Standard

Oct 19, 2011

Another Wounded Warrior Joins The Canine Companions Family

I’m gonna break my self-imposed silence here to mention some great news that you might not hear elsewhere (at least not yet).

Big congrats to my friend Major David Rozelle on his very recent pairing with Canine Companions for Independence Service Dog Domi.

Dave is currently the Army ROTC commander at the University of Colorado main campus in Boulder - saying he’s a very well known guy in the wounded warrior / competitive athlete world is an understatement. (Not to mention just being an all-around stand-up guy.)

Major David Rozelle, Army ROTC Commander, University of Colorado-Boulder

“New CU Army ROTC commander served three tours in Iraq“

Among other things, Dave was the first amputee to return to Iraq as a commander, an experience that was the subject of his 2005 book, Back In Action:

He’s also a bigtime Challenged Athletes Foundation – Operation Rebound competitor to include being a Kona Ironman.

Challenged Athletes Foundation Operation Rebound athlete and now Canine Companions for Independence graduate Major David Rozelle finishing the Ironman.
Lots more I could write here, but I think the first line in his CAF bio pretty much sums it up: “Major David Rozelle, a below-knee amputee, is an icon, resource, and inspirational figure for American soldiers injured in recent conflicts abroad.”

And yet another person I’m proud to call a friend – couldn’t have a better addition to the family.

Congrats again, Dave and Domi! (And, as an aside for you NHL fans, she was named after Tie Domi, but that’s a story for another time.)

Jul 26, 2011

Please Leave Me Something To Remember You By

If you’re not an old blues guy like me, you may not recognize that the subject line refers to a great old Albert Collins song.

I’m at one of those points again where I’m really taking a hard re-look at the focus and direction of this site and where things will go in the future.

The discussion goes on all the time in the blogging world about how when you’re shutting a blog down, or letting it go dormant, or just taking a break, or going in a different direction, should you tell everybody that or just say nothing about it at all?

I’ve been wrestling for some time with what I’m gonna do, and honestly still don’t know for sure. I don’t wanna spend a lotta time talking about things I really don’t wanna talk about, but I also don’t wanna just disappear without saying anything, either. So, if you come here and don’t see any activity for a long time and this post is still at the top, or the overall direction here has changed, you’ll have a good idea why.

Not that I’ve had much to say lately, anyway, and that’s because there hasn’t been a lot good to say. Oh, I’ve had some great things go on personally, most of which are directly related to service dogs, but I’m talking about the state of things in the service dog world in general.

(That, by the way, is exactly how it is lots of times, too. There’s always a lot of truly good stories that happen, but you may never read about those anywhere publicly, including here, and appropriately so, because they are very personal and very private. So what you often get instead is the schlocky, not-so-hot story masquerading as something wonderful.)

Most of that’s because, as I look around that world right now, I don’t see a lot to like, and, contrary to the prevailing opinion, I think things are headed firmly in the wrong direction and getting worse, not better. That’s primarily due to a combination of three things:

  • The loosening (contrary to how it’s been portrayed as tightening things up) of the ADA when it comes to service dogs. Sure, it’s nice that the snakes and parrots are gone, but they aren’t the real problem – it’s dogs, and in that area, the range of what’s acceptable and potentially acceptable has been significantly opened up.
  • The proliferation of new places training service dogs, particularly for veterans, and primarily concentrating on one area – post-traumatic stress.
  • The public and media’s unwillingness or inability to look beyond the superficial and ask the hard questions instead of supporting something just because it feels good.

That last one is the one that’s hurting things more than anything else, and that’s because it drives all the other stuff. Not a day goes by where I don’t see a story that really bugs me, and it’s not the obviously bad ones, it’s the “good” ones. The ones where the angle is “Wow, how great is this!”, but I look at them and think “Are you kidding me?” Where stuff is staring you right in the face if you’ll only look, and you know what to look for.

Always reminds me of the old Billy Crystal as Fernando Lamas line “It is better to look good than to feel good.”, only with a little different twist: “It is better to feel good than to actually be good.”

The really sad part is much of it is doing irreparable damage to the service dog concept. And, even worse, it’s bad enough when the public or the media who don’t know any better do it, but when those who do know better (and will be happy to tell you that they do) – service dog handlers and service dog organizations (in some cases, ADI-accredited ones) – do it… disappointing is putting it mildly.

You don’t have to be a genius to see the problems coming – in fact, they’ve already started and we’re well down that road.

