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

Sat Dec 26 01:00:30 UTC 2009

    Some of the animals mentioned in this message are not service animals as 
defined by the ADA and state laws; therefore, those accompanied by these 
animals do not have the protections afforded under such laws. They may, 
though, be protected by the FHA.

Fraternally yours,
Marion Gwizdala


.
----- 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 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort


> 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.
>
> 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/swampfox1833%40verizon.net