Hi again,

I did receive a link to your post, but if there was an email circulating telling us to make certain points, I wasn't on the list for that one. :)

Thank you for making more of an effort to restrict this post to your opinions about service dogs. I primarily took issue with your claims that service dogs are on call 24/7 and that they don't ever get to stay with their handlers. I want to reiterate that the situations described in the comments really are the norm.

I'd also like to state again that I really do believe dogs make a choice about guiding. Dogs who do not want to guide clearly exhibit this. Dogs who are happy doing their job demonstrate this in many ways. And my own retired guide made it very clear to me when she was ready to hang up her harness. I know she would have kept on guiding for me, to keep me safe. But I could not ask her to do that.

BTW, even though she is now retired, she always comes up to me when she sees me approaching stairs going down. She will use her body to block me until I tell her it's OK, that I know where the stairs are. She knows I don't need her help on stairs inside houses, so she will then go on down or let me go down. She just wants to make sure I know I'm at the top before I move forward. She also still takes me to get the mail, and this makes her happy.

You mentioned the "common goal" involved in a partnership. My dogs enjoy many of the places we visit. They're gaining something, too. And I think this is why many of us prefer to be partnered with a dog rather than a human. A human might work for money, but guide dogs really do develop the sense that we're working as a team. My guides love to go to the coffee shop with me, for example, because it's fun for them. It's not just that they do it for the food and the vet bills. :)

I forgot to add that yes, blind applicants are screened for anger management issues. Occasionally (as is the case with just about any organization finding homes for animals), someone slips through the cracks. I'm not trying to say that the "guide dog world" is perfect (I would like to see more positive training techniques employed), but all the dogs with raised, wagging tails seem to be pretty happy over all.

Hi KP -
Thanks for your response to my posting and your detailed response to all the letters. The first thing I want to say is that the Guide Dog School I am familiar with does screen potential handlers for maturity, ability to handle the dog, anger issues, housing issues and many other things. A potential handler also is required to train at the facility for 4 weeks before being allowed to take their dog home. The dogs are matched carefully to the handler to make sure they fit together, physically & temperamentally. Many people are actually turned away and told that they are not ready for a dog. Applicants must be at least 16 to even be considered.
Secondly, I also have a real issue with breeding for particular physical features to make a dog look a certain way. This has created many breeds who would die quickly if required to fend for themselves. Although Guide dogs are bred at the facility, the organization is VERY careful to have a wide scope of dog families to mate within so that the dogs do not have many of the problems that come with cross breeding too intimately. Certain breeds are more suited to be Guide dogs, this is just reality. The particular breed at this facility is primarily Labrador Retriever, however they do have Golden Retrievers and often cross breed the two. Some facilities prefer Poodles, other German Shepherds or Dobermans. A new "breed" - the LabraDoodle has been "legitimized" and these make great Guide dogs. The main reason shelter dogs are not used as Guide dogs, is that the training begins very young, just after being weaned. The first year is spent with puppy trainers, who do basic behavioral training and love the puppies like mad, cry giant tears when they go to big dog training and often become friends with the handlers who ultimately are paired with the pups they train. The second year is where the Dogs are taught to Guide a blind person safely through the world. Dogs that don't pass training - I don't like the term "washout" at all - we say "career change" - can be trained for other service work or adopted by a family wanting a well trained pet. I considered getting one, but decided to look for a shelter dog instead. Yes, shelter dogs can be trained as service dogs and VERY often are. This does not work, however, for Guide Dogs as their training begins so early.
I am glad to hear that your near miss with being permanently paralyzed turned out well, that you had so much wonderful help and that you were not hindered, embarrassed or confined by your "service people." Many other folks are not so lucky and are in a situation where they are alone and permanently disabled. For someone who knows they will be unable to EVER pick up a piece of paper that fell from their chair to the floor or handle their own grooming or tell if an hybrid car is crossing the street illegally, it is much more of a challenge to have another person with them 24/7 to assist them. Service or assistance dogs can fill this requirement in a loving and efficient way. Maintaining independence, privacy and dignity is so important for a person who is living life with a disability in a complex, judgmental, and marginalizing society. People with disabilities are so often relegated to the the fringes of society, their loving dogs help them to navigate through the world more safely and independently. Permanent disability is a lifelong challenge. Many people choose not to rely on a dog for help, many do. It is a personal preference. People who do not like dogs are generally not a good choice for a handler and this usually comes out in the long training period. I shiver to think of anyone abusing their service animal - they should NEVER get one, but then again they should never have a pet dog either and I bet they could EASILY adopt one at a shelter and heap their abuse upon an animal who has most likely already been mistreated.
I continue to maintain that these Guide Dogs are happier, healthier and more loved than many, many dogs out there who are mainly used as pets. I feel that this is just as "selfish" as having an assistance dog. People, including myself, acquire pets to fill a need in their life, a need that is just as important as a physical need - an emotional need. To give and receive love unconditionally is a basic human and canine need. Dogs help us and we help them.
Thanks for your work in helping to raise awareness of animal abuse. Keep up the good work and Doggy LOVE!!!

