cute puppy dog just seems...well, like trying too hard.
Robo Fido, forward.
LOL guide robots? How would that work int he rain like we are having here?
As someone who has been a cane user for her entire life and is in the process of applying for a guide dog, I have seen the benefits of the dog. However, while I personally think a dog is better FOR ME, this does not mean that a dog is best in all circumstances. If someone lives in a small apartment and does not logistically have the space for a large dog (guide dog or not), or whose lifestyle does not permit them to get full use of of the more advanced tool, this does not mean that they are bad people simply for being "backwater" and using a cane.
I once knew a girl who was simply not prepared for the reality of a guide dog. She had recently graduated high school from a small town, and we met at a summer camp in a big city. Having good mobility skills myself, and coming from a small city, I personally would have jumped at the chance to get a dog at that time, my life went in a different direction and the decision would not have been a practical one. But she - whether it was too much responsibilty for her or if her mobility skills just weren't good to begin with - I honestly don't know, but it was not a satisfying arrangement for either her or the dog.
The other things, too, is that canes are treated as tools, and only as tools; the bond with one's cane certainly isn't there. You don't see someone - at least a normal someone - upset when their cane breaks, but when my friend decided that her guide dog wasn't working out for her, it was heartbreaking on all sides.
Kate
I still stand firm to the personal preference arguement. It's already been said that the precious dog isn't perfect. People get so emotional over what they use. I use a cane. Big woop. Whatever you use, you use. One is not better than the other. The tool is only as good as it's user, after all.
Margorp, that's basically what I've been saying all along.
In order to take my point at face value, you have to step back and accept two things. First, that a tool is not necessarily better because it has more features and more potential. Second, that the only way to define which tool is better or worse is to pair it with a user. A tool is designed for a user, that's the whole point, so you can't just look at a feature list and logically claim that one is better than another. More advanced, hell yes. More feature-inclusive? Again, hell yes. But better? Hell no. Since tools are to be used, then the user must be taken into account. It's just that simple.
As for guide robots...no thanks.
Stand firm all you like, you're firmly wrong. And I'll thank you not to accuse me of ever saying you can't use a cane. Use a cane, use a broom, get penis enlargement therapy and use that for all it matters to me. I do not care what method you choose to use, or what you feel best suits you. That's not in any way related to my post, which you'd see if you bothered to read them clinically rather than emotionally. The dog is better as a tool. A tool is not as good as its user. That's simply idiotic to say if you think about it.
on another note, I agree, fur on a robot is just trying to hard. Make it look cool, or put a basket on it so it can carry my shit. Don't give it fur, that's dumb.
Hey, the basket idea's not half bad. Grocery shopping would be a hell of a lot easier anyway. It's not like you should put saddlebags on a dog. lol
Haha, that's true. If it's a robot, it probably doesn't care if it's bearing a bit of extra weight. Like the cane, it's an impersonal tool.
It's interesting, Cody, how you dare to tell people that they are wrong constantly. Try looking at the dog as a tool. I don't care how smart the damn thing is, if given a shitty owner, that dog will run a muck.
See but isn't that what we're saying? If the dog acts up it's the owner's fault. They are trained to do what to, but the owner can either go along with that training or screw it up and mess it up. Ug, the misunderstandings just continue.
The same is true of a lawn mower, you gonna try to tell me that isn't a tool next? Perhaps you feel that is an animal?
You ever heard of drunk driving? Its been all over the news for the past ffive decades or so. That would be a piss poor operator misusing a tool. Or perhaps cars aren't tools to you either. Maybe you think the only things considered to be tools are hammers and screwdrivers. How nice it would be to live in a tiny little world like that.
Yeh well that's it.
I heard that this robot would be based on the dog but I don't see the point because it's not a dog; sure, everyone got use to the dogs but they'd get use to this as well whatever shape it was; I just wonder what it would sound like and if it would have wheels or legs to again, look like a dog *cringe*
The basket is a great idea for sure. :)
Can it maybe cook for me too? It's just that I'm so lazy... sigh
Can it wipe my ass?
I would want it to have tracks, not legs. If it has tracks, it could go up stairs and over curbs and all that kind of stuff. I'd want it to look like a little tank. I wouldn't want it to look like a dog. If it looked like a dog, kids would want to play with it.
