This is a placeholder text
Group text
by vhsdogs on 10 September 2010 - 17:09
http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010/sep/10/van-firm-relents-dog-gets-spot-20100910/
Make sure to read the comments to get more insight into the story. We all need to contact this company and the state of Arkansas, this ignorant behaviour shouldn't be tolerated. A seeing eye dog for goodness sakes....
HANSON
Photo by Steve Keesee
Arkansas School for the Blind teacher Lis Geoghegan sits with Chopper, who was described by one commuter as having “better manners than most people.”
ADVERTISEMENT
• E-mail
• Print
• Comments
A 5-year-old golden retriever named Chopper sparked a two-week dispute, starting with the group that organizes van pools for state employees and leading all the way to the governor’s office.
For three years, Chopper has been a service dog for Cabot resident Lis Geoghegan, who has been blind her entire life and teaches middle-school math, science and social studies at the Arkansas School for the Blind in Little Rock.
On Aug. 23, Geoghegan began using the State Employee Benefits Corp.’s VanPool program to commute. The program allows Arkansas State Employees Association members to ride one of 27 vans for a fixed fee that’s based on mileage.
Two days later, she was told by the corporation’s VanPool
Now the lady that started giving her so much grief is going to be the person assigned to drive the van her and Chopper will be riding....
Make sure to read the comments to get more insight into the story. We all need to contact this company and the state of Arkansas, this ignorant behaviour shouldn't be tolerated. A seeing eye dog for goodness sakes....
HANSON
Photo by Steve Keesee
Arkansas School for the Blind teacher Lis Geoghegan sits with Chopper, who was described by one commuter as having “better manners than most people.”
ADVERTISEMENT
• Comments
A 5-year-old golden retriever named Chopper sparked a two-week dispute, starting with the group that organizes van pools for state employees and leading all the way to the governor’s office.
For three years, Chopper has been a service dog for Cabot resident Lis Geoghegan, who has been blind her entire life and teaches middle-school math, science and social studies at the Arkansas School for the Blind in Little Rock.
On Aug. 23, Geoghegan began using the State Employee Benefits Corp.’s VanPool program to commute. The program allows Arkansas State Employees Association members to ride one of 27 vans for a fixed fee that’s based on mileage.
Two days later, she was told by the corporation’s VanPool
Now the lady that started giving her so much grief is going to be the person assigned to drive the van her and Chopper will be riding....
by FHTracker on 10 September 2010 - 18:09
Unfortunately what's wrong with some people is situations and owners like this who give non dog people reasons to be afraid.
I was out walking my GSD on a leash and a couple of my neighbors were heading down their driveway to go for a walk. We were across the street from them and they still stopped and the look of sheer terror on their faces concerned me. I stopped and asked my dog to sit, which he did and smiled at my neighbors reassuring them that he wouldn't bark or bother them.
They looked at me with shakey, genuinely afraid smiles and said in small voices "That's what everybody says about their dog, then they just let stuff happen."
I could see these people were seriously afraid of the dog and had had bad experiences with dogs and other dog owners in the past so I simply kept my dog in a sit and let them head down the street and away from us.
Now I am NOT saying that this driver was genuinely anything other than a control freak but you ask what's wrong with people and the hard truth is, some people genuinely trust owners to have control of their dogs and then get nasty surprises when an owner's 'rose colored glasses' of their pet proves to be a less than accurate assesement of the animal's genuine personality.
I was out walking my GSD on a leash and a couple of my neighbors were heading down their driveway to go for a walk. We were across the street from them and they still stopped and the look of sheer terror on their faces concerned me. I stopped and asked my dog to sit, which he did and smiled at my neighbors reassuring them that he wouldn't bark or bother them.
They looked at me with shakey, genuinely afraid smiles and said in small voices "That's what everybody says about their dog, then they just let stuff happen."
I could see these people were seriously afraid of the dog and had had bad experiences with dogs and other dog owners in the past so I simply kept my dog in a sit and let them head down the street and away from us.