Wow! You are seriously misinformed and your blog posts on the SD issue are offensive on so many levels.

I just want to know...do most guide dog training organizations use pure bred dogs? because even if the guided person is treating the dog well, the breeding of these dogs takes away homes for shelter dogs. so in that sense it is still detrimental for the dogs.

Thanks for the clarification.
I do disagree with you on some points, though. About the main reason why people get SDs being a selfish one. Yes, it is, but so is the reason most people get pet dogs: they want the emotional attachment.
I'm glad you had a good experience with people helping you when you were injured, but not everyone is that lucky. I have needed other people to help me all my life, and I have been left without that help at times when I really needed it, even by people who were paid to provide it.
Guide dog schools are very careful about who gets a dog. Any potential handler spends a lot of time at the school to see if they are suited for a dog. How they treat the dogs is watched very closely. If they don't like dogs or just aren't any good with them, it generally comes through then. Guide dog schools also keep a close eye on the handler and the dog when they get home to make sure things are still okay.
And the dogs do have a choice. Dogs who don't like guiding show it during their training and are not forced to continue with it. My dog doesn't think of what she does as working. She loves showing me that she knows where she's going and loves the praise she gets when she gets there. It's all fun to her.
I believe that the vast majority of guide dogs are better off than most pets. My dog's needs do come before my own. When I made the decision to get a dog I took on the responsibility of giving that dog the happiest life I could. It makes me sad when I see other dogs who are in bad situations. I wish I could take them all in, but unfortunately I can't.

You have a problem with breeding and genetic manipulation of dogs yet without this there wouldn't be dogs as we presently know them. Also there would not be dogs as we know them if they had not been domesticated in order to serve man. In response to your suggestion that people adopt shelter dogs instead of retired dogs or dogs who didn't make it through training, wouldn't that just shift the problem of homeless dogs?

>>>KP's Response:

Hi John,
No, it wouldn't shift the problem if the service dog organizations stopped breeding dogs.
The past is just the past. It doesn't matter how this state of affairs came about--we need to look at the best ways of improving things in the future.
KP

If you have such a strong opinion on the subject, why don't stop blowing your horn on the internet and do something about it. If you feel that service dog schools are ignoring shelter dogs by not considering, then why don't you start your own school or evaluate dogs for a potential program. Dogs from shelters are not bad. True, they are there probably 99% of the time because of irresponsible people for whatever reason they have done. You are entitled to your opinions and feelings, that is your right. But if you start accusing something or someone, get your facts right. Service dog schools have and still do use shelter dogs or dogs that are not from their breeding program and have turned out successful dogs. Some schools and programs do not have the benefit of a breeding program. They rely completely on donated dogs. Turning out a matched team of a person/dog takes longer, but it happens. See gatewaytocaninepartnerships.org.
Perfect example. Larger facilities and organizations that have breeding programs do not state that purebred dogs are the future and only "true". Any group that should would be best to realize that pure breed dogs are going to disappear without new DNA introduced. Besides, all breeds of dogs came about by mixing other dogs together. Do you think the poodle was something nature would have turned out? As far as abuse, I know it has happened with service dogs and it is wrong and sad. But if someone gets a service dog after passing the interview process and beats the day lights out of a dog, how is that any different than someone who also went through an evaluation of adopting a shelter dog and acting in the same way? If an organization truly cares about what they are doing, the dogs are cared for. Judging all service dog programs, organizations, and schools in one lump some that they are all vile is like saying that all members of PETA are trouble makers. But that is not a fair judgment to make when I know that the organization its self has done good and there are good people that are members. Instead of trying to make so much noise in your little corner of the internet, take some time and learn some more before you get up on your soap box again. I'm not trying to convince to want a service animal or even to support them. But I highly suggest you ask more questions and get answers before making accusations. (FYI-your blog has an advertisement for Cesar Milan, his training is not about how many treats can be stuffed down a dogs throat and he uses training collars and corrections in training. If you are so against training like that, I am surprised you have even the slightest connection.)

