I started to go in a different direction with this, or just let it go altogether, but then it finally hit me this morning how I could write something useful.
Frankly, it’s taken me a coupla days to do what a lotta others who’ve commented on this story should’ve done – take a lotta deep breaths and calm down. Oh, they’re right to be upset – they’re just upset with the wrong people.

“Man’s companion dog taken away in Utah; organization said dog in danger”
I hear a lotta talk, some from the guy himself, but mostly from others, about how this guy got screwed.
No. He didn’t get screwed. But lemme tell you who did:
• the breeder caretakers for his dog’s sire and dam, especially those for the dam, who whelped that litter of puppies, likely in their own home, and raised them for the first 8 weeks of their lives, then willingly gave them up
• the puppy raisers who gave their lives and money, day and night, to raise and train that puppy for a year and a half, two of thousands who do that and then willingly give those puppies up
• the trainers, who trained and cared for his dog every day for at least 6 months, then matched him with the dog and trained them together for two weeks, all on-site at a regional training center
• the support staff, from the caretaker who made sure he had a clean, comfortable, and safe place to live and train, through development who raised the money to pay for it all so he wouldn’t have to, on up to the CEO who runs the whole show
• the volunteers, who travel and spend all day at events handing out literature at their own expense, talking to anyone who will listen about how wonderful CCI is and the life-changing experience it offers
• the donors, from little kids who give only the few dollars they have on up to someone like Dean Koontz who gives millions
• the dog, who has been through that whole process, was trained and willing to work, and only needed someone as devoted to him as he was to them and “walked the talk”
• the candidates on the waiting list in line for a dog, some for years, at least one of whom I’m sure would’ve taken their responsibilities more seriously
• the 1600+ other active graduates, who understand all of that and do their best to follow the rules and represent each other and the organization to the best of their abilities all day, every day
And the list could go on, to include everybody who’s ever had a positive thought about CCI or done anything to promote it to the public.
No, the reality is, about the only person who DIDN’T get screwed here was this guy. And even if you think he did, he did it to himself at the same time he was doing it to all these others.
Unlike him, they all stuck to their end of the deal, and did what they’d signed up – literally in most cases – to do. Even the people who had the unenviable job of going and getting this dog from him. Trust me, if you’ve ever talked to someone at CCI who’s had to take a dog back – and I have – without them even giving you any details (as they shouldn’t), if you just listen to the tone of their voice, you will know how thoroughly rotten an experience it is for everyone concerned with no real upside, and why no one ever wants to go through that.
That’s a big reason why CCI goes to the great lengths they do, including an extensive application process and taking two years to train each dog to ensure a lifelong match. It’s not accidental that something like this happens maybe once a year, and, again, remember – there are 1600+ active graduates, and CCI graduates 200+ assistance dog teams every year.
And let’s be clear – if CCI went to all the trouble and expense involved to take this dog back, there’s a lot more going on here than is being described. There’s no way in the world they went and took a dog back just because somebody didn’t have it on a leash a coupla times, and certainly not without having had many discussions with that person and giving them every opportunity to correct the problem.
Let’s also be clear that all CCI grads know the rules including that CCI retains ownership of the dog, sign a document agreeing to those rules, and understand the potential consequences if they don’t follow them.
No, the only person who didn’t stick to their part of the deal here was this guy who, unlike the 1600+ other grads out there – including some competitive athletes at the highest levels out here in the Rocky Mountain area who are just as active, if not more so, than this one is in very similar activities – apparently couldn’t follow a simple set of rules and ignored what I’d bet were repeated warnings over an extended period of time.
And, also unlike him, you won’t hear all of those people who got jobbed saying they were. Except for me, because I think it’s time somebody sets the record straight here.
You especially won’t hear that from CCI, mostly because of privacy issues and because it’s just not their style, and this is a good time to remind you I’m just an educated outsider and point you at the big disclaimer on every page here that says I don’t speak for CCI or any other organization, I only speak for ME. And that I have no inside information about nor was I involved in this particular situation.
