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

Buddy Brannan buddy at brannan.name
Fri Dec 25 20:31:42 UTC 2009 

On Dec 25, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Albert J Rizzi wrote:

> While we mull over what constitutes  a service animal, lets determine to
> include companions for the emotional and mental health concerns, diabetic
> and seizure issues and any multitude   of reasons a medically prescribed
> animal would help one who needs one.

Actually, let's not. 

The current definition for a service animal is, IMO, not too bad, i.e. any definition of service animal must of necessity include that the animal must be task trained, etc. etc. If we open up the definition further to include so-called "emotional support animals", well, it isn't much further to go to allow pets of all kinds. Mind you, I don't have a problem with pets in public places so long as they're well-behaved and under good control. Sadly, hoever, most are not, but I digress. For the brief time I was the membership coordinator for IAADP (last year, actually), you wouldn't believe the number of calls and Emails I had to field from people who would call asking about their rights as handlers of service dogs, but it turned out that these dogs had no formal task training. The dog "calmed me by its presence" or other such nonsense. Friends, that is what we in the biz call a "pet". 

Now a dog that alerts to seizures, diabetic highs or lows, perhaps severe allergens (yes, really, might be a stretch--I don't know), and so on, I would think qualifies as a service dog, if, again, it had specific task training to mitigate a disability. Say, a seizure alert dog that would alert its handler to an oncoming seizure, get him/her to a safe place before the onset of the seizure, then pressed a 911 call button. Or a dog that provided support to someone who had some balance or other issue. But comfort or anchor to reality or what have you are not trained tasks. 
> 
--
Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY



> 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 Cindy Ray
> Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 2:35 PM
> To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort
> 
> The failure of a og to make it with a person has not much to do with the 
> trainer, certified or not. As for service dogs, just what *does* constitute 
> one really?
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Albert J Rizzi" <albert at myblindspot.org>
> To: "'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'" 
> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 1:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/albert%40myblindspot.
> org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/buddy%40brannan.name

More information about the NAGDU mailing list