I’ve gone back and forth about whether to give you specific examples of what I’m talking about, but ultimately decided not to because, if I did, it would go against the very point I’m trying to make here. In spite of what I said a long time ago about “waving the BS flag”, I really don’t like being “that guy”. If all I’m gonna do is spend my time moaning about stuff here with no achievable objective in sight (other than just moaning), why bother? Even if you were making a dent in things, which I don’t believe I am, you’re still spending a lotta your time around people and subjects you don’t wanna be around. Not to mention dealing with being yelled at, called the names I’ve been called, told how I’m not this or not that, and even threatened – all things that have happened, although, thankfully, very rarely. And who wants to do that?

Trust me, though, the examples are out there, and some are very serious. But I’m just one little guy, and I don’t have the reach or following, nor is it my job to ask the questions that need to be asked. The media, the celebrity talk shows – and when it comes to veterans – DoD, VA, and Congress need to step up, do their jobs, and start asking some very pointed and tough questions, instead of posturing for and playing to the public, trying to look good and create the appearance they “support the troops” without necessarily actually doing it.

It’s not only their job, it’s their responsibility to ask those questions, but they haven’t been doing it up to now, and there’s no reason for me to believe they’re gonna start anytime soon.

Somebody else is gonna have to take that one on, though, because I’ve been saying the same thing for several years, and have had enough for now. There’s a fine line between persistence and obsession, and, ultimately, you have to spend time where you can have an impact, and, ideally, have a good time while you’re doing it. Neither one of those things is true for me where this stuff’s concerned.

Ultimately, though, it’s just like always – it’s everyone’s personal responsibility to do the hard looking. and ask the tough questions. There’s a lotta crap out there, and most of the time, it doesn’t have a big sign on it that says “Crap” – you gotta figure that out on your own.  And the people promoting that…”stuff” …aren’t gonna make it easy for you, either.

I’m not going anywhere, though. I’ll still be around, and very much involved and active with service dogs within the focused area that I want to be, just like I have been mostly behind the scenes for years. You just won’t necessarily see that reflected here.

All those wonderful stories you usually never hear about that I mentioned earlier are exactly why.

Jun 16, 2011

VA Releases Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking For Service Dogs

VA released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for service dogs (RIN 2900-AN51–Service Dogs) today for public comments which must be received by August 15.

What’s there is not so much anything new as it is the actual implementation of things VA has already said they would do and is in some cases already doing, so if you’re looking for any big earth-shattering changes, you’ll be disappointed. The one notable new thing is the travel payment portion, which has been discussed, but this is the first it’s been officially added.

I don’t think any of it will really surprise anyone who’s been involved with the discussions over the past few years, but I realize most haven’t. If you’re not familiar with the long history, I’ve included related links at the end of this post which may help.

The NPRM is 26 pages, and you need to read the whole thing, but lemme give you the highlights. And, to save the suspense, I’ll tell you up front that what’s not there is just as important, if not more so, than what is.

What’s there:

  • benefits authorized only if the veteran is diagnosed as having a visual, hearing, or substantial mobility impairment
  • defines substantial mobility impairment as a spinal cord injury or dysfunction or other chronic impairment that substantially limits mobility
  • interprets chronic impairment that substantially limits mobility to include, but not be limited to, disabilities such as a traumatic brain injury or a seizure disorder
  • requires clinical determination by a VA clinician that it is optimal for the veteran to manage such impairment and live independently through the assistance of a trained service dog
  • will not authorize benefits if other means (such as technological devices or rehabilitative therapy) will provide the same level of independence
  • recognizes only service dogs obtained through an Assistance Dogs International (ADI) or International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF) accredited organization, with the following exception
  • for dogs acquired before the effective date of this rule, requires the veteran to provide a certificate showing that the veteran and dog have completed a training course offered by a guide or service dog organization in existence before the effective date of the regulation; veteran has up to 1 year after the effective date of the rule to do so
  • provides an insurance policy to every eligible veteran as the mechanism for providing payment for veterinary care
  • requires that VA, and not the veteran, will be billed for any premiums, copayments, or deductibles associated with the policy
  • provides all hardware clinically determined to be needed by the dog to perform its task, including standard equipment such as harnesses
  • authorizes payment of travel expenses associated with obtaining a service dog to veterans who have been prescribed a service dog by a VA clinician
  • the service dog must maintain its ability to function as a service dog, determination to be made by either a veterinarian if the issue involves the dog’s health or by a VA clinician if the issue is whether the veteran still meets the clinical prerequisite for eligibility

What’s not there – two big funding items many are clamoring for:

  • no money to pay organizations who provide service dogs to eligible veterans; this is not mentioned in the NPRM
  • no money for dogs for mental health issues, including PTSD; this is specifically addressed in the NPRM, as follows:

“In 2009, Congress authorized VA to provide service dogs for the aid of persons with mental illnesses by amending section 1714. Although VA welcomes the possibility that trained dogs may provide valuable services to veterans diagnosed with certain mental illness, at this time we do not have any scientific data to determine, from a purely clinical standpoint, whether or when service dogs are most appropriately provided to veterans with mental illness, including post-traumatic stress disorder. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Pub. L. 111-84 (2009), Congress mandated a 3-year study on the effectiveness of dogs for mental health purposes. The results of this study will help us learn more about the services that trained dogs can provide for veterans diagnosed with mental health conditions. Upon the completion of the study and analysis of its results, VA may revise its regulations in order to provide this service to our veterans.”