It’s a good thing for him I’m not a real CCI person, either, because if this decision was mine, Elon would already be on his way to someone who would truly care for him and treat him the way he deserves. Someone like a good CCI graduate friend of mine who recently had to make the gut-wrenching decision to euthanize her service dog who’d served her faithfully and traveled the world with her for many years when it was unexpectedly and suddenly diagnosed with an inoperable painful cancer. Or a number of others I know dealing with similar situations where their service dogs have cancer and they may have to make that same awful decision soon.
Nah, you can be unhappy about this situation or not agree with how CCI does business or hate me for all I care, but don’t tell me about how this guy got screwed or how CCI is some big evil organization taking advantage of the people it serves. And make no mistake – this issue is so serious, if I thought that, I’d be gone from any involvement with them, and you can bet you’d hear about it here. I have the utmost confidence in CCI, and you can, too.
There are 64 people graduating from the five CCI regional centers next week (more assistance dog teams at one shot, BTW, than one organization whose president and founder publicly called CCI’s policies “fascist” just yesterday has produced EVER that I’m aware of), and let’s hope all of them are clear on their responsibilities and have a tremendous lifelong experience. Odds are, based on 99.999999% of all graduates, including all the ones I know, they are, and they will.
I’m guessing the vast majority of people who are so upset here and rushing to jump on the big bandwagon of support for this guy have no idea about any of this, and if they did, they might have a completely different opinion. So, please – just keep all of this in mind when you read these stories and comments, especially if you’re one of them. Because there’s one more group of people getting screwed here I didn’t mention – you.
And all because one guy – willfully and by his own admission – chose not to live up to the agreement he freely signed and wouldn’t follow the rules.
____________________
UPDATE 2/22/11: CCI has now posted an official statement regarding this matter. Speaks for itself, no comment needed from me, and comments are now closed on this post as well.
“Update Regarding Return of Dog”





I'm very active with Canine Companions for Independence as a volunteer, to include being a past member of the Veterans Task Force and puppy raiser. Retired US Air Force Chief Master Sergeant with my last assignments at the Air Force Academy as the Fourth Group Sergeant Major and Dean of Faculty Superintendent. Actively looking for a paid position performing these functions or other similar meaningful work.
Feb 04, 2011 @ 13:17:39
I SO agree with you! Thanks for stating the facts. My hat is off to CCI!!
Feb 04, 2011 @ 13:49:31
Thank you, you put in writing what I believe many of us graduates are thinking. We are told on many occasions throughout Team Training about the leash and why it is so important, and I agree there are underlying circumstances here that are not being discussed. I hope that everyone who reads this understands that the graduates know their responsibilities when they leave with their dog, the rules have been explained in more ways than one and on several occasions. CCI takes great care in explaining their position in the matching of dogs and humans and this only proves how diligent they are in protecting these dog who have been bred, raised, and trained then given free of charge to individuals to care and work with for the rest of the dogs working life.
Feb 04, 2011 @ 14:15:17
Very well stated, Al. There is always so much more to the picture than the outside observer knows.
I would love to hear this doctor apologize without including a ‘yeah but….’ and a justification of why he thought he was in the right, despite his signed agreement, by letting his dog off leash in all of these areas.
When a police officer pulls over someone going 45 mph. in a 35 mph. zone, comments from the driver such as, “I’m sorry, Officer, but there were no other cars on the road at the moment, so I knew it was safe to go 45 mph.” simply don’t go over well with the man in the uniform who invests his life to keep everyone safe and enforce the rules that the driver agreed upon when receiving a driver’s license.
We teach our children that an apology actually means not only that they are sorry, but they will not repeat their wrong choice.
An apology and a justification in the same breath (or post) so often rings rather hollow.
Feb 04, 2011 @ 15:27:32
Well said, Al.
Feb 04, 2011 @ 16:30:23
A well-written response to the emotional words out there. Thanks for posting this, Al. CCI has handled the chatter on this with professionalism and grace, which shows the character this organization has. I’m proud to be a CCI supporter.
Feb 04, 2011 @ 18:50:49
You nailed it, Al. I wish you’d send this to CCI HQ in SR to send to CNN & KSL in Ogden. Well done, as always.
