Irish Dogs for the disabled response to using RBL dogs.

Bullseye1 · 02-02-2014 11:01am #1

The response from Irish Dogs for the disabled (mistakingly mentioned Guide Dogs Ireland by mistake) and Irish Therapy Dogs has been a disgrace. They certainly will never get my charity again.

Mod note: Posts on this thread have been moved from another thread to allow it to stay on topic.
Thanks,
DBB

Bullseye1 · 02-02-2014 11:07am

Very disappointing and biased response from this body to a question if they would consider employing dogs listed on the RBL.

Screenshot removed at request of owner of page shown

DBB · 02-02-2014 11:55am

The response from Guide Dogs Ireland and Irish Therapy Dogs has been a disgrace. They certainly will never get my charity again.

What response is that bullseye?
You've started a thread where the Dogs for the Disabled have said they won't use RBs, but have the Guide Dogs and Irish Therapy Dogs said the same?
I wouldn't expect such a response from the IGDA because they use GSD crosses for the dogs trained to live with autistic children.
Indeed, many guide dog associations across the world have used purebred GSDs in the past, but they've abandoned them since due to temperament and health issues, in favour of breeds and crossbreeds that have worked out very well for them. So, I'd imagine the Dogs for the Disabled feel very much the same way about it.
Besides, just as their are non-RB breeds that are just not ideal candidates due to not generally having the right combination trainability, steadiness, soft-mouthedness and gentleness all in the one package, so it is with some amongst the RBs too.
So I find this nitpicking and looking for a cause to be outraged about just a bit much to take.
Why not campaign against the guards for not using Staffies or Bulldogs or Rottweilers for their police work, or Customs for not using Ridgebacks, Tosas or Dobermann, or search and rescue organisations for not using Akitas or Bull Mastiffs?
I train sniffer dogs. None of the above are suitable candidates for what the dogs I train are used for. Would you like to start a campaign against me now too?
Horses for courses bullseye. If it's a campaign you want, look for more convincing arguments to back yourself up.

Bullseye1 · 02-02-2014 12:05pm

I friend of mine who is a qualified Vetenary nurse and qualified dog behaviourist had a RIdgeback she wanted to use as a therapy dog. But was told "she was a dangerous dog". According to her the dog was perfectly balanced and ideal as a therapy dog.

Bullseye1 · 02-02-2014 12:09pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I friend of mine who is a qualified Vetenary nurse and qualified dog behaviourist had a RIdgeback she wanted to use as a therapy dog. But was told "she was a dangerous dog". According to her the dog was perfectly balanced and ideal as a therapy dog.

Customs or the Garda have not come out with inflammatory responses or comments as to why they use only certain breeds.

To be clear where do you stand on the RBL argument?

DBB · 02-02-2014 12:17pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I friend of mine who is a qualified Vetenary nurse and qualified dog behaviourist had a RIdgeback she wanted to use as a therapy dog. But was told "she was a dangerous dog". According to her the dog was perfectly balanced and ideal as a therapy dog.

I'm assuming this was not in Ireland, as to the best of my knowledge there's only one vet nurse who is also a qualified behaviourist, and she hasn't owned a ridgeback.
That's beside the point. Is she, or are you, qualified or in a position to say what dogs are suitable to be therapy dogs? You do know they have to go through a huge amount of training and assessment before they can be deemed suitable?
And one dog does not a summer make. I have a GSD who I'm sure would be a great therapy dog too... That does not mean that as a breed, they should all be deemed suitable.
Ypu have asserted above that the IGDA and Irish Therapy Dogs won't accept RBs, yet the only bit of evidence you've supplied is a cage facebook post, reported 2nd hand, which says that the Dogs for the Disabled have said they won't use them.
I'd suggest you either back up what you've said about IGDA and Irish Therapy Dogs, and stop using 2nd hand comments from someone with an agenda on facebook to fuel your outrage. Or else stop involving organisations whose opinion on using RBs has not been made public, preferably officially by the organisation themselves.
And also, answer my question about whether you're going to start a campaign of outrage against me, the guards, Customs, search and rescue etc, because it's the same argument.

DBB · 02-02-2014 12:21pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Customs or the Garda have not come out with inflammatory responses or comments as to why they use only certain breeds.

To be clear where do you stand on the RBL argument?

