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

Albert J Rizzi albert at myblindspot.org
Sun Dec 27 18:09:27 UTC 2009


Ahhh clarification   thanks so much. Well if you are a trainer and a handler
aren't you ipso facto defacto permitted access?  I mean if you one day chose
not to self train, how would you feel about being given a dog train in a
sinnulated arena of sorts?  If trainers  certified or not, are not afforded
the same access as would be true for a guide once passed onto a handler, how
are they to learn how to deal with any number of distractions, sounds,
sights, smels, etc?  I would never want a dog train in a simulated fashion
for the types of travel I do every day. Subways are not easy to simulate I
would think, especially in new york city.  But I do ask again, if you are
self training does not the law as itstands protect you? And if the law was
amended to extend such protections to trainers, with or without
certification, would you still not be protected as an end user as well?  I
do not see how opening the protection to trainers and dogs in training would
complicate matters.  Would you think it best that the first time a doctor
doing surgery would be one after only having done so in a simulated
environment rather then in an actual hospital? I may be reluctant to see
things as you all are presenting them, but I am open to hearing a reasonable
concern in this regard other then presumptions of how this could limit our
protections. Help me understand this one will you roxy?

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 The Pawpower Pack
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 10:40 AM
To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort

Albert,

having this provision as individual state laws is quite different than  
adding a provision for mainly able-bodied trainers to access places of  
public accommodations under the ADA.

For example, some state laws required that both teams and trainers be  
"certified" from a school or program and that said handler or trainer  
produce identification upon request when accessing places of public  
accommodation showing that they are affiliated with such program.

However because the ADA requires that each dog be "individually  
trained to do work or perform tasks" and the law also says that  
identification cannot be requested as a condition of access, I as an  
owner trainer without identification have a broader law to fall back  
upon should there be any questions.

If trainers want access, then it needs to not be a part of the ADA.

Sorry if this was unclear. I need more caffeine!

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/albert%40myblindspot.
org





More information about the NAGDU mailing list