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

Fri Dec 25 23:45:40 UTC 2009

By the way, before we go a whole bunch further, I think it's important that I point up a distinction here. It is not the animal which is granted or denied access. Not in the law and not in reality. It is, rather, the disabled person (or, perhaps, not disabled trainer) who is allowed to be accompanied by a task trained service animal (or, perhaps, an animal in training for said service related tasks). 

That is all.
--
Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY

On Dec 25, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Steve Johnson wrote:

> I think it is best to keep the "companion" animal out of this mix as it is
> is defined simply as a pet.  See Delta Society.org, and JAN.wvu.edu.
> 
> And, this everyone, is where the whole issue of abuse of such a law comes in
> to play if such an allowance were to be.  Perhaps, better understanding of
> the current laws would be the better approach than trying to fix something
> that there is no solid evidence that it is even broke?  Albert, you refer to
> animals being trained that are being denied access.  Please show me the hard
> data on this.
> 
> I'd bet you anything that most formal agencies do not have any problem with
> accessing places of public accommodation with dogs in training before they
> are matched with the new master.  All of my guides have been from Leader,
> and it is amazing how open the communities are in allowing access from
> everything ranging from restaurants to public transit. These cities and
> towns include little ol' Rochester to Detroit.  So, where's the problem, or
> is this just another piece of make me feel good legislation that will hurt
> us more than it will actually help us?
> 
> Unless one can show me that there is an actual need for this with something
> concrete to back it up, then our tax payer dollars are again being wasted on
> a Federal legislator wasting all of our time with something frivelous and really, nothing to back it up.
> 
> again, JMO
> 
> ----- 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/stevencjohnson%40centurytel.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/buddy%40brannan.name