I'd like to talk to someone who uses a guide horse though. The guide horses can do things even guide dogs can't. I wonder how they would feel about this whole argument. I don't know enough about them to have an opinion.
I know almost nothing about guide horses but apparently one major drawback is that they essentially need to wear diapers as they aren't capable of being on a schedule in the same way dogs are. This is something I was told by a handler I ran into once, so I'm honestly not sure how true it is, but that's how he described it to me. . But I'd like to check one out some time, see what they're like.
The other thing I read was that they don't have to have the same level of work to maintain their training that dogs do. A guide horse who wasn't worked for a year can still work. But costs like for the ferrier and finding a horse vet can be challenging. Apparently they use rubber shoes to help them on slippery surfaces like inside buildings. There used to be a Guide Horse website about 10 years back.
Yeah, you could ride a horse, so no more walking. It could even carry these saddle bags.
Now, thaking it in to, say WalMart, might be a bit difficult, but you could tie it outside, and come back.
Now, my robot, I don't want it looking like an animal at all. I want mine to be a girl! Smile.
Okay, that's even creepier! lol
Cody, I'm not saying it's not a tool. You should really pay attention.
The horses they use for guidework are actually more along te lines of ponies. In fact if memory serves that's just what they are, Shetland ponies. So needless to say I don't think an adult could ride one LOL. As for te argument about te tool being only as good as its user I believe there is at least some truth to that. A guide dog can have the best training in the world and still run amuck if the handler gets lax with them. But I do agree with the statement that, in many situations at least, dogs are better than canes. But I have never met even a hardcore dog user who never, ever used their cane once they got the dog since there are obviously going to be situations and places where taking the dog isn't feasible. As for guide robots made to look like dogs, that's just...creepy. Why not just give it a human form so it'd be like going sighted gide?
I don't know much about these guide horses either but I had definitely heard of them. I'm pretty sure I did hear about the nappy (diaper for you guys) fact as well. Also, don't horses sleep standing up? And, even though they are only ponies, imagine trying to get them under a train/bus seat?
The main reason I believe they use these is their lifespan which is much much longer than a dog.
They can also see colors, so they're able to guide you to things a dog can't. One example I know of is that they're able to show you where the button is that you press when crossing busy streets. A dog can't see it because dogs are color blind, but a horse can.
They're miniature ponies, not anything ridable, and I think they' can actually lay down, but don't quote me on that. I know horses can lay down if they want to, they just don't usually do it.
As for a tool being only as good as its user, its simply not true. the results are only as good as the user, the tool doesn't change. One little clue you guys keep overlooking is that you have to keep making provisions on your argument. It has to be a terrible guide dog user, or one who doesn't use the dog at all. Little hint, a guide dog who isn't guiding anywhere, is a dog, not a guide dog. I am talking about the idea of a dog, the tool itself, its base state. Not its state after being misused.
A hammer, for example, is perfectly made for driving nails, its what its designed to do. In its perfect state a hammer will drive nails as long as you have nails to drive. However, you arguing that the hammer would not drive nails as well if you were to grind it down into a sharp point doesn't make the argument any different. You're arguing that if you use the tool badly you'll get bad results. That doesn't make any difference. If you change the tool, or use the tool badly, you will get bad results, but that doesn't mean the tool itself is bad.
Have I made sense yet? Cuz you guys just keep repeating the same thing over and over again like you think it will have different results this time. Its like you keep hoping I'll come on here drunk and maybe then you'll win the argument because I'm not paying attention or something. Come up with something new. I'm sick of having to repeat the same thing over and over again to answer you because the only thing you seem to be able to do is ask the same question in different words. Seriously, think about your point, get some good ideas, stop being wrong, then come back and we'll talk. Ok?
Well, the other disadvantage to a horse or pony, is they smell like, horses, no matter how clean they are.
If you have been on a street mall were they have the carriage rides, you can smell these horses, and they are cleaned to the max. They even glow, the skin, and are just lovely.
Take your pony in to an eating place, well.
Dogs on the other hand can be groomed, so they don't smell at all. You'd have to put your nose on one or really close to smell it if it is clean, but not horses.
Seeing colors, now, that be slick, but I'd want one big enough to ride.
Yes, ruminants like horses, deer, cattle and other creatures can and do lie down. They are capable of sleeping standing up, which is an advantage as a prey species, because if a predator were to approach they don't need to get on their feet in order to start moving.