KP,
I'm offended too--that you had to write an entire post to justify your rightful thoughts and opinions on the exploitation of dogs and other animals as human servants. It's absolutely ridiculous, and I wish all the whiners who argued with you would spend as much time thinking about the concerns you've raised as you have thinking about and responding to their complaints. Shame on all of you for being too narrow minded to consider the validity of an ideal because it doesn't suit you or would be inconvenient.

Good for you for blogging about this and sticking to the point! I suppose if they were called "slavery dogs" instead of service dogs, their side of the bargain might be easier to understand. While it's great that dogs, and other animals, help humans, training away their natural behaviors to make them better little helpers is quite a sacrifice for the animal and exercise in domination for the trainer. I wonder how many better, more scientific helping devices might have been available for the disabled had we not focused so much on animals. Sure, I hope my dog barks if the house is on fire, but the smoke detector makes a much better watch-dog.

I don't think that there was an email telling people to make certain points- it is becasue those are the points that need to be addressed-did you think of that-the fact that there were so many on those points only support it.

Trying to clairify showss some responsibility, but Peta is still highly offensive to the diabled community.

I forgot, while I am sorry to hear about your injuries in 1993 it can hardly be compared to the people who need to use service dogs. People with short term injuries (like yours) are not entitled to the use of service dogs under the law.

Also, you have no idea what it is like to be disabled long term-your whole life-I have family/friends who help-but they have lives also.

Amanda said:

"I'm offended too--that you had to write an entire post to justify your rightful thoughts and opinions on the exploitation of dogs and other animals as
human servants...."

Really? Seems that if all the posts said, "Hey! You're right!" the blog would be pretty boring, and KP'd be preaching to the choir.

I think that those of you on the "other side" of this debate need to give the points we raised just as much consideration. KP, you seem to have done some of that in this particular post, and I think that's great.

If you want to post your opinions that it's basically unethical to have a service animal, and if you want to post your opinion that service animal programs shouldn't breed their own dogs, that's totally fine--go for it. I might disagree, but I respect your opinion and your right to voice it. What does disturb me is the posting of statements that can pretty much easily be verified to be untrue, such as statements that retired guide dogs might find a loving home "if they're lucky." Such statements don't fall into the realm of opinion, so insisting that they're true isn't the most productive way to dialogue.

OK--I'm done. :) I also want to say that I've looked at some other posts here (and plan to check this blog out on a regular basis), and I've found them interesting and informative.

Best,

Mom of two guides

SED's Mom,
Wouldn't you agree that service animals who have nowhere to go when their tenure is over are unlucky?
If you all want to gang up on KP for writing a blog that reflects her OPINIONS AND INSIGHTS there's nothing I can do to stop you. But it looks awfully silly when you accuse her of not doing any research but can't be bothered to post any facts or statistics yourself. I'd certainly like to see some.

Hi Karen,
Yet again I must congratulate you for what you say in your blog. I agree to the hilt. In this day and age, when people go to the moon, soon to mars and can get around using satelite navigators why on earth hasn't anyone invented a similar system to help blind and otherwise disbled people to get around without slaving a dog ?
Modifying a species through selective breeding is fine if it remains within the realm of an animals' natural needs and enjoyment, but to make them into slaves incapable of protesting is what the nazis wanted to do in Germany some 60/70 years ago. People were appalled because they targeted humans, but I just can't see that one is better than the other. Both aims are repugnant and offensive to man's so called civilization.

Amanda said:

"Wouldn't you agree that service animals who have nowhere to go when their tenure is over are unlucky? "

Aw, come on. :) Of course I'd agree with that statement--that would be the case for *any* dog who didn't have a place to go when he or she became old. But I think we both know that the original implication was that most retired service dogs were homeless or euthanized. And those of us who have talked about our own guides *have* posted facts. We've candidly shared with you what happens when our dogs retire. So, we've happily provided KP and you with great initial fodder for your research. :) If you truly want more statistics, feel free to contact any number of guide- and service-dog programs. Most have toll-free numbers that can easily be found on the web. I don't know how much they can release due to the need for confidentiality, but I'm certain they'd verify for you that guide and service dogs don't end up with nowhere to go.