Now I am NOT saying that this driver was genuinely anything other than a control freak but you ask what's wrong with people and the hard truth is, some people genuinely trust owners to have control of their dogs and then get nasty surprises when an owner's 'rose colored glasses' of their pet proves to be a less than accurate assesement of the animal's genuine personality.
by vhsdogs on 10 September 2010 - 18:09
FH, what you say is so very trure in most cases, BUT, this lady is blind and this is her service (seeing eye) dog, everyone on the van knew this. Some of the commutters even stated the dog was better mannered than most people.
by FHTracker on 10 September 2010 - 18:09
I completely understand that, VHS and I agree in this particular situation the driver was out of line.
But your question stirs up the fact that because of owners who say their dog is fine while Fluffy is chewing on someone's ankle, people who aren't dog people are becoming more and more reluctant to believe anyone about their dog.
There are some people out there who probably have no idea what goes into making a service dog, the level of socialization and proofing the dog must go through and all they see is a potential problem on four furry legs.
But your question stirs up the fact that because of owners who say their dog is fine while Fluffy is chewing on someone's ankle, people who aren't dog people are becoming more and more reluctant to believe anyone about their dog.
There are some people out there who probably have no idea what goes into making a service dog, the level of socialization and proofing the dog must go through and all they see is a potential problem on four furry legs.
by sueincc on 10 September 2010 - 18:09
I don't subscribe to that paper so I couldn't read the story. Can someone please fill me in on what happened?
FHtracker, I know exactly what you mean, about the incident with your neighbors as well as the train wreck you linked.
This fear seems so much more prevelant now. What changed?
FHtracker, I know exactly what you mean, about the incident with your neighbors as well as the train wreck you linked.
This fear seems so much more prevelant now. What changed?
by HBFanatic on 10 September 2010 - 18:09
The further we get away from humans being raised with animals and without the understanding of our relationships to them that date back centuries, the more we have folks that just simply don't have a lick of common sense.
I don't even know what to say!
I don't even know what to say!
by Myracle on 10 September 2010 - 18:09
Among other things, people began realizing that no certification is required for service dogs.
You cannot be asked to provide proof of a service dog.
Because of this, there have been incidents of so-called service dogs causing scenes in public venues. I recall a newstory about a man who attempted to sue a theatre owner because he and his dog were expelled after his dog alternately barked, ran around the theatre and growled at people.
I saw a newstory recently about a woman who was asked never to return to a store because her "service dog" defecated in the middle of an aisle.
So, thanks to incidents like these, people are just becoming a lot more cynical about service dogs.
Anyone can claim their animal is a service dog, and establishment owners are more or less at the mercy of that person and their dog, unless the dog engages in behavior that is threatening or otherwise significantly disrupts the function of the business [defecating in a public place, for example.]
So, that's one aspect of this issue. Obviously, that factor isn't at play in this specific case, since this is a guide dog for a blind woman, I doubt anyone questions the validity of the dog.
As other people have pointed out, there are also the issue of people not being familiar with dogs because they weren't raised around them, or being flat-out afraid of dogs.
Nowadays, people don't even have to have a negative experience themselves with dogs. The way every single dog attack is sensationalized in the media [Yes, many are very horrific attacks. People are injured every day in a multitude of incidents that do not ever make the news] is enough to make people who aren't familiar with dogs believe that ANY dog is randomly going to become violent at the drop of the hat.
Of course, the media also plays part in this misperception as well, because they always have the owners and/or neighbors saying that the dog was so sweet and nice and had never done anything like that before! In reality, the dog probably had major issues beforehand and there were many, many warning signs. But that's not what people get from the reports of attacks, and so they have a very inaccurate idea of how these attacks occur.
Its possible there are some entitlement wars going on with this case as well.
The vanpool folks resent the "special treatment" that disabled people receive. People often have very strong, politically charged feelings about things like Affirmitive Action, Disability Rights, etc etc.
People frequently misperceive the Americans with Disabilities Act as granting special privileges to people with disabilities, rather than understanding that they are reasonable accomodations, designed to allow people with disabilities to enjoy the same experiences that folks without disabilities can.
I wish I could read the article in full, to see if the argument against the dog was based on the space the dog occupied, which meant the vanpool was losing the revenue involved in "renting" that additional seat.
You cannot be asked to provide proof of a service dog.