Horses that are well-taken care of don't smell. You're smelling unclean horses, not clean ons.
First of all, even clean horses have a smell to them. It may not be strong, but it's there. Healthy dogs have a smell too. I'd probably notice the smell of a clean horse before a clean dog, particularly if it's working and happens to sweat a little.
Cody, I'd like to urge you to take your own advice. As far as I'm concerned, every bit of tantrum you just demonstrated in your second-to-last post in this thread reflects extremely well on you, and you'd do well to stop recycling the same old argument. I am making and maintaining the argument that in order for a tool's goodness or badness to be considered, it has to be linked to the user. Don't accept it if you don't want to, but stop getting all bent out of shape because you think you're right. You hold an opinion which differs from some of the rest of us. I'm okay with this, so why aren't you? I'm tired of mincing words and tired of watching you snipe people and act like you have some sort of ascendency over them when all it makes you do is look petty and childish.
If this ruffles your feathers, personally, I'm afraid I don't much care. This is a retaliatory response which will hopefully put paid to further discussion. It's wandered so far afield of the original topic that it hardly bears discussing anymore, especially since it would be very easy for someone who wasn't you or I to say that we were both being bullheaded. One is not right just because one is bullheaded, either. You aren't going to change my mind about the tool-linked-to-user thing, and I'm not going to change your mind about any of the crud you spew, so how about we call it right there, hmm?
This really is my last word on the subject. Depending on what my mood's like, I might come back in to check responses, but I won't be responding to them. I've posted here, in this fashion, to call out something I intensely dislike and to try and stop a back-and-forth bicker-fest that really wasn't necessary on either side. I'm attempting to make peace, albeit in an abrupt way, and this is the only nod toward compromise I feel I ought to attempt. To anyone else who saw this whole back-and-forth and perhaps thought it ridiculous, I will apologize for my hand in it...it does take at least two to argue, but now I am removing myself from that particular arena in this thread. That's all I have to say.
I would not want a hourse or a bot.
Hourses can laydown but not sit. How would you take one in a cab? This is how i get to work. Not all cars have ways to hook up a deal in the back to transportit and not all people would want to do this. I am forgetting all my words right now and I am glad my uncle won't find out, he shows hourses and would knock me up side the head. LOL.
Some cars, or most of them it seems, are too small for dogs, how then a hourse? Just about all the cars I am getting in to now days can't fit my dog who is only 57 pounds. If there are four people, there is just squeezible room for my dog.
A bot would have to be small and lite enough for you to get it in and out of a car too. It would have to slip under your seat on a bus and all. What if it is rainning and there are puddles? How would it get past that? Here in places, there are deep puddles and we have to find ways around them. It would have to have a good battory and would be nice if it has some kind of solor power charge too. Not a lot of people will remember to plug the thing up all the time but it would be nice if it had a retractible power cord so you didn't have to worry about forgetting the cord or having to carry about acharging doc.
Lol. So I guess it's the tool's fault when a carpenter loses a finger when cutting wood. I guess the table saw is at fault when it chucks a two by four across a room, nearly killing somebody and causing structure damages to a wall that the wood impales. I guess it's the cane's fault when a blind man walks with it straight in front of him, with no arc choked up, falls down a flight of stairs and breaks his leg.
I all ready see the justifications coming my friend, but the tool and the operator both have responsibilities and intentions. And if something goes wrong, the tool isn't always to blame. But since you couldn't seem to think from that perspective, I just thought I'd "hammer and chizzle" at that lousy argument. Go on and amuse us now with some more idiocracy.
I'm sorry, I'm a little confused, was that last post aimed at me? Cuz it perfectly demonstrates what I'm talking about. The cane example was really perfect for proving my point. The guy used it wrong, it didn't do its job. Nothing changed about the cane, the cane did not become better or worse, it was misused. Hense, the two are separate. Its really not a difficult concept.
SW, let me point out something to you that for some reason doesn't fit into your world view. There is wrong and there is right. I'm not talking about morality here. I'm saying there is an idea that is wrong, and an idea that is right. Those of us with the ideas that are right, which is not always me, have the responsibility to make those of us with opinions that are wrong shut up so the rest of the world isn't confused.
Let me give you an example. It used to be thought that the sun went around the earth. This opinion is wrong. Then some astronomers came along, looked at the sun and went, hey, you're wrong. What's more, they were able to continue that sentence by saying, "And here's why you're wrong." Then, the wrong people who thought that the sun went around the earth gave there evidence, and the right people defeated it.