I haven't seen any inflammatory responses, anywhere?
And you've said the IGDA and Therapy Dogs won't use them, are you saying they've made inflammatory remarks?
Is a 2nd hand comment from Dogs for the Disabled, posted by a person with an agenda, which says "we won't ever" inflammatory? Really?

To answer your rather combative question on RBL, I work with RBs every day. I don't agree with the current legislation, but at the same time, I do not like the strident, screechy, emotive style of argument being used by the anti-BSL side. I haven't actually seen them manage to put a coherent, sensible argument together, yet at least.

Bullseye1 · 02-02-2014 12:23pm

DBB I see you say you train sniffer dogs and should i start a campaign against your organisation. Strange thing to say. Have you stated that RBLs are dangerous?

Where have I started a campaign against any of the organisations being discussed? I stated that "I" won't be supporting them because of their response to abolish RBLs. How is that a campaign? Have I asked you or anyone else to stop supporting them?

Hyperbole!

DBB · 02-02-2014 12:28pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

DBB I see you say you train sniffer dogs and should i start a campaign against your organisation. Strange thing to say. Have you stated that RBLs are dangerous?

Where have I started a campaign against any of the organisations being discussed? I stated that "I" won't be supporting them because of their response to abolish RBLs. How is that a campaign? Have I asked you or anyone else to stop supporting them?

Hyperbole!

You have utterly missed the point bullseye.
You're giving out about RBs not being used as therapy dogs.
I'm simply pointing out that perhaps, just perhaps, many of the breeds on the list are simply not suitable to he used as therapy dogs? Just like many, many dogs not on the list are not suitable.
Just like many dogs on the list, and off the list, are not suitable for other jobs either.
But to specifically pick out the fact that an organisation won't use RBs, and use that as a reason for outrage (which you are doing) in not on.
Now. About you blaming IGDA and Irish Therapy Dogs for making outrageous comments? Evidence please?

Bullseye1 · 02-02-2014 12:54pm

Why have you placed these posts in this thread when it has nothing to do with the organisation involved? It's different organisations.

Regarding the Guide dogs that was my mistake it was the organisation for Disabled users in screen grab above. (Typo). Therapy dogs was from behaviourist I mentioned above.

Bullseye1 · 02-02-2014 12:57pm

DBB wrote: »

You have utterly missed the point bullseye.
You're giving out about RBs not being used as therapy dogs.
I'm simply pointing out that perhaps, just perhaps, many of the breeds on the list are simply not suitable to he used as therapy dogs? Just like many, many dogs not on the list are not suitable.
Just like many dogs on the list, and off the list, are not suitable for other jobs either.
But to specifically pick out the fact that an organisation won't use RBs, and use that as a reason for outrage (which you are doing) in not on.
Now. About you blaming IGDA and Irish Therapy Dogs for making outrageous comments? Evidence please?

I haven't suggested all dogs are suitable and haven't claimed otherwise. A Dog should be chosen on a case by case basis and not excluded because they appear on a RBL.

DBB · 02-02-2014 1:09pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I haven't suggested all dogs are suitable and haven't claimed otherwise. A Dog should be chosen on a case by case basis and not excluded because they appear on a RBL.

But the organisations you have wrongfully accused have a careful breeding program. Are you suggesting they breed lots of different breeds and crossbreeds in the hope that a few of them make it?
Are you going to withdraw your comments re IGDA and Irish Therapy Dogs, or what?

VonVix · 02-02-2014 1:16pm

Excuse me but... what are RB/RBL's?

I tried googling it and I don't think it's the same as royal british legion lol...

DBB · 02-02-2014 1:17pm

VonVix wrote: »

Excuse me but... what are RB/RBL's? I tried googling it and I don't think it's the same as royal british legion lol...

Oops, sorry!
RB is restricted breed, RBL is restricted breed list or legislation.

VonVix · 02-02-2014 1:18pm

DBB wrote: »

Oops, sorry!
RB is restricted breed, RBL is restricted breed list or legislation.

Thanks! I should have figured it out.

I can in part understand why they would not use a restricted dog breed, but that's only because they mightn't consider their temperament suitable or they are afraid to use a "scary" dog to help a disabled person. However, I think how they put themselves across about the situation wasn't the best way to go about it if that is indeed their thinking.

