[nagdu] Fw: Breaking News About DOJ Changes

[Angie Matney]

Hi Ann,

I wish the blog post had included more information about the comments concerning miniature horses. Like you, I'm left wondering what was intended by explicitly stating that miniature horses are not service animals but that the handler has 
certain access rights. I wonder if this was a drafting error. Very, very strange.

Angie



On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 02:33:23 -0500, Ann Edie wrote:

>Hi, Angie,

>Evidently, between the Proposed  rules and the Final rules, perhaps based on 
>feedback from the public during the comment period,   the DOJ changed the 
>wording to "dogs" only rather than "dogs and other common domestic animals". 
>In my opinion, this was actually a clarification, since I have no idea what 
>animals they wished to include in "other common domestic animals"--cats, 
>most likely, and birds?--they certainly live in people's houses, and perhaps 
>fish?--they also live with people.  The only animals that we knew were 
>excluded were those specifically mentioned as excluded:  primates, rodents, 
>reptiles, farots, horses, ponies, miniature horses, goats, pigs....

>At least now we know that only dogs will be allowed under the definition of 
>"service animals".  However, the statements about miniature horses in the 
>Final regulations are still very confusing to me.  If miniature horses 
>cannot be considered service animals, then why do business owners have to 
>make accommodations to allow people with disabilities to access public 
>places accompanied by trained miniature horses?  And if I have no legal 
>right of access with my miniature horse guide, then how can I continue to 
>travel freely and have access to public accommodations when I am accompanied 
>by my miniature horse guide?

>Perhaps you and the other legal minds on the list can unravel the DOJ 
>language and logic for us.

>Best,
>Ann