[nagdu] Take the menagerie off the bus

[MS S TILLETT]

I agree with Ann, and just because someone says his animal is trained doesn't mean it is well behaved.  In New Jersey, an animal isn't deemed vicous until its' second attack, and that is only if both attacks were reported.  The laws just are not there to give us the protection we need.  I also think there needs to be separate laws protecting those of us working with guide animals, because we are less able to see it coming and to protect ourselves, plus our guides are trained to not be confrontational.  I am afraid we would probably have to work on this issue state by state.  

Sue, and Wonder 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ann Edie 
  To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users 
  Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 5:27 AM
  Subject: Re: [nagdu] Take the menagerie off the bus


  Hi, All,

  The death of Buddy, the Pomeranian emotional support dog, on the Portland 
  bus is certainly a tragedy for the little dog and its owner.  But it never 
  ceases to amaze me when the solution proposed jumps immediately to the 
  banning of service animals of species other than dogs from places of public 
  access.

  If I have the facts of the situation straight, both the victim and the 
  attacker in this case were members of the canine race.  And neither dog 
  would qualify as a service animal under the current or proposed definitions 
  of service animal in the ADA.  The victim was an emotional support animal, 
  permitted access to the bus under the local transit rules.  The handler of 
  the attacking dog was not a qualified person with a disability, nor was the 
  dog a permitted emotional support animal.  The owner of the offending dog 
  misrepresented his dog as a service dog when he took it onto the bus.

  Personally, I have no problem with transit organizations or commercial 
  establishments, stores, restaurants, hotels, etc., allowing people to bring 
  their well-behaved pets into these establishments.  I do take great 
  objection, however, to irresponsible animal handlers whose animals threaten 
  or injure either people or other animals in public places getting off scott 
  free or with a perfunctory slap on the wrist.

  First of all, I think that their ought to be stiff legal and civil penalties 
  for an animal owner whose animal causes injury or harm to a person or 
  another animal, whether the animals involved are service animals, comfort 
  animals, or companion animals.  The life of the little Pomeranian is 
  certainly worth something, more than the cost of replacement, at the very 
  least.  And the emotional pain and suffering caused by the violent death of 
  even a pet is certainly many thousands of dollars.  The owner of the 
  offending animal should be held responsible for the harm caused by that 
  animal, and laws should be strengthened and enforced to make this a reality. 
  Only then will animal owners think twice about taking dangerous animals into 
  public places or allowing their animals to run loose in their neighborhoods.

  Secondly, the owner of the offending dog on the Portland bus misrepresented 
  his dog as a service animal.  Isn't this a case of fraud?  And shouldn't the 
  man be held responsible for the tragic consequences of the fraud, beyond 
  being banned from the bus for 30 days?

  But what on earth does any of this have to do with the use of animals of 
  species other than dogs as service animals?  Where is the logic in calling 
  for the banning of rabbits, ducks, miniature horses, or ferrets from public 
  access or for the elimination of these species from eligibility as service 
  animals under the ADA, because a dog attacked another dog on a public bus? 
  Is my service animal more at risk of being injured by a duck, in or out of 
  costume, than by a dog?

  Personally, I can smile and proceed on my way with my miniature horse guide 
  through a gaggle of completely untrained and uncontrolled ducks--and I 
  actually do this every day, because the farm where my riding horses live has 
  a resident group of ducks who enjoy paddling in the puddles in the dirt road 
  that leads to the barn--whereas, it would cause me great anxiety if we were 
  confronted by even one or two large, uncontrolled dogs.  I think I have to 
  worry a lot more about being injured by the sharp teeth of a dog than by the 
  teeth of even a pet ferret or pet rat on a public bus.

  Why are these two issues--the issue of vicious or uncontrolled animals 
  causing harm to others in public places, and the issue of species other than 
  dogs being permitted as service animals-- so often confused?  How would 
  banning bunnies from busses have prevented the death of the Pomeranian on 
  the Portland bus?

  To me, even the issue of training is a bogus one.  A "trained" dog--and what 
  is the definition of "trained"--can still bite and cause serious harm to 
  people or other animals.  It seems to me that the only reasonable remedy for 
  the problem of vicious animal attacks is to hold animal owners more 
  responsible for harm caused by their animals.  Or perhaps we should return 
  to the old days when dogs had to be muzzled when on public transportation, 
  and extend this rule to any animal which could conceivably cause injury to 
  others.

  Thanks for giving me the opportunity to think out loud.

  Ann

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Ginger Kutsch" <GingerKutsch at yahoo.com>
  To: "NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users" 
  <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
  Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 12:45 PM
  Subject: [nagdu] Take the menagerie off the bus


  > Take the menagerie off the bus
  > A dog's fatal attack on another illustrates why the feds must tighten 
  > their definition of "service animal"
  > Thursday, October 30, 2008
  > The Oregonian
  > Editorial
  > No offense, ferret lovers. (And we know you're out there. More than a
  > million ferrets now live in U.S. homes.) Your pet may be clever and
  > adorable, in your
  > view. It may offer emotional support.
  >
  > But it shouldn't be roaming the aisles of a TriMet bus or train. And, in 
  > our
  > view, neither should any other animal with sharp teeth. The only pets that
  > should be traveling, uncaged, on buses, trains and planes are trained
  > service animals.
  >
  > These animals today -- mostly dogs -- can be trained to do truly 
  > astonishing
  > things. For them to travel with their owners is only right and fair, and
  > it's
  > also the law under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. But this 
  > week,
  > Portlanders learned that the law has been stretched in a loosey-goosey 
  > way.
  >
  > On TriMet and other transit systems around the country, increasingly, 
  > almost
  > any "companion animal" can go almost anywhere with few questions asked. 
  > The
  > death of Buddy, a 7-pound Pomeranian, bitten by a 50-pound Rottweiler mix 
  > on
  > a bus, is a painful reminder of all the snarling, growling, biting 
  > seatmate
  > possibilities.
  >
  > If you haven't encountered a ferret yet, well, it's just a matter of time. 
  > A
  > 2003 ruling by the U.S. Department of Transportation, in effect, propped
  > open
  > the door of the veterinarian's office by saying people with emotional
  > ailments had the same right of access for their animals as people with
  > physical ailments.
  >
  > We have no quarrel with that broad notion. It's certainly true that
  > "invisible" problems are every bit as real as visible ones. It's also true
  > that animals
  > can be trained to soothe people who have a variety of afflictions, 
  > including
  > those that come with aging. The aging of the population makes it likely 
  > that
  > we will see a boom in the training of such animals.
  >
  > Unfortunately, though, the ruling didn't say anything about training. 
  > Since
  > the 2003 ruling, "a veritable Noah's Ark of support animals" has emerged,
  > The
  > New York Times wrote. Airlines have accommodated "monkeys, miniature 
  > horses
  > and even an emotional-support duck." (Dressed up in a costume, no less.)
  >
  > In the wake of the Pomeranian's death this week, TriMet plans to take a 
  > look
  > at its rules and procedures, to see whether there's a way to tighten them
  > within
  > the confines of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We hope there is.
  > Transit agencies should lobby for tighter definitions. The operative word
  > should
  > be "training."
  >
  > Those who stand to be hurt the most by the current free-for-all include 
  > the
  > owners of the well-trained dogs. They could suffer a backlash -- or maybe 
  > we
  > should say a back bite -- from the untrained ones.
  >
  > There are 72 million pet dogs in the United States, and nearly 82 million
  > pet cats -- and all can be classified, loosely, as "companion animals." 
  > Add
  > a
  > few rabbits, rats and ferrets to the mix, and you can imagine a bus ride
  > that veers a little too uncomfortably close to the zoo.
  >
  > _______________________________________________
  > nagdu mailing list
  > nagdu at nfbnet.org
  > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
  > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
  > nagdu:
  > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/annedie%40nycap.rr.com
  > 


  _______________________________________________
  nagdu mailing list
  nagdu at nfbnet.org
  http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
  http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/suetillett%40verizon.net