I'm finding this more and more interesting...as you still don't seem to have contacted any organizations that raise/train Service/Assistance Dogs. If you're so concerned, why have you not called to ask for the numbers of re-homed dogs, released dogs, etc?

The blog and comments are also heavily based on Guide Dog organizations...which are more into breeding, as Guide Dogs have a higher criteria for what they have to be able to do (my opinion!). Have you checked into any groups that train Service, Hearing or Autism dogs, etc? I know many Service and Hearing dog groups that do indeed rescue dogs from shelters.

My organization does not breed, but we rely on breeder donations and rescue donations. For example, we have two puppies headed our way in about a week or so...one is from a breeder who did everything well (genetic testing, good bloodlines, etc) and one is a mixed breed from a rescue. Last year we brought in three puppies...one breeder donation and two rescue mixed breeds. If these puppies don't make it...we have back-up plans...the breeder/rescue can take them back, the puppy raiser or trainer gets second choice, and then it goes to the waiting list (which is short since we don't have large quantities of dogs coming through the program).

There are also many people out there that are training their own Assistance Dogs...and many of them go to the shelters to find what they want. Sawyer himself is a rescue (a stray off the street).

Sawyer is also an example of a dog that wants to work. He's an Aussie that has generations of dogs behind him that worked, and worked hard. These dogs are workaholics...and it's hard for them to fit into "polite society" sometimes (that's why so many young, untrained Aussies end up in shelters). Having a job saved him...and trust me, he chose this job...he LOVES going out and doing stuff. The minute he wants to quit, that's fine!

Remember...these dogs don't think this is "Work"...Sawyer thinks it's all a big game that he gets to play throughout the day...not a JOB like some of us humans dread. ;)

When I read both of these blogs I had to laugh! Really, some people don't need to get worked up over someone's opinion, especailly when it is an uneductated one.

The truth about dogs is that they have been breed for thousands of years to serve people. This is what is in them, it was put there so long ago that it is beyond our control. To change it would take a few thousand years of breeding these traits out.

As for not allowing the dogs to sleep on the bed or have table scraps, well my dogs don't get table scraps because it is bad for their bodies. Having your dogs sleep on the bed is a personal thing and dogs should not be trained to think this is okay until they are placed. Really though if you allow your dog to sleep on your bed you are saying that you are equals. This may lead to the dog thinking it has dominance over you, which isn't always a good thing, especially when a dog needs to be controlled. Dogs do need control and structure like children do. Also, no dog that is being trained to help someone should be allowed to jump up on someone. This could lead to many problems (including having proper control over the animal when needed).

The other part I personaly found to be untrue is that a shelter dog could do the same job. I have had dogs from shelters and know others who have gotten dogs from shelters. Sometimes there is a reason dogs are there. The dog I had was wonderful to me but attacked my neigbour's kid. In this case the kid did absolutly nothing to provoke the dog, she just attacked. She bite him so hard that his whole calf was black, blue and bloodied. Which brings me to my point: when getting a shelter dog you do not know what you are in for and can end up with an animal that has aggression problems and may be a danger to others.

Honestly though, I the only part I was offended by was that you believe that it is just as easy to have people take care of you as it is animals. This statement is so far from true that I am shocked that you would even emply something so offensive. Your personal story is bunk information to be giving to others. Really, do you think seven weeks can compaire to the years/life time some people live with a disability? Wow, that is just awful, that you would post that as a fact and as reason why people shouldn't have helper animals. Really do you even realize what a burden you would be to your family and friends? If they had to take care of you like that for the rest of your life? Is that fair to them? To give up things in their lives because you are too high and mighty to get a helper pet. Not only that, but if they weren't around to help you what then? Sure some people have inhome assistance, those who can afford it. Having to ask your family and friends to all this stuff for you when you could have a helper pet and do it yourself seems really selfish to me. Besides the fact that helper animals help the person to get around, they don't do it for them. The are assistants. Not to mention a companion for the person in need.

I guess whats really the issues here is you are not in a position where you don't have a life long disability that makes you rely on other people.
So you don't know what its like.
So really you have no right to call people selfish.