So here's what's happened in this board post. We had two differing opinions. That leaves us with three possibilities. Possibility one, I was right and you were wrong. Possibility two, you were right and I was wrong. Finally, possibility three, we were both wrong. We could not both be right because our opinions are polar opposite. Thus, mutually exclusive.
So, we begin our debate, both trying to prove the other to be the one that is wrong by presenting our evidence. My evidence proved your evidence wrong. This is demonstrable both in the fact that you were forced to change your evidence, and that I one supporters who used my same evidence rather than making up their own. So we can logically conclude that I am right, and you are wrong.
The sad part is that now you don't have the courage to admit that. So let me give you some friendly advice for the future. If you are always going to want to simply agree to disagree, say nothing. Don't type out your opinion because your opinion is worthless. You have proven yourself completely willing to compromise on your stances simply to facilitate the fact that others might also have a voice. So you may as well just shut up and let those of us with convictions talk. Because with you being ready and willing to debate in the first twenty-five or so posts of our debate, then suddenly going "Well why don't we just agree to disagree", makes you look like you're surrendering but you don't have the courage to admit when you are wrong.
Why would I waste my time attacking a person who thinks they are always right? That last post was not directed at you. Read it again. It was directed towards your weak point. I'm disappointed. I would have expected a meticulous, well rounded debater such as yourself to understand that simple intent of my argument. However I was right in saying justification would be used, and no matter what I said you would distort it somehow and say "it proved my point." Of course it would make sense to you but go on and ask others. I rest my case.
Horses have a smell, sorry. I've worked around them, and soon as you get them moving, they give off a stronger scent than dogs do. On a hot day, you'll really notice them.
And yes, getting on in to a car would not work, not even the smallest of them.
That is why I say mine would have to be big enough to ride. Smile.
I'm glad you rest your case, cuz you're making absolutely no sense. The quicker you rest your case, the quicker we can get on to people who construct sensible arguments.
I wonder how they do get horses in cars. I mean, they must do it somehow since they're used as guides. Right?
They don't. Those horses, small though they might be, are still not small enough once fully grown to fit in an actual car. You would have to have some kind of trailer that you could hitch to the back of the car, and as was pointed out not all cars come with the necessary hookups. So evenif you yourself had a sitable trailer you still might not be able to take your horse. And I agree about the smell. Eventhe cleanest orse has a distinctive smell to it, and it's much stronger than the natural scent of a clean dog. I've been around horses enough to know that.
As for robots I agree with Niki's points, particularly about keeping it charged. And anyway what if a software crash occurred mid trip? Believe it or not all crashes aren't due to viruses and malware or other outside sources. I've observed computers crash that were totally clear of such things. As for water it is possible to provide at least some protection for electronics. If cameras can be made waterproof or at least water resistant a robot theoretically could as well. But I agree there would have to be some convenient way of getting it into a vehicle with you.
wow, I think having to have a trailer hookup for the horse would stop me from considering a horse right there I'm sorry to say. I don't use cars very often but occasionally, it's eesential, well it is for everybody.
And yes, it's a shame because all the pros over the dogs are definitely impressive.
I mean I don't even know if they're going to be introduced before the robot option so i prob won't have to consider it anyway. :)
Oh guide horses have actually been around for years. They definitely wouldn't be ideal for someone in an apartment situation though.
Wait, we're not talking about Shetland ponies here. I know that was mentioned in a post above, and I meant to correct it. The horses are about the same size as a dog, just a little spindlier. You wouldn't need a trailor for them any more than you'd need a trailor for your dog. Its not like they're full sized ponies.
Now I'm really fascinated though. I think I shall go pray to the church of google for knowledge.
Ok, I couldn't find anything that specifically answered my questions about the horses in cars and such. However, I did find a news story about a horse guide that went on a plane. So if they can fit in planes, maybe they'd be able to fit in a car reasonably well.
According to the faq's that I read about misconceptions of guide horses, one of the things a horse must have to be considered is exceptionally small size. (there words, not mine) So we're talking really small horses here. They also said that you must have a barn for the horse, and that they place a companion horse with the guide horse. So it does sound like its a lot of work. But it also seems like it has some benefits. I don't think it works for me though.
Yeah, that pretty much elliminates us who want to live in a city. I'm not a farm boy that's for sure. Haha.