There are gonna be a lotta people upset about that second one, although, again – this merely restates VA’s position, and I know it’s not a surprise to many of those who support funding it because I’ve seen them complaining about it many times before. Regardless of your feelings about it, though, you still need to know what the VA position is, and that’s why I’ve pointed it out here.

The bottom line for me here is the same as always. Unlike so many, I don’t see the VA as the solution to the problem of getting more service dogs, and only the best ones, paired with more veterans. Simply put, it’s an awful lot of hassle for very little reward.

Sure, I’m happy to see VA paying anything that might make the difference between a veteran who needs a service dog applying for one and not applying because he thinks he can’t afford the associated care costs, even if the organization is providing the dog for free. I’ve always argued for that – and for that exact reason – so it was great news when last year VA finally started paying the same benefits to those with service dogs as they had with guide dogs for years, and also that they are now willing to pay travel expenses for a veteran to get a service dog as well.

But I have yet to see any organization say specifically how many more dogs they’d be able to provide veterans even if the VA approved things that have been discussed, particularly actually paying a portion of the cost of the dog directly to the organization. As always, throwing money at something isn’t just gonna make it happen. Organizations also have to weigh the amount of time and effort that’s being spent trying to get those benefits approved, as well as whatever strings are attached to them if they ever are.

Not to mention the inevitable slow reaction time when dealing with government that is built into their processes by design. It’s bad enough when they aren’t even focused on an issue to begin with, but even when you get well-meaning people with the best intentions focused on an issue it still takes forever to get something done.  Just like the issue here of paying benefits – it took 7 years to get VA’s attention, another year after that just to get them to agree to a relatively small thing, and it’s gonna take at least another year after that to get it written into their rules.

Plus VA will always be constrained here. They’re not allowed to recommend specific organizations even if they were capable of evaluating which ones are the best, which they aren’t, something those of us involved in the service dog world have known for years and VA freely admits in this NPRM. The best they can do is what they did here – defer to saying a place has to be ADI or IGDF accredited. And you can bet there will still be those who don’t even like that and will say so during the comment period.

I’m not suggesting we write it off altogether, but I just don’t see everyone putting their hopes in government as the key to making this happen, and I think that all our efforts are much better spent on things like private fundraising as well as outreach to veterans.

In any event, comments are now open and instructions on making them are at the NPRM link above if you are so inclined.

Related links:

“New VA Guide Dog And Service Dog Directive; Corresponding Bills In Congress”

“VHA’s Guide And Service Dog Program Could Not Ensure That All Qualified Veterans Received The Opportunity To Benefit From Service Dogs”

“Veterans With Service Dogs Are Now Eligible For VA Benefits, But May Need To Reapply”

“Finally, The Real Story About The VA And Service Dogs For Veterans”

“Why The VA Has Provided No Money For Service Dogs – In Their Own Words”

Jun 5, 2011

Veterans Only?

Can you tell who the veteran with the service dog is in this Canine Companions for Independence class graduation picture? I can, but that’s only because I know who it is, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

You hear a lot nowadays from service dog places about how they only serve veterans and why that’s a great thing. Maybe you think it is, maybe you don’t, but, either way, you need to know upfront that if a service dog place being veterans-only is your number one criteria, you just ruled out CCI. That’s up to you, as always, but why rule out arguably the best place in the business before you even get started?

One of the biggest things I’ve always liked about CCI is that they serve a broad population, of which veterans are an important part – they’re not just a veterans-only organization. And they’ve done that since the very beginning – “Proudly Serving U.S. Veterans Since 1975″ is a phrase you may have seen on CCI-associated stuff.

Me saying that might surprise a lotta people, but a little history is in order here.

When I first got involved with CCI at least 6 or 7 years ago, it wasn’t because of veterans, it was because of what their assistance dogs do for the population that needs them as a whole. My involvement with the veterans aspect just evolved naturally because of both the increased number of veterans coming home from OEF/OIF with serious injuries and because I’m a retired military guy.

That’s still my approach. I only want to see the best service dog teams out there, and I want everybody – not just veterans – who has a service dog to have the best one they can have. And I still feel that if we say we’re serving that population (which is very tough to define or put a number on since there’s really no hard and fast criteria for getting a service dog, plus there’s no way you can be “all things to all people”), by default you have to make sure you’re serving veterans since they’re a key part of it.

