[Flagdu] Fw: [GDUI-LEADERS] Fw: Legislative Consideration

[Patricia A. Lipovsky]

Marian,
I forwarded your previous msg on to some other lists I am on, and here is one response I received in regards to this issue.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Lynn Duplessis 
To: 'Patricia A. Lipovsky' ; gduf-l at googlegroups.com 
Cc: gdui-leaders at yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 6:51 PM
Subject: RE: [GDUI-LEADERS] Fw: [Flagdu] Legislative Consideration


Pine Tree Guide Dog Users, in Maine, was proud to be part of a task force that , in part, increased the penalty in Maine for misrepresentation of a service animal. 

 

Maine's statute now reads,

 

17 § 1314-A.  Misrepresentation of service dog.

 

          A person who fits a dog with a harness, collar, vest or sing of the type commonly used by blind persons in order to represent that the dog is a service dog or commonly used by persons with disabilities to represent that the dog is a service dog when training of the type that guide dogs normally receive has not been provided or when the dog does not meet the definition of "service dog" as defined in section 1312 commits a civil violation for which a fine of not more than $500 may be adjudged.

 

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: GDUI-LEADERS at yahoogroups.com [mailto:GDUI-LEADERS at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Patricia A. Lipovsky
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 1:05 PM
To: gduf-l at googlegroups.com
Cc: gdui-leaders at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [GDUI-LEADERS] Fw: [Flagdu] Legislative Consideration

 

  

Hello.

Just passing this along for your consideration, especially since this 
effects all of us who are guide dog users
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marion & Martin" <swampfox1833 at verizon.net>
To: "FLAGDU List" <flagdu at nfbnet.org>
Cc: "NYAGDU List" <nyagdu at nfbnet.org>; "NAGDU List" <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 11:10 AM
Subject: [Flagdu] Legislative Consideration

> Dear All,
> Last week, someone claiming protection under the ADA brought what they 
> purported to be a service animal onto a Hillsborough Area Regional Transit 
> (HART) vehicle and this animal bit the employee. Though we are unclear 
> about all of the circumstances, such as if it was a fixed route or para 
> transit vehicle or if the dog was a legitimate service animal, the 
> incident has caused some issues.
> When Merry was coming home from her internship last Wednesday, the 
> operator told her she needed to provide documentation for Kappie, which 
> she refused to do. He refused to move the vehicle while he contacted the 
> dispatcher. ITM, Merry called me concerning this. When I called the 
> dispatcher, I was told that HART had implemented a new policy that "all 
> animals, including service animals, must show proof of vaccination" (his 
> words). I advised him that such a policy was in violation of the ADA, to 
> which he asserted it was not. When I asked him if he was an attorney, he 
> said he was not but he would be happy to transfer me to HART's legal 
> counsel. He also told me that Merry could ride this time, but would need 
> to provide such documentation of vaccination the next time she traveled.
> I left a message for HART's counsel, Sylvia Berrien, and received a 
> return call the following morning. I have discussed this issue with Ms. 
> Berrien, with HART's Director of Customer Service, Sylvia Castillo, and 
> Katherine Eagan, HART's Chief of Route Development, all of whom apologized 
> for the incident, assured me that there was no such policy, and 
> immediately issued a memorandum to all HART operators concerning this.
> This all leads me to the subject of this message. Florida statute 
> 316.1301, Commonly known as the "White Cane Law", states in paragraph (1), 
> "It is unlawful for any person, unless totally or partially blind or 
> otherwise incapacitated, while on any public street or highway, to carry 
> in a raised or extended position a cane or walking stick which is white in 
> color or white tipped with red. A person who is convicted of a violation 
> of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree". In 
> addition to this incident (HART seems to believe this animal was not a 
> service animal under the definition of the ADA), we have encountered 
> others claiming their pets were service animals in order to gain access 
> with them.
> How would you feel about a measure to create a criminal penalty for 
> those who pass their pets off as service animals in order to gain access 
> with them, similar to those provisions mentioned above? I am also 
> circulating this message to other affiliate divisions and to the NAGDU 
> list to gain input on this issue. All comments are invited!
>
>
>
> Fraternally yours,
>
> Marion Gwizdala, President
>
> National Association of Guide Dog Users
>
> National Federation of the Blind
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group 

Messages in this topic (1) 

Recent Activity: 

Visit Your Group Start a New Topic 

MARKETPLACE

Going Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green living


Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use
.



__,_._,___