Interesting. I have no barn either, but it is interesting.
Here's the scoop on guide horses:
It takes about six months to a year to train them for guide work. Called pigmy horses, they have to measure less than 26 inches at the shoulders to enter the guide horse program, and they are generally between 55 to 100 pounds. The standards for a miniature horse range from 28 to 38 inches. Thus, their size allows for them to ride inside just about any vehicle with the right training. Just like dogs, weight gain can be a problem in pigmy horses.
It is best to keep guide horses in an enclosed outdoor area or a barn when they are not working. Their natural odor is not strong if they are groomed regularly and bathed periodically. Sitting is neither comfortable neither natural for these horses. They go through desensitization training, and they also learn to spook in place. These horses can be housebroken, and taught to make a certain noise or motion to communicate their need to relieve themselves.
Benefits:
1. they are a possible alternative for people who are allergic to dogs, or people who enjoy horses rather than dogs.
2. Miniature/pigmy horses live one-third longer than the 25-35 years of an average horse, and up to 4 times longer than a dog.
3. They have a wider field of vision because of the location of their eyes, giving them the ability to see 350 degrees.
4. Horses are not as easily distracted as dogs.
5. Fleas are not a problem for mini horses
6. They are all trained to be three-gaited, meaning with a voice command they will assume a slow walk, walk, or trot.
Some drawbacks might be searching for an equine veterinarian and a farrier to trim the hooves. It is absolutely necessary to keep horses outdoors or in a barn because they need fresh air since they are highly susceptible to respiratory ailments. Guide horses can go upstairs, but they are trained to choose ramps whenever possible.
From: guidehorse.org/faq
Also with bots, what if there is mud? How would you deal with that if it doesn't have legs or sticks? It would get all over the bottom wich Coady said would be easier for going up and down stairs.
Tractors or similar mechanisms are designed for muds as well as sands and near anything else. You can wash off treads in anything you like.
Really interesting. Thanks for posting that.
I say again though, what happens in the event of a software crash in your guide robot? They aren't all due to viruses and malware you know.
So, we have guidehorses, which you have to feed, clean, groom, etc. You have dogs, which you have to clean, groom, feed, etc. You have the possible guide robots which can have software crashes. You have a cane, which you don't have to feed, groom, etc. I guess i'm sticking with the cane, thank you.
No, you have canes which can break, bend, or simply miss an object. If you're going to include shortcomings of the other three, you have to include shortcomings of the cane too. Oh, and lets not forget that a cane can easily get knocked out of your hand, and a cane doesn't come when its called.
Exactly. Even graphite canes, which are admittedly much more hard-wearing than aluminum, are not unbreakable. This has happened to me a few times.
I've had a titanium cane break before, and carbon fiber, and graphite, and aluminum. You name it, I've probably had a cane snap while made out of it. Its a simple matter of leverage and poor design.
Granted I've had far fewer Graphite canes break on me than aluminum but it has happened. If a person trips over it just right there go the joints. And I won't use anything other than a folding cane.
Software crashes just don't happen as often with embedded systems. People talking about software crashes are talking about computers. The reason is they misunderstand what typically causes a crash: one process or program stealing memory used by another process or program, or trying to access memory by what is called a pointer when another program already got rid of that pointer.
Sorry to be dry, boring, technical and geeky, but that is it. This is why your CD player's software doesn't crash, your car's software (which is very sophisticated now) doesn't crash, train station and air traffic control software doesn't crash. It's generally referred to as single-purpose systems, where everything that system can do is accounted for and tested. This is never the case in the wild we call personal computer use. There have been reams written on embedded systems, robotics, and single-purpose software.
Typically, when you send a video recorder back because it doesn't stop blinking, and I bet even your book readers back when they malfunction, what you actually have is a hardware crash.
Yes, devices can be reset, though there are countless examples across the world of devices who are never reset and never go offline once online.
This is, ironically, why the old guys working on mainframes used to call personal computers toy computers, because to them the I want it to do what I want it to do mentality was very undisciplined, childish and immature. Sounds strange to you and I now, since our phones even let us install apps and do things they never did when we bought them at the store.
But your guide robot will be functioning the way most medical appliances, factory-operation appliances, hell even fuel injection systems, work. In that Because with these types of devices, you don't have the ecosystems where options in one place can compromise options in another, and a zillion other things that go wrong with personal computers and people usually blame developers or computer manufacturers for.
