[nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort

Albert J Rizzi albert at myblindspot.org
Fri Dec 25 19:37:45 UTC 2009


I would think then we need to qualify and quantify the verbiage  which is
being considered for amendment because all to often trainers of guides are
being denied access.  What would be a suitable wording which would 1.
protect and ensure that trainers of service animals are included in the
a.d.a., which as you  yourself presented, can be interpreted to prevent such
access unless and until the service animal is being used by a person using
the same for the intended purpose?  And what of our peers who use companions
for a diagnosable  condition where a companion animal/service animal is
needed? The manner of the wording at present does not seem to afford them
the same protections, or do they?  I think that trainers should be held to a
higher measure so people like many of those on this list who got bum dogs do
not live through that pain again.  there is something to say for the
consideration of certification  provided that a standard  of national
proportions  could be meaningful.

Albert J. Rizzi, M.Ed.
CEO/Founder
My Blind Spot, Inc.
90 Broad Street - 18th Fl.
New York, New York  10004
www.myblindspot.org
PH: 917-553-0347
Fax: 212-858-5759
"The person who says it cannot be done, shouldn't interrupt the one who is
doing it."


Visit us on Facebook LinkedIn



-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Steve Johnson
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 2:14 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort

Hi Cindy,

PWD = People or Persons with disabilities.

I think that the points being made are very strong, and the certification
issue does not broaden as Albert eluded to, but does indeed restrict the
definition of who who could eventually access a place of public
accommodation.

So, if only a certified trainer, which the points are well-expressed on
this, is allowed to access a place of public accommodation, then would'nt
this essentially mean that unless an animal trained by a certified entity
could only then access a place of public accommodation?

There are a lot of frauds out there, and again we are speaking about places
of public accommodation.  The fair housing amendments act already provides
for any person to have an emotional support, or even companion animals in
Federal assisted housing, and this can also move into private housing where
emotional support animals can be granted access through a request for
reasonable accommodation.  The underlying problem is that these are not
highly trained animals that are specifically trained to provide a functional
support/service for the individual whether it be through a professional
entity or an individual who chooses to self-train.

I have to disagree with Albert in that his comment that this would expand
the coverage of access as it clearly discriminates against those who
self-train and again, I will point out that this language is specifically
stated in the ADA.

Furthermore, if the word certification were deleted from this, then we are 
where we are at now, and is this a bad thing?

While this proposed legislation specifically addresses service animals, the
problem herein is that it creates this slippery slope that I mention in that
there will be a push like you have never seen by other groups to expand and
include emotional support, therapy, and companion animals.  Mark my word.

Let's go back to the intent of the ADA, and you will further understand that
this narrows, not expands as these other types of animals are not providing
a service.  A support yes, a service no.

Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cindy Ray" <cindyray at qwest.net>
To: "NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users"
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort


> What is PWD?
>
> And you make a good point. Who certifies? If the schools where the people
> train certify them, then what about these independents, particularly those
> who train their own dogs. And, of course, NAC was a certification outfit
> that certified places, but any of us who knows the history of NAC knows
> what
> certification meant for agencies and schools serving the bolind. So why
> bother if you can't certify better than that? Suppose the Guide Dog School
> Association, whose official name I don't remember, certified trainers?
> Would
> they be willing to certify an independent, and would such a person be
> willing to do that (be certified by such a certifying body?)
>
> CL
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "The Pawpower Pack" <pawpower4me at gmail.com>
> To: "NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users"
> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort
>
>
> and who certifies the trainers?
>
> There is no certifying body for dog trainers.  If I want to call
> myself a dog trainer, I can.  There are outfits like CPDT who are
> trying to certify pet dog trainers but it's all voluntary.  The guide
> and service dogs, with the exception of California, may "certify"
> their trainers but it's about as valuable as the paper it's printed on.
>
> California "certifies" it's trainers but frankly, I would hate to see
> an outfit like the California guide dog board become the norm.
>
> I also think it's a step awy from certifying trainers to certifying PWD.
>
>
> Rox and the Kitchen Bitches
> Bristol (retired), Mill'E SD. and Laveau Guide Dog, CGC.
> "Struggle is a never ending process. Freedom is never really won, you
> earn it and win it in every generation."
> -- Coretta Scott King
> pawpower4me at gmail.com
>
> Windows Live Only: Brisomania at hotmail.com
> AIM: Brissysgirl Yahoo: lillebriss
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cindyray%40qwest.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/stevencjohnson%40cent
urytel.net
>


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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.722 / Virus Database: 270.14.119/2586 - Release Date: 12/25/09
03:33:00


_______________________________________________
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/albert%40myblindspot.
org





More information about the NAGDU mailing list