Tramps Like Us · 02-02-2014 1:22pm

Surely the issue here is that kids and the disabled get dogs which greatly improve their lives. I couldn't give a damn if they exclusively use one breed - the person on about boycotting them has warped priorities

Bullseye1 · 02-02-2014 1:23pm

DBB wrote: »

But the organisations you have wrongfully accused have a careful breeding program. Are you suggesting they breed lots of different breeds and crossbreeds in the hope that a few of them make it?
Are you going to withdraw your comments re IGDA and Irish Therapy Dogs, or what?

Read my previous posts.

Tramps Like Us · 02-02-2014 1:24pm

I also find an organisation giving a straightforward, honest answer rather than the usual PR spin rubbish quite refreshing

DBB · 02-02-2014 1:26pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Read my previous posts.

What posts? Have you retracted your comments about the IGDA and Irish Therapy Dogs? I can't see it?

Edited to add: My apologies, there is a withdrawal there Bullseye, I didn't see it when I was posting earlier.

Bullseye1 · 02-02-2014 1:40pm

DBB wrote: »

What posts? Have you retracted your comments about the IGDA and Irish Therapy Dogs? I can't see it?

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Why have you placed these posts in this thread when it has nothing to do with the organisation involved? It's different organisations.

Regarding the Guide dogs that was my mistake it was the organisation for Disabled users in screen grab above. (Typo). Therapy dogs was from behaviourist I mentioned above.

Apologies to the Guide dogs for the misrepresentation.

Bullseye1 · 02-02-2014 1:47pm

DBB wrote: »

What response is that bullseye?
You've started a thread where the Dogs for the Disabled have said they won't use RBs, but have the Guide Dogs and Irish Therapy Dogs said the same?
I wouldn't expect such a response from the IGDA because they use GSD crosses for the dogs trained to live with autistic children.
Indeed, many guide dog associations across the world have used purebred GSDs in the past, but they've abandoned them since due to temperament and health issues, in favour of breeds and crossbreeds that have worked out very well for them. So, I'd imagine the Dogs for the Disabled feel very much the same way about it.
Besides, just as their are non-RB breeds that are just not ideal candidates due to not generally having the right combination trainability, steadiness, soft-mouthedness and gentleness all in the one package, so it is with some amongst the RBs too.
So I find this nitpicking and looking for a cause to be outraged about just a bit much to take.
Why not campaign against the guards for not using Staffies or Bulldogs or Rottweilers for their police work, or Customs for not using Ridgebacks, Tosas or Dobermann, or search and rescue organisations for not using Akitas or Bull Mastiffs?
I train sniffer dogs. None of the above are suitable candidates for what the dogs I train are used for. Would you like to start a campaign against me now too?
Horses for courses bullseye. If it's a campaign you want, look for more convincing arguments to back yourself up.

To go back to your original post which was posted elsewhere and then cut and pasted here for some context.

I have mistakenly in another thread listed the Guide Dogs instead of the Disabled Dogs. See my post above. Where have I accused Therapy Dogs of making inflammatory remarks. I simply quoted my friend. If you like I can talk with her and see if she would be happy for me to pass her number onto you and you can discuss further directly with her.

You then go off on a rant about having campaigns against different organisations which employ dogs, which I should get involved in. You have managed to drag the OP off track and accused me of some kind of witch hunt. Where have I, and I must insist you provide quote, have I asked or suggested a boycott or campaign against these organisations.

kylith · 02-02-2014 2:02pm

Are Rotts and Dobies even suitable for use as assistance dogs? It's about more than just the dog, it's about intelligence, stability, temperament. Terriers are not used as assistance dogs as their temperament isn't suitable, you can't have an assistance dog with a high prey drive, and I'd imagine it's the same with some of the RB dogs, that their temperament, size, speed, isn't suitable. You don't see collies being used as assistance dogs, and they're plenty smart.

iguana · 02-02-2014 2:11pm

I'm finding this confusing as I know there are RB guide dogs in Ireland like Izac, who is a GSD trained as a guide dog and mobility assistant.

http://www.guidedogs.ie/iopen24/igdb-celebrates-international-persons-with-disabilities-n-221.html

ETA, I hadn't read the full thread and see it's not Irish Guide Dogs being posted about.