Feb 04, 2011 @ 19:18:03
I couldn’t agree more! CCI has changed my life and the lives of millions of disabled people by providing these amazing dogs to assist us in our daily life. I admire the fact that they take pride in what they do and that they make sure that every dog they raise is in a safe and loving home. After all with all these dogs do for us that’s the least they deserve. I can’t understand why this guy wouldn’t want to take every precaution to ensure his dog is safe at all times…if that means being on leash than so be it. CCI makes their rules very clear throughout Team Training and with all they do for us disabled individuals that is a small request to ask in return. I support CCI’s decision and anyone who knows about CCI or has been involved with CCI would support them too.
Feb 05, 2011 @ 13:37:13
Look at this and then tell me you don’t feel ashamed for writing a piece such as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQje-ng7Sjw&feature=player_embedded#
Feb 05, 2011 @ 18:43:49
I understand rules are rules for reasons, and greatly appreciates the work that CCI has done for many that have suffered spinal-cord injuries (especially of no-cost to the graduates.) But to me there are two scenarios that I find difficult to keep the dog on leash. One is while Dr. Yonnet is seeing patients on the floor. I am not a paraplegic but still find situations where a certain physical exam may be difficult depending on the patient (especially in the case of non-ambulatory patient assessments.) I’m also having difficulty seeing a motor-vehicle running down Elon in a unit of the hospital. The second scenario is for Gael to keep the dog leashed while on his hand-bike. I think Dr. Yonnet in all honesty [felt] that Elon was safe in these unleashed scenarios, but I also see that he broke a fundamental rule set by CCI in the contract.
While we can debate all day about which argument has more philosophical weight (rules vs. practicality,) I’d love to see a conflict resolved more than anything else. I’m beginning to see the fallacies of logos and pathos solidifying on both sides. From the forums around teton-gravity/facebook, there is a lot of emotional rabbling. And from here I’m seeing rule-based arguments, but not a scent of effort for reconciliation or moving forward towards a solution. I sincerely hope this doesn’t turn into a tea-party vs. coffee-party type of debate, and hope it is resolved before the sensational media hijacks the story.
Cheers.
Feb 06, 2011 @ 13:11:41
Libo, thanks for the nicely put comment – excellent example of how to come here and politely and cogently state a differing opinion (that’s a hint for a few others).
The fundamental problem here all along has been the core premise that this is “all about the leash” (or lack of). Not accidental since it’s been sold and spun that way from the beginning.
So when people get upset and say, “What? How you could take a dog back just because a guy didn’t use a leash?” and are incredulous, I get that, because I was incredulous, too – albeit for totally different reasons. In my case, unlike most people, I have the luxury of knowing CCI pretty well from being around it for a number of years, so (1) I can’t imagine them doing this for only that reason, and (2) it’s such a basic, core, known requirement, I can’t believe any graduate would let themselves get in that much trouble by consistently not following it.
To both of us, it just doesn’t add up, but for entirely different reasons. People are in the right neighborhood, on the right street, but going to the wrong house.
The challenge for me is to get the people who have accepted that to humor me for just a minute, change that frame/premise, consider the possibility that this isn’t “all about the leash” or “just about the leash”, and take that outta the equation. If you can do that for just a moment, then things start to make more sense. In addition, it could also explain why if someone says, “Hey, OK, sorry, I’ll just put the leash on from now on, please let me have my dog back.” that that’s not gonna fly since that’s not really the problem.
One of the other unfortunate results of the leash premise is many people now appear to be out nitpicking every picture of a CCI dog. It is very conceivable that you see a dog without a leash, but it could be OK because it’s in a fenced or controlled area, for example. And, yeah, somebody coulda messed up, too – they are human after all, and CCI knows that. But that would tell you something, too. While they certainly monitor graduates and will let ‘em know if there’s a problem, they aren’t out looking for stuff to hammer people with, and for the most part, you gotta really work at it to find yourself in the kinda situation that’s going on here. Another reason this one really throws me.