The only “downside” I know of to that approach is that CCI doesn’t get to sell itself as a veterans-only organization, but I don’t see that as a big negative. The reason is simple: while being a veterans-only place is definitely beneficial for the organization, I haven’t seen anything that convinces me it’s more beneficial for veterans. Certainly at least not to the level where you would use it as your primary criteria for choosing one organization over another – there’s a whole lotta other things on the list that come before that.

But, look, even if you think I’m full of it here (wouldn’t be the first time somebody’s thought that), the fact remains that if a place not being veterans-only is the deal breaker for you, CCI is out (and so are many other organizations).

Something I said two years ago is still true, and I’m gonna refine that even further: CCI could graduate more veterans than it currently does, but that would mean more veterans would have to apply.

Let’s be very clear – that doesn’t mean veterans get any special preference, and, just like with non-veterans, CCI’s not for everybody. For example, there are types of dogs they don’t train, and they’re very straight-up about that; if you’re looking for one of those, it’s not the place for you.

But the vast majority of people, including veterans, who I’ve talked to about getting a service dog never got that far. They not only didn’t apply or even contact CCI, they didn’t even know it existed.

I’d love to see CCI ramp up its veterans outreach even more, but that doesn’t change the fact that if you’re interested in a service dog, you still have to take the initiative, contact them, and then apply, if appropriate. They don’t just hand out assistance dogs, nor do they promise a dog to a veteran (or anyone else) if they’ll just apply. You have to apply first, and then see how things go. You may not make the list, but there’s only one way to find out.

And the reality is, in spite of everything you hear about waiting lists, the VA, federal funding, you name it (not to mention a few of the bogus rumors about CCI I’ve heard floating around lately), there’s still one big reason there aren’t more veterans with CCI dogs: not enough are applying. I can’t be any clearer than that.

May 24, 2011

If You Want To Win Medals At The Warrior Games, Get A Canine Companions For Independence Dog

Warrior Games swimming medals ceremony. Photo by Pat Cabel from SemperFiSports.

OK, not really (nice idea, though).

Warrior Games Closing Ceremonies Saturday night were overwhelming. It was great to see so many friends, especially wearing medals, and I wanna thank my good friend Damian Orslene (one of those wearing a medal) for inviting us and allowing us to celebrate with him.

The final Canine Companions for Independence graduate medal count was: 1 Gold, 2 Silver, 4 Bronze. Lance Weir with 1 Gold, 1 Silver, and Jason Morgan with 1 Silver, 4 Bronze.

Now, the truth is, I can’t guarantee any medals if you get a CCI dog, and neither would they. I can tell you, though, that CCI was very well represented throughout the Games by these two guys and Susan Katz from US Paralympics, and I know of a number of conversations that took place and team members who are very seriously considering applying for a dog.

Jokes aside, their presence and those conversations helped dispel a few of the biggest misconceptions that are still around and will probably never go away. Not necessarily in this order or a complete list, and there is some overlap between them, but here’s a few of the main ones:

  • “Hey, I’m a very active person, compete in (fill in the athletic event), and it doesn’t seem right for me to have a dog.” I’m willing to bet that you could still use help with things like, for example, picking up stuff in your room or at home. Two different deals.
  • “I don’t wanna take a dog from somebody else who might need it more.” Maybe the biggest one I hear, especially from military people (no surprise there). At CCI, it simply can’t happen – the thoroughness of the process ensures that. In fact, longer than I wanna explain here, but the reality is exactly the opposite – you might match with a dog that would not match otherwise and be released.
  • “I don’t think my issues are serious enough for a dog.” Variation of the above and often said at the same time. That’s not for me to decide, but the short version is this: if you think a dog might help, ask the question. Because CCI’s not gonna just give you a dog, and I don’t believe any other reputable ADI-accredited organization will, either. You have to apply, and then let the experts work things.
  • “I don’t wanna be dependent on a dog.” Doesn’t work that way – at most, I’d call it mutual dependence. It is very much a team effort – the whole Battle Buddy, Wingman, Shipmate, etc. thing is not just some line here, it’s dead serious. A big piece of CCI’s evaluation of someone as a potential candidate for a dog is how well that person can take care of the dog.

Again, there are more, but those are the big ones. And to answer the ‘Where do I look for a service dog?” question again, because it seems like I can’t say this too often: “Start with CCI, then look at the rest of the organizations on the ADI-accredited list.”

Bottom line: I won’t try to talk you into a dog, but don’t talk yourself outta one, either. And I can tell you that these guys went through that same drill, too.

Plus, it oughtta be good for at least a bronze or two next year.