Knine · 02-02-2014 2:17pm

kylith wrote: »

Are Rotts and Dobies even suitable for use as assistance dogs? It's about more than just the dog, it's about intelligence, stability, temperament. Terriers are not used as assistance dogs as their temperament isn't suitable, you can't have an assistance dog with a high prey drive, and I'd imagine it's the same with some of the RB dogs, that their temperament, size, speed, isn't suitable. You don't see collies being used as assistance dogs, and they're plenty smart.

I have a child with a severe life threatening disability. I have 4 dogs. My terriers are fantastic with her. Really super. The same way that many of my friends RB's are. However not in a million years would they make good assistant dogs.

I also have a Spinone & anyone that thinks the Golden & Labrador Retrievers are the best dogs for children have never seen the affinity a Spinone has with kids. I have seen several Spinoni as assistant dogs. I met 2 at Crufts last year.

These organisations put huge amounts of time & effort into training their dogs. They simply can't afford to train dogs who probably won't make the grade. Some breeds or crosses are simply more suitable then others.

I have found that my dogs are super protective of my very vunerable child. Can you imagine using a breed with strong protective instincts?

mosi · 02-02-2014 2:40pm

I think that the tone of the response from Irish Dogs for the Disabled was unfortunate, and I can see how that can get people's backs up. A more measured response outlining why they use the breeds that they do would have been more appropriate. Then again, we don't know how the question regarding RBs was put to them in the first place.
I don't think the non-use of RBs is an issue to do with prejudices or BSL. There is a specific exemption in the legislation for guide dogs - most likely to cater for German Shepherds, but I imagine dogs for the disabled would be covered. Only a tiny handful of breeds are used for these purposes so it's not really a BSL issue.
As for visiting therapy dogs, the organisations involved have it as a requirement that RBs cannot be used. I would imagine that this is a direct result of the legislation, as the places they visit would be regarded as public places. Additionally, I'd say the organisations involved would not be able to get insurance for RBs.

Rommie · 02-02-2014 3:02pm

I think it's a bit unfair to say all RBs wouldn't be suitable for this kind of work, there are a lot of 'rb' dogs in the states being used as therapy dogs and assistance dogs. There are actually quite a few akitas that work as therapy dogs and search and rescue dogs despite a lot of people saying they would never be any good at either of these

Whispered · 02-02-2014 3:03pm

There could be insurance issues either. From a pet owner point of view, it can be difficult to get insurance on RB's, or at least more difficult than it is for many other breeds. Maybe organisations don't have the time or funding to jump through hoops to satisfy their insurance requirements.

Still a poorly worded response in my view, but then we're only seeing what could be the tail end of a conversation?

DBB wrote: »

I don't agree with the current legislation, but at the same time, I do not like the strident, screechy, emotive style of argument being used by the anti-BSL side. I haven't actually seen them manage to put a coherent, sensible argument together, yet at least.

*some* of the anti BSL side

I have to say I'm slightly disappointed by this post from the FB page. To me it seemed a decent well thought out campaign that stayed away from finger pointing and just wanted to concentrate on BSL and its flaws. If it becomes a finger pointing exercise it looses some of its credibility in my opinion.

Out of interest DBB, when you say you haven't seen "them" put together an argument, who do you mean, individuals or anti-bsl groups?

mitosis · 02-02-2014 3:17pm

Whispered wrote: »

I have to say I'm slightly disappointed by this post from the FB page. To me it seemed a decent well thought out campaign that stayed away from finger pointing and just wanted to concentrate on BSL and its flaws. If it becomes a finger pointing exercise it looses some of its credibility in my opinion.

Out of interest DBB, when you say you haven't seen "them" put together an argument, who do you mean, individuals or anti-bsl groups?

In fairness it was a leading question, intended to provoke a response that could be used against them. It ought to have been ignored.

tk123 · 02-02-2014 3:25pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Very disappointing and biased response from this body to a question if they would consider employing dogs listed on the RBL.

You know what? It's actually very disappointing to me that somebody would post this kind of crap and drag a charity providing assistance dogs to disabled children into their debate. They don't receive state funding and need every cent they can get.
Also pasting in the quote like that its just tacky and could be complete nonsense for all we know.

As a side note I always assumed this dog's bat ears and build suggested it was a GSD cross?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152123654677094&set=pb.85223717093.-2207520000.1391350428.&type=3&theater

DBB · 02-02-2014 3:27pm

Bullseye1 wrote: »

To go back to your original post which was posted elsewhere and then cut and pasted here for some context.