Perfect example – I noticed CCI posted a picture yesterday on their Facebook page of five dogs lined up sitting in front of their bowls, no leashes. I thought nothing of it, but that’s because I’ve seen the picture before and knew it was part of a Eukanuba promotional shoot and was taken right in the middle of the CCI Northwest Regional Center / National HQ campus in Santa Rosa, a controlled area if there ever was one, so that’s fine (I’ve been there, too). Unfortunately, those looking to stir things up and who don’t know that (or care) started making wiseguy leash comments (I’ve actually been avoiding any of the discussions there because it’s just asking to get upset, I’m already upset enough, and what’s the point of jousting with each other over there?). Classic example, though, of “the rest of the story” and very pertinent with what’s going on.
I’m with you, though – I’d love to see this sorted out (in fact, I wish it’d never happened in the first place or I could wave the magic wand and it would all go away – nobody wins in these deals), but I don’t know how you do that.
As I’ve said, I suspect there’s a lot more here we haven’t heard about, and I hope that CCI is able to release whatever info they have and clarify things.
Feb 06, 2011 @ 13:28:38
Rex, I generally don’t post or answer comments like yours, but I’m going to make an exception in this case because it allows me to make an important point.
I will tell you I can easily watch that video and not feel ashamed. And here’s why.
As I alluded to above, I know of several CCI graduates who compete at the national and international athletic levels. Muffy Davis, US Paracycling medalist among a buncha other things; Sam Cila, Kona Ironman finisher last year; and Jason Morgan, inaugural Warrior Games medalist last year come to mind right off (the latter two are personal friends).
If you’ve spent any time on my site at all, you will know how much respect and admiration I have for them – they constantly amaze me. And I have never seen any of them training, much less competing, with their dogs off leash. In fact, the normal accepted and approved practice I’ve observed is to have someone else take care of your dog while you are doing that (and have done it myself for Jason a coupla times at the Warrior Games).
So the obvious question for me is, if other graduates, two of whom that I just mentioned who are also paraplegics in chairs, can train and compete and win at those levels, still stay within CCI’s rules that they agreed to, and have done all that for a number of years, what’s different in this case? Why can’t he?
Second, you have to ask yourself: Even if I was going to knowingly violate a rule, why would I film it and, to compound things, then post it on YouTube and brag about it? As a minimum, I just gave someone evidence of my violation and a pretty good indicator it wasn’t just a one-time thing, and, even worse, it could be taken as thumbing my nose at the rules and the organization, even if that wasn’t my intent. Either way, I don’t get it.
I can and do still have tremendous respect for his effort here, but the dog running up the hill off leash is another matter.
And, again, please see my other comment here about the whole leash issue, because it’s key. As I’ve said, I don’t believe this is “all about the leash” the way it’s been framed from day one, and if you can step back from that for just a moment and consider other possibilities, it changes the whole discussion.
Feb 06, 2011 @ 19:31:44
Hi Al,
Thank you for your reply. I hope you’ll allow me to have a response to your post put up here (since you have chosen to post a response…although at your discretion you have withheld my more lengthy statement). I’ll defer to you after this statement and let you have the final word if you so desire.
I have to say that I disagree with you about your interpretation of the video. In my mind the video itself is pretty tangible evidence that the leash laws apparently were not spelled out in the documentation presented in Dr. Yonnet’s contract.
I had the good fortune of knowing Dr. Yonnet before he was a doctor and know that less than a decade ago he was not as well versed in English. I am sure Gael understood the general meaning of the contract points, but doubt every possible interpretation would have been on his mind without guidance from CCI.
If you will look at the contract posted on Dr. Yonnet’s facebook page you will see what I mean. Point 9 on the list, which I assume you are familiar with, states “abide by all lease and license laws” could be interpreted to do just that, keep animals on leashes where those local laws apply. Quoting Dr. Yonnet, “Elon was only off-leash in approved setting under the local law. He was also registered as a service dog with the office of Salt Lake County Animal Services and was authorized to accompany me to snowbird where he held a season’s pass”.
Apparently, CCI still felt Elon’s health was being compromised, looking at the paperwork it is up to CCI to determine this with their own judgement. That may present a problem in a court of law since Dr. Yonnet signed off on it, but maybe one could look at CCI’s methods and criteria for arriving at their conclusions. By definition I personally don’t regard Elon’s health as having been compromised although possibly one could construe that the potential for having it compromised is increased by venturing into the wilderness. Something like this, if it is resolved, looks like it unfortunately will have to be done in a court of law if the two parties cannot come to an understanding between themselves or through alternate mediation.