Because of this, there have been incidents of so-called service dogs causing scenes in public venues. I recall a newstory about a man who attempted to sue a theatre owner because he and his dog were expelled after his dog alternately barked, ran around the theatre and growled at people.
I saw a newstory recently about a woman who was asked never to return to a store because her "service dog" defecated in the middle of an aisle.
So, thanks to incidents like these, people are just becoming a lot more cynical about service dogs.
Anyone can claim their animal is a service dog, and establishment owners are more or less at the mercy of that person and their dog, unless the dog engages in behavior that is threatening or otherwise significantly disrupts the function of the business [defecating in a public place, for example.]
So, that's one aspect of this issue. Obviously, that factor isn't at play in this specific case, since this is a guide dog for a blind woman, I doubt anyone questions the validity of the dog.
As other people have pointed out, there are also the issue of people not being familiar with dogs because they weren't raised around them, or being flat-out afraid of dogs.
Nowadays, people don't even have to have a negative experience themselves with dogs. The way every single dog attack is sensationalized in the media [Yes, many are very horrific attacks. People are injured every day in a multitude of incidents that do not ever make the news] is enough to make people who aren't familiar with dogs believe that ANY dog is randomly going to become violent at the drop of the hat.
Of course, the media also plays part in this misperception as well, because they always have the owners and/or neighbors saying that the dog was so sweet and nice and had never done anything like that before! In reality, the dog probably had major issues beforehand and there were many, many warning signs. But that's not what people get from the reports of attacks, and so they have a very inaccurate idea of how these attacks occur.
Its possible there are some entitlement wars going on with this case as well.
The vanpool folks resent the "special treatment" that disabled people receive. People often have very strong, politically charged feelings about things like Affirmitive Action, Disability Rights, etc etc.
People frequently misperceive the Americans with Disabilities Act as granting special privileges to people with disabilities, rather than understanding that they are reasonable accomodations, designed to allow people with disabilities to enjoy the same experiences that folks without disabilities can.
I wish I could read the article in full, to see if the argument against the dog was based on the space the dog occupied, which meant the vanpool was losing the revenue involved in "renting" that additional seat.
by vhsdogs on 10 September 2010 - 20:09
FH, Mudwick,
I Agree with both of you, I know the problem is as you both stated: people (who shouldn't be allowed to own) make excuses for their dogs, don't know how to read or control their dogs dogs put them in situations where someone gets hurt, and every news agency in the area reports dog turns on, attacks, mauls and so on. Now all of our dogs are thrown into that vicious dog category, As you said Mud, idiots that claim their dogs are service dogs and take them in public where they misbehave cause the general public to once again throw all service dogs into that same category because of what they have witnessed I do know all this to be true Still severely upsets me when an injustice like this is done. The innocent should not be punished because of the guilty. Just got a tad bit angry and needed to blow off a little steam.
Jim
I Agree with both of you, I know the problem is as you both stated: people (who shouldn't be allowed to own) make excuses for their dogs, don't know how to read or control their dogs dogs put them in situations where someone gets hurt, and every news agency in the area reports dog turns on, attacks, mauls and so on. Now all of our dogs are thrown into that vicious dog category, As you said Mud, idiots that claim their dogs are service dogs and take them in public where they misbehave cause the general public to once again throw all service dogs into that same category because of what they have witnessed I do know all this to be true Still severely upsets me when an injustice like this is done. The innocent should not be punished because of the guilty. Just got a tad bit angry and needed to blow off a little steam.
Jim
by FHTracker on 10 September 2010 - 20:09
Jim,
Completely understandable and in this case an innocent did get hurt because of the selfish actions of others who abuse a loophole in the service dog system.
Just like how incompetant owners give all pet owners a bad name.
Completely understandable and in this case an innocent did get hurt because of the selfish actions of others who abuse a loophole in the service dog system.
Just like how incompetant owners give all pet owners a bad name.
by Myracle on 11 September 2010 - 01:09
I hope my post didn't come across as... insensitive towards those who legitimately need, and use, service dogs.
My ire is towards the people who abuse the loopholes, and the news media who sensationalize every dog attack.
My ire is towards the people who abuse the loopholes, and the news media who sensationalize every dog attack.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top