>>>KP's Response:

Hi Cnidog,
It's true that I don't have a lifelong disability, but I can certainly imagine what it would be like. I had the experience of being disabled for a couple of months, so that helped me see what it would be like. But what I'm trying to say is that our whole society is thinking about this issue "inside the box," just relying on the servitude of dogs. Just as our whole health-care system is totally screwed up (watch Sicko for more on that), I think our society's approach to people with disabiliies is screwed up. I think we should have WAY better technology at this point to help disabled people get around, and I think that humans should be responsible for aiding humans with disabilities and that the government should pay their salaries. Obviously, that's not the way it is today, but that's the way I think it should be. We should leave the dogs out of it. It's not their problem, and they shouldn't be forced to work.
KP

I have watched this post for a while before commenting to see people's responses. You do have valid points that shelter animals can be good pets, whether pure breed or mixed. Whether a dog is from a shelter or was raised and trained in a safe environment, does not guarantee that abuse could not happen by a person in either situation. A few months of having a disability is not the same as an entire life. It helps in understanding, but it is not the same. I have family and friends that have been disabled their entire life, I still can't say, "Yes, I know what it is like to be blind or deaf like them." As far as service dogs being bored at when at work, how is that different from a pet dog being bored at work or at home? Not everyone has the benefit or should not be allowed to take a dog to work. Saying all service dog organizations are all the same and follow the same standards are not true. I have know some cases that people claim to be a service dog group and they are actually a danger to the people the claim to help and the animals they use. At least in California, the state requires guide dog trainers to be licensed and have several years experience before being about to train dogs. Doesn't guarantee perfection, but makes it just a little harder for some idiot to harm people and animals with claims of help. As far as forcing animals to do things, again that is a general assumption. Having a dog do something that is not natural to them is a broad standard to go by. Collars and leashes are not a natural part of dogs. But it is for their safety or and other people. Not everyone has a trustworthy dog that can heel at their side, off leash. There are several cases of a service dogs being attacked by aggressive off leash dogs , completely unprovoked. Even if it is a pet dog attacked unprovoked, it would not be that handler's fault for being responsible of minding their own business and making their dog walk on a leash.
My intention of this post is not a nasty attack, other people have the energy to get angry, I'll leave it to them. However, I just find it interesting that you post on a blog, yes people read it, but you are more along the lines of a "muck-raker" than doing something about the problem. Whatever you choose to do and your fellow PETA members, I will ask that you not break the law in your actions. I had a friend that was shopping a PETA member had tried to "set the dog free" by un-clipping the leash on my friend's guide and then went off about how wrong it is. Keep the name of PETA honest by positive actions and for doing good, not as trouble makers.

>>>KP's Response:

Hi K. Ann,
That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in months--that a PETA member would try to set a guide dog free. Either your friend made it up or you did, or the person wasn't a PETA member. It wouldn't serve any purpose to simply turn a dog loose to go run in traffic and get hit by a car or whatever. Besides, I doubt if a guide dog would run away anyway.
KP

There are many different dog training techniques that are out there today. Many people often don’t realize that dog training courses often utilize different dog training techniques.

"a PETA member would try to set a guide dog free"

--KP, can you personally vouch for everyone member of PETA that there is absolutely no way a real member could be this fanatic? I highly doubt that. I agree with most of the things PETA stands for, but unfortunately there can be people like this in any organization no matter what the cause is for.

>>>KP's Response:

Hi K Ann,
Of course I can't vouch for every PETA member, just as every person with a service dog can't vouch for every other person with a service dog. I'm just saying that people join PETA because they care about animals, and setting a dog free to get hit by a car in traffic doesn't show any concern for animals. It's much more likely that someone who resents something about PETA made it up in an effort to get an ugly rumor circulating. It wouldn't be the first time. It's a shame that people can be so hateful sometimes.
KP

I don't find letting a service dog go something out of the usual for Peta.

Members/Peta have been apparently in court and accussed/admitted to/fouund quilty of extreme situations and a I beleive beating someone up was one of them.

I wonder if the people wo join Peta REALLY know what Peta does.