On the other point you bring up, I personally think it is more safe for Dr. Yonnet to have the opportunity to venture into the wilderness with Elon along with him (leash or no leash), but that is a whole other lengthy argument about our fundamental rights as human beings. Thank you for your time.
Feb 06, 2011 @ 23:22:53
I have had an assistance dog since I was 16 from a smaller but still well organized and on the larger side program. Ten years later I have also raised twelve service dogs, weekend sat dozens upon dozens, been an Intern at the service dog program, and worked as the Puppy Program Coordinator for two years. Having said all of that I still feel that all of what you said is completely leaving out the BOND that Dr. Yonnet has with Elon (which is UNDENIABLE after watching numerous videos and seeing photos of the team) and that Elon had with Dr. Yonnet. I cannot believe that the leash rule is taken so serious that it tears apart a team, leaves a dog confused, needing retraining – risking the REALITY that the dog will never bond the SAME with a – what, 4th, 5th caretaker? and leaves a disabled person helpless. I’d love to know how many of CCI’s puppy raisers have puppies taken from them for breaking the rules – don’t kid yourselves, you all know that the volunteers don’t take 100% of the rules that serious. How many of them hike? Allow the dogs on furniture? Etc without telling CCI. I just think that if there is truly more to the story then CCI should come out with it. Obviously Dr. Yonnet is putting it all out there, not hiding a darn thing about the past, so why is there only one brief statement from CCI out there?
Again, let’s not forget that this team was bonded, Elon LIVED to care for Dr. Yonnet and now he’s living in a kennel.
Feb 06, 2011 @ 23:58:16
Thanks for the explanation, Rex.
Honestly, I stopped looking at Dr. Yonnet’s posts shortly after the news story, primarily because I felt he’d had his say and I’d already heard his account, and that I needed to hear CCI’s, which is still the case. Beyond that, my impression was that his description or position started to shift – at least I was having a hard time keeping up with it and getting a handle on what “the real deal” was, at any rate. Plus I wasn’t wild about things like seeing him wash his hands of all responsibility for his friends’ harsh (that’s the nicest word I can think of right now) comments without any public instruction to them to stop making them.
Bottom line, it wasn’t helpful to me in trying to get a clearer picture here to begin with, and all the unpleasant “stuff” that went with it on top of what’s already an unpleasant subject was more than I wanted to deal with. In fact, I stopped looking at those discussions wherever they were for the same reasons – if I saw one, it was normally because it was injected into something else.
So, where I’m at here is waiting for CCI to weigh in. What I’m afraid of is, it appears to me, as is often the case, that one party – in this case, Dr. Yonnet – is free (within reason, of course) to say what it wants, while the other – in this case, CCI – has legal or other constraints as an organization that he does not have as an individual that prevent it from doing the same. Don’t know that for sure, just have to wait and see.
In any event, at some point soon (maybe real soon) I’ll likely just quit talking about it, turn off comments here as well, move on to more pleasant subjects, and hope things get sorted out. I do appreciate this one from you – if everybody everywhere else would take your approach, we’d be in a lot better shape.
Feb 07, 2011 @ 00:12:06
Linzey, as I’ve said several times, it’s hard to believe that the leash is the issue here, things don’t add up as described at this point, and I’d like to hear CCI’s detailed explanation, too.
Feb 07, 2011 @ 12:24:06
Glad we can agree on that! And praying for a great outcome for everyone involved!
Feb 19, 2011 @ 18:05:31
Thank you so much for writing this. My son has a CCI dog and we all know that CCI retains ownership of the dog. That is made clear in the agreement we sign before we receive the dog. CCI is an incredible organizarion and words cannot express the appreciation for all they do and to all the volunteers who make it happen. My son is a changed person because of his CCI dog. Having said that, I do hope CCI and the person in question find a way to resolve the issue. However, runnning a negative PR campaign is not the way I would go about it. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for all you do.
Feb 22, 2011 @ 17:52:12
UPDATE 2/22/11: CCI has now posted an official statement regarding this matter. Speaks for itself, no comment needed from me, and comments are now closed on this post as well.
“Update Regarding Return of Dog”