What? I posted in response to your off-topic posting in another thread about what a "disgrace" the IGDA and Irish Therapy Dogs are. A discussion ensued which did not belong in that thread, and so all posts that related to charities using RBs were moved over to this current thread, which you started by posting a facebook comment.
Let me make it abundantly clear that there was no cutting and pasting for any "context". It is absolutely standard to split off-topic posts away from a thread.

I have mistakenly in another thread listed the Guide Dogs instead of the Disabled Dogs. See my post above. Where have I accused Therapy Dogs of making inflammatory remarks. I simply quoted my friend.

That's not quite true though. The first post in this thread, which was originally over in the other thread, quite clearly states:

The response from Irish Dogs for the disabled (mistakingly mentioned Guide Dogs Ireland by mistake) and Irish Therapy Dogs has been a disgrace. They certainly will never get my charity again

Whilst you have apologised about your IGDA comment, you are using one incident of one dog (which, if your friend wanted to bring her dog into hospitals to meet people, would have had to wear a muzzle, and be on-lead at all times... I'm guessing that's why Irish Therapy Dogs do not invite RBs to volunteer for them), to make it sound as if Irish Therapy Dogs have made some public statement? Not fair.

You then go off on a rant about having campaigns against different organisations which employ dogs, which I should get involved in. You have managed to drag the OP off track and accused me of some kind of witch hunt.

I'm sorry that you see what I posted as ranting. You appear to me to be saying that an organisation is wrong to turn down RBs, just because they are RBs, yes? My "ranting" was merely to clarify to you that if you think this is really the case, then not only should various charities be accused of discriminating against RBs, so should the Guards, Customs etc. To me at least, you're not taking into any account that most RB breeds are patently unsuitable for the sort of work that all of these organisations require them for, as are many non-RB breeds. As I read it, you seem to think that
these organisations should employ RBs, just for the sake of employing an RB because it's a "disgrace" if they don't!
Re dragging the thread off-topic, I will remind you that you initiated the off-topic posting, and within a very short space of time, and some hours ago, I moved all of these comments from that thread to a thread of their own.

Where have I, and I must insist you provide quote, have I asked or suggested a boycott or campaign against these organisations.

Bullseye, you started the discussion about what a "disgrace" various charitable organisations are for not considering the use of RBs (for jobs they're not suitable for). You posted a Facebook post, from a campaign organisation, which disses a charity using 2nd-hand information. You called this and another charity a "disgrace".
By posting that facebook post here, and commenting in agreement with it, you can only be seen to be supporting that campaign.
You also have started threads, and contributed liberally to anti-BSL threads on this forum. So, please don't try to make out that you don't campaign in any way for the removal of BSL.

I didn't suggest that you start a boycott, anywhere: you're the one who said you wouldn't be donating to IGDA and Irish Therapy Dogs again. I didn't suggest that you start a campaign against other organisations either. I asked you if you planned to, given your outrage and assistance at campaigning against the Dogs for the Disabled on this very forum, in this very thread. If you're going to be fair about it, don't just give out about a couple of charities that can't use RBs, give out about every organisation that discriminates against them, because there are plenty of them out there!

I think it would be very interesting to know, going back to that facebook post you quoted, if the answer "No we don't use any of these breeds and we won't be ever" (assuming that this is a faithful recording of what they actually said), was made in reply to the question "Hi Dogs for the Disabled! Do you use RBs? If not, do you ever plan to?" A bit of context would be nice, rather than it coming across as trying to make a comment fit into an agenda.

DBB · 02-02-2014 3:33pm

Rommie wrote: »

I think it's a bit unfair to say all RBs wouldn't be suitable for this kind of work, there are a lot of 'rb' dogs in the states being used as therapy dogs and assistance dogs. There are actually quite a few akitas that work as therapy dogs and search and rescue dogs despite a lot of people saying they would never be any good at either of these

The problem here is that if the dogs are to be used as therapy dogs going into hospitals, hospices etc, they must be geared up with their muzzles on. Until or unless the legislation changes (and dogs used for guidance are exempt.... and specifically guide dogs, no other types of therapy dogs are included in the legislation), I cannot see any organisation involved in dogs used for visiting people, using RBs.

Irish Dogs for the disabled response to using RBL dogs.

Comments