Sorry for the lengthy post, but in order to be intellectually honest about a crash being part of the equation, in particular a software crash, you need to understand the fundamental difference between your typical computer / smartphone / tablet and your typical embedded system or appliance.
Hmm. Interesting about the potential stability of a guide robot. In that instance I suppose I'd consider it. But as far as canes breaking and all the other attendant inconveniences, yes, I've had plenty of those instances, but I'll take that over having to groom, clean up after, and generally take care of a living dog. A cane won't come when you call, but you don't have to spend weeks getting acquainted with another dog and then doing all the things you don't want to do. The whole canes versus dogs thing can be summed up this way in my opinion: Canes are better for what I need them to do. Dogs are better for what you need them to do. Ergo, neither canes nor dogs are proven to me to be better because subjectively there are just too many variables when it comes to preference. Dogs can, for instance, see farther than a cane because canes can't see (obviously), but a good cane traveler can get just as much independence from a cane as a dog user can from his/her guide. I've sufficiently proven it to myself to know this.
And yet another person who totally misses the entire idea of my premiss.
I'll have to see the whole guide robot thing in action before I believe it. I just think that movies have given us a romanticized vision of robots and computers that you folks aren't seeing. A robot is basicall a computer,albeit a mobile one. So a software crash could still occur.
If it's directed at me, I don't think so. You've said a dog is better and I disagree. ergo, I think you're wrong.
And yet none of you seem to be able to grasp the idea of comparison based on merit and not on use. Its not really surprising though. Without the user, a cane is a painted stick. Without a user, a guide dog is a dog. Even the dumbest and most useless dog is better than a painted stick. So, you cling to the one argument you've got I suppose.
So, a dog can think while a cane obviously cannot. I get that. A dog can see while a cane cannot. A dog can see farther across an open field but a cane cannot see a thing, and a user has to rely on his/her own wits to get through that open field. But you yourself said that both are tools, so even if I granted you all this, I'm still not ready to concede that a dog is necessarily hands-down better than a cane. A dog is still dependent on the human owner whereas a cane can be taken out of the corner by the door and be readily used. A dog can still get sick. A dog gets old. A dog dies. You have to re-train every few years with a dog, and my understanding is that this training process can take several weeks. I already know how to use a cane very effectively, and all I have to do is buy another one. See, the problem with your argument that dogs are better than canes is that we have an essential draw. If dogs were so much better than canes, there'd be very few or no cane users, and believe me, there are a lot of us who use canes extremely effectively and competently. Ergo, a lot of people, like myself, have concluded that for us, dogs are not better than canes. You can verbally beat me and others over the head all you want to, you can call us morons or idiots or whatever you want, but it still doesn't change anything for those of us who have proven to ourselves that canes are better than dogs. Which brings me back to my original point: Dogs and canes are no better and no worse than one another. It depends on environment, it depends on the temperament of the user, and it depends even on the make of the cane and the behavior of the dog. To me, a cane is reliable, safe, a good tool, and not better than a dog. Even if I concede that there are things dogs can do that a cane cannot, you still haven't proven your point to me.
So what if I had to go through mud with my bot then wanted to go in to a store or an apartment right away. Or even church??? I don't carry water with me all the time. How would i clean it off? Not all places are going to have a hose, i know we don't here in my apartment. Yes i could ask people to carry out water for me but this is a bit of a hassle.
Bryan, why don't you explain where in my post on robotics and embedded systems I made references to movies and television? What in movies or television expostulates the similarities between the personal computing device we all call a computer, and the appliances who have chips and embedded systems?
Your claim is purely anecdotal as and often happens on these boards you are just writing spuriously an attempt to defend your belief. Believe whatever you want. Hell, believe that the earth is flat if you want. We have flat earthers just like you who blame movies television and in their case secular humanism for the so-called belief that the world is not flat.
However I made a coherent claim which you can verify with a little research, that systems embedded into current vehicles to manage fuel injection, systems embedded in your stereos, stoves, and in factories all across America are in fact embedded computer systems whose software does not crash because of the difference in ecosystem / environment.
Play footsie with your religion / dogma / beliefs about technology if you want, but it's simply not stacking up to reality, any more than the fait healers stack up to reality with their claims about medicines. It's simply not adding up.