KP's Response:

Hi HK,
It's a good thing for you that you didn't include your contact information, because what you've written is not only false but also libelous. Please don't spread false rumors just because you feel threatened by people who care about animals and don't like to see them suffer.
Thanks!
KP

Hi there,
This is my second post, don't know if my first one made it up or not...
I have to say that I totally agree with everyone who has already said that your experience may have given you insight but in no way can be said to be the same as living with a long term disability. People who take off their glasses and do tasks or wear a blind fold and say they know what it means to be blind... but I digress
You keep raising technology as this panacea. I doubt that all the technology in the world would make me consider not working a dog. There is something so wonderful about working with a dog to figure out a problem, you know that there is an active brain in there that is actually processing information not a bunch of wires and metal.
Dogs as servants... my dog works, she gets paid in the only way that I can that has meaning to her, I feed her, make sure she is warm, dry, healthy, lavish her with attention.
As I posted previously there is the International Guide Dog Federation and they have strict membership criteria regarding policies and procedures for conducting all aspects of training from puppies right through the dogs life. The organisations to watch out for are those who are not registered with the IGDF. I believe that there is a similar organisation for Assistance dogs the IAADP... If you want to improve things review the policies of these institutions and lobby them to make changes if necessary, then start ensuring that all individuals and organisations are members of these.
As for the use of correction collars... the fact is that it isn't about what collar you use or even what training system you use it is how you use it. A person can do damage to a dogs neck using a flat collar or someone can still hit a dog when they are being trained using a clicker...
I did have to smile when this discussion of the alleged PETA member unhooking the leash... I have heard of many such instances, all claiming to be PETA members... I think it just shows that individuals actions don't always speak for organisations or movements. What one service dog user does doesn't mean that that is what everyone from that organisation does or even what one organisation does does not speak for the whole of the movement.
I think you will enjoy reading the following web page
http://www.iaabc.org/articles/ethical_use_ad.htm
It approaches the subject of ethical use of assistance animals in a different and more useful manner. It may not address all your concerns but is a far more productive way of tackling the subject.
From Penny

Hello, KP:

I see that, in this article, you seem accepting about some notion of guide dogs. That was pleasant to read.

We were considering raising a puppy to be taught to be the companion of a visually impaired person. I had mixed feelings, so I looked at the PETA site and saw your articles referred.

Our major concern was the puppy and what transition he/she would receive. As I understand it, the transition is "bye now." This seemed cruel to me. Others have "assured" me that the dogs don't mind and do quite well. I've actually had a person tell me that dogs do not miss their human companions.

However, I did find this article, which clearly shows that this is not the case:

http://stason.org/TULARC/animals/dogs/service-faq/001-Dogs-for-the-Blind.html
"Dogs can fail for a variety of reasons. As you might guess, some dogs don't transition well from living in a puppy raiser's home to living in the kennels and others just get stressed out and fail. The puppy raiser gets the option of keeping a dog that failed. If the puppy raiser can't keep the dog they can place it in a home. Waiting lists for such dogs are usually several years long!"

You, also, enlightened us to the crating mandate, and the "no furniture" mandate. I could not take a puppy home, and place him/her in a crate at night. I am vehemently against forced crating! (I say "forced," because we actually have some cats that LOVE to nap in their carriers! Or course they have blankets and towels in there :) And, it is not preferrenced to sleeping in the bed with us. But, they do enjoy their naps in them.

Additionally, our kitties have free reign on the furniture (except the kitchen counter top and stove. After all, I don't walk or sit on them, either :) ). I can't imagine having a puppy and telling him/her that he/she cannot join us on the couch or chair, etc. Especially since our kitties may. Additionally, I would think that a visually impaired person would be comforted by having their pup next to them in their bed at night.

Lastly, while I think most people love their seeing eye pups, I've seen the occasional who seems to think of them as servants and not companions. I think that is a VERY rare circumstance, however, it does bother me.

If you come to know of any organizations that raise pups (grown or young) to assist the visually impaired, which does not crate, have such furniture restrictions, and has a caring transition process, please let me know.

Thank you.

KP said "It's much more likely that someone who resents something about PETA made it up in an effort to get an ugly rumor circulating. It wouldn't be the first time. It's a shame that people can be so hateful sometimes."

It is a shame that people have fallen into these times where they have to go to making rumors, which is a grade school thing I might add.
I can see why you are trying to send this post about guide dogs you want people to change their minds about something that is very important to people in their everyday activities. I will say that we cannot use people instead of guide dogs because that would be servitude and people being servants(just like in the old days when people would have servants that lived at their houses, Not allowed a life of their own) to other people would be so much better, right?! I don't think so. If you have ever done research on dogs you can say that dogs have been working with people, with what seems like, forever.
I love my dogs, even the dog that I raised as "EYES" to someone else. I would take him back in a heart beat when he retires.I guess I am done. There is no real point to this just my opinion.