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

Sat Dec 26 17:24:34 UTC 2009

Buddy,
    As I stated in my previous message, this is the difficulty I have with 
this proposed legislation. Once we open the proverbial can of worms to those 
who are not disabled, where would it lead? I think it is best to allow the 
states to allow trainers access, rather than to place it in a federal law 
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability.

Fraternally,
Marion


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Buddy Brannan" <buddy at brannan.name>
To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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