[nagdu] More information on Taco Bell incident

Tue Jun 9 17:41:05 UTC 2009

NAGDU is? And if we can't see it "from the outside" what confidence do
we have that the people NAGDU is trying to reach are also getting the
message?   

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Marsha
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 10:19 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] More information on Taco Bell incident

I do not believe that any of us condemn this lady and her actions. Yes
we can all think, wonder, and or know how we would have handled the
situation.
For many of us because we have been in the same situation. But that does
not mean by any means we have condemned her. Wanting to know more of the
facts of what happened, is NOT condemning her personality. 

I know that NAGDU is working hard, much harder than many of you all can
see from the outside, to make things like this not happen. 

Marsha 

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Dan Weiner
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:02 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] More information on Taco Bell incident

Hi, guys.

I noticed, by the way, that before Wayne found the additional
information about the incident, so many of us were quick to condemn the
lady who was suffering the access denial.
"oh, what must she have done, her dog must have not been in control."
...that's what I read in several letters.
If we blind are so quick to condemn other people without the facts than
how will we ever make progress?
Where is our sense of solidarity?
In access issues I automatically assume the worst of the restaurant and
whatever, not my fellow blind guide dog user. 
 That' me, anyway.
I've noticed this type of thing over my years in the blind movement
generally.  We talk a good fight, but every time there's a problem I'll
hear someone saying "Oh, maybe we shouldn't  get involved, what if the
person did something to provoke it"..etc.

In this regard I enthusiastically praise Marion who by his attitude and
actions demonstrates to me a spirit of commitment to advancing guide dog
access as part of NAGDU's agenda and reason for being. 

The only thing I wonder is what the idiot manager would have done  if
the victim had said "yes, it's a Seeing eye dog"?
The school name distinction is not a cross I'm willing to die on, just
my personal view.
Here in Florida I heard "Seeing Eye dog" when I was young and didn't
know there was another name until I started looking in to getting a
dog--grin.
When I lived in Ohio, every guide dog was a Pilot Dog.
Once a Handyvan driver at OSU asked me if Evan was a Pilot Dog. I said,
without thinking, "no, but he's a guide dog".
I was told that only Pilot Dogs were allowed and we had to call the
manager who of course explained.

Anyway, the lack of enforcement of the law in the case of the lady in
Texas and the ignorance and, I believe, nasty attitude of the Cops shows
why we still have access issues after 80 years of guide dog use  in the
US.

Cordially,

Dan W. and Carter Dog  

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Linda Gwizdak
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:41 AM
To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] More information on Taco Bell incident

Hi Buddy,
I know that a harness doesn't make a guide dog - you could put one on
any dog but if it isn't trained to guide, it won't guide.

It's more of what the harness shows visually.  You see a guide dog
harness on a dog, you assume it is a guide dog.  You see a man wearing a
military uniform, you assume he is a military man.

It is what the harness symbolizes as much as a military uniform
symbolizes.

Reading that article, I wonder what really happened in that Taco Bell.
The manager's actions make no sense.  The Seeing Eye celebrates its 80th
year and it is amazing how much access denials we still get around the
country. 
And that is for guide dogs!  In comparison, