[nagdu] Take the menagerie off the bus

[Sam]

I am all for training!  It's about time we get some regulations.  
Thanks for the article.

Sam


> ----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ginger Kutsch" <GingerKutsch at yahoo.com
>To: "NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog 
Users" <nagdu at nfbnet.org
>Date sent: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:45:09 -0400
>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/sam%40tcq.
net