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

Albert J Rizzi albert at myblindspot.org
Sat Dec 26 13:30:15 UTC 2009


Ok, you and I are in agreement on a number of issues. I like you believe the
law as it stands, if we took the time to read it, works as written.  I also
agree with you about separating companion animals from the mix. I too feel
they are pets, when in fact there are medications which most probably serve
the same purpose. I have heard tell of people using cats, snakes or ferrets,
sounds like a pet, looks like a pet, must be a pet.  I however have been in
the presence of two trainers who were denied access and had to assert who
they were, what they were doing and quote the law, even though the dog had
sufficient markings to denote his status. It has happened as recently as
this past couple of months to one of our members. She was denied access to
an ice-cream parlor and what should have been a 15 minute excursion turned
into hours. I think it was merry and Marion who this happened to, in
Georgia, and they had to take hours and hours out of their evening to
educate this store and its employees, as well as security guards and police.
So while I cannot quote some news report or statistics, I would hope these
first hand experiences would suffice. I still come back to my position that
our best tool is to educate and inform the public, blind and sighted alike,
about the laws ensuring safe and equal access to all.  We must first attempt
to use the law and understand  how and why it was written, before we attempt
to change it as it were. So I agree with you. The law probably as written if
read a certain way probably has these safeguards  in place, they are just
hidden in confusing language.

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 4:50 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort

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%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