[nagdu] in regards to the article of the person on NPR

[Marsha]

Here are my thoughts on this subject:

"In just a few blocks, I saw her maneuver 
Around things that I, as a person that's sighted, wouldn't have thought of."
As this statement reads, the horse is doing something much more than a guide
would. Our guides do the same thing, and perhaps better, because they also
see the world differently than a horse per say. 

"As Panda walks, her hooves make a distinctive sound on the ground, sort of 
like a person walking in clogs. The pitch changes on wood, leaves, cement 
and metal, offering important clues for Edie about her surroundings." Again
something we as guide dog users use or know. Yes you might get more of a
sound from those different surfaces but as many of us know we will get that
from our own feet walking down a street or through a mall. Different
surfaces just sound different to begin with. Again nothing a guide dog does
not already do.

"Panda 
can also use her hooves to tell Edie to step up or touch the crosswalk 
button - something a dog couldn't do."  Okay let's digest this statement
here. Number one the person writing must not have much experience with guide
dogs, but as we all know, a dog can be trained to do this. This again is up
to the handler on if they want a dog to place there paws on the curb
indicating that we should step up. Also a dog can be patterned for any of
these tasks. Again like I said above, something a guide dog can do, if given
the right training. Now perhaps it would be different if we were speaking
like these horses do not need training ahead of time, and they do these task
instinctively. Now I do not know the answer to that question. Secondly,
granted a guide horse might be wonderful for one person does not by any
means that it neither is right for others, nor does it training make it any
better or worse than a guide dog.

"Miniature horses, for example, live much longer than dogs, which means that

their owners don't have to readjust to a new guide as often." Okay this is
true. But again another attempt to make horses much better than dogs. I am
unsure if this is due to the author or the handler of the horse.

"Horses tend to live and work into their 30s, whereas a guide dog will work 
six to eight years total," This also true, in some cases. Of course I have
heard of guide dogs working well into 11 or 12. granted that is not good for
the dog, and as at some point they deserve to be dogs and not work anymore.
But just as dogs, horses have there own health issues, neither of which is
better or worse. 

There are several other statements in the article that are just as the ones
I outlined, dogs are capable of doing the same things as horses. And in
other articles guide dog handlers and there companion have a bond much
deeper than most marriages.  

Now on to the subject of what is acceptable as a service animal. I think we
must look at what is disability and why we have guide dogs. As our past
leader Dr. tenbook said, "Disability refers to a physical deprivation;" As
blind people we do not have the use of our vision or limited vision.
Furthermore, said a many times on this list, guide dogs perform a task for
us that in which our eyes can not do themselves. For someone who has a
psychiatric problem, would this or could this be solved by any thing in a
persons world. In other words, instead of having a parrot or monkey, they
could use a pin, or stuffed animal. Just as a parrot or monkey is not
socially acceptable neither would a stuffed animal in public be. Those types
of animals perform a different task of sorts. And because they perform a
different task they should not be called service animals. It is all about
the wording of the words, but when our law makers go to finalize the ADA
with the modifications, we are going to have to be very careful how this is
all worded. If people with psychiatric problems start calling there animals
service animals then, this takes away from us who have animals who do
perform a service. In turn making our lives harder to some extent in the
long run. 

Granted those people now call there dogs service animals, and in turn this
has confused the public. They see a animal with someone who has a disability
or not, and it is right away a service animal. I guess it is the same
argument you have over the word blind or visually impaired. For the law
makers to make the direct distinction between service and assistant dog,
then the public would not be so confused. 

Lets not misunderstand my views on this subject; I am not questioning a
person who has a psychiatric problem from using an animal to make their life
much more productive. But use these animals in situations that would benefit
them the most but not prevent us, with guide dogs, from using an animal that
performs a task. Certainly if they must use a stuffed animal, or live animal
to function by all means do such, just don't make our lives harder in the
process. 

So this leads me to my next question, are there any updates on the
modifications they want to make to the ADA? In regards to service animal or
assistant animal. 

Just my two cents worth, don't know if this makes any sense what so ever. 
Marsha and Emma, Seeing eye dog!

Seeing Eye dog as in my eyes do not see for me, but Emmaa uses her eyes for
the both of us. 

 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3733 (20090102) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com