If it did, you should be able to cite me embedded systems whose crashes were similar to those of a personal computer. Spelling it all out for the religious / dogmatic here, that would be satellite trackers, air traffic control systems, robotics found in all manufacturing plants, your stereo, your DVD player, your car's fuel injection system just to name a few, who have embedded systems whose software makes decisions based on environment and / or user input. Give it a spin, but do it for real this time don't insult even your own intelligence by referring to mives and television. None of which were mentioned in the discussion about the difference between an embedded system and a personal computer / smartphone / tablet.
If we ever do get robotic guides, they'll function very much akin to how robots in factories, and medical appliances, and many other systems worldwide do. Users won't be downloading third-party applications from the wild into them, just randomly adding extensions to them that were never known during factory testing. That just doesn't happen in robotics technology. Which is not in movies and television, but at least 30 years old in manufacturing plants, and about that old in fuel injection systems in cars,and a lot of other locations.
You do realize that you're arguing against something I haven't dedicated a single word to disproving, right? You're tilting at a windmill because you feel I insulted some dogmatic sensibility of yours. You still don't even have a clue what it is I'm talking about. You've proven that by continually addressing an argument I never even made.
Oh, and little tip, next time you try to use an example like that one up there about dogs being dependent on the human owner, whereas a cane can be taken out of the corner any time you wish, you may want to stop and double check that those aren't the exact same friggin' thing.
You mean...the earth isn't flat? What the hell?
Sorry, it's just getting a bit tense in here.
I imagine that they'd never give us guide robots unless they could be absolutely certain that crashes would not be a common thing, if they happen at all. I mean, your dog could make a mistake, get sick, get confused or distracted, but you still use and trust him, right? Still...if I was going to go for a guide rather than a cane...give me a furry creature I can bond with, thank you.
Damn, I thought the world was flat too. *sigh!
Now, Leo, you are saying crashes are caused by human error, so when we crash, with our dogs, horses, canes, and these robot dogs, it is our fault. I agree, but.
You point out that things go for years, but you did miss that factories, cars, TV’s CD players, and other things sometimes just break down.
Granted, so do dogs, and canes, but these are less dependent on expensive machinery to have repaired.
Now, you can say dogs are expensive, but most cities, or schools provide free medical care if you look for it for your dog.
If you are on SSI or SSDI, you can get a food and care allowance for your dog.
I’ve been fortunate not to break many canes, because maybe, I use them carefully, but, if I could get a free one each time?
I’m with all the others, if I’m going to have a dog, I want a real dog, not a robot. I’ve got enough electronic devices in my life as it is.
Whistles for his cane.
I'll never need to worry about "parking" my cane. For those not in the know, that is the term used for taking your dog outside to use the bathroom. One term I heard was "doing busy busy" which just makes me cringe.
Honestly, I did think it was ridiculous needing a trailer hookup every time a guide horse was to enter a car; I knew "they" would of had to think through that better.
I live in a unit myself but will be moving to a bigger place with a bigger yard soon; it's weird to contemplate having to have a barn being built.
But I'd be tempted as my new home will be in the country, not that I think that aspect matters as long as there is a backyard to build a barn in.
I haven't heard of them out here in Aus though.
No, they're not. Because a dog is dependent on a human owner and a cane is not. Ergo, a dog is not the same thing as a cane. Either that's what you're arguing or you're not. It seems to me you're the one who gets insulted otherwise you wouldn't be using verbiage designed to put others down. You're arguing a dog is better than a cane. I'm arguing that it isn't. You're never gunna win your case because different people have different temperaments and different mobility needs. It's that simple really.
The crashes that happen in robotics are real and have to do mainly with hardware. They will of course break down, as does everything in our universe and presumably other parallel universes as well. It's the types and frequency of crashes that don't happen in robotics, due to what I have described. It was that which I was challenging, and the coy comments on television as a response to a sound argument: those were what I was responding to.
Leo you didn't mention movies or TV. I did. I was merely observing that said media has over the years given us a romanticized view of robots and what working with them must be like. Robots are often portayed as devices that almost never! malfunction, and when they do it's usually due to some outside interference. Take R2D2 in star Wars. Granted he malfunctions all the time but usually it's due to someone shooting him or some other scrape that he got himself into. The problem is that it's not only outside interference that causes problems.
Oh dear, we are headed into off topic teritory. I could go on and on about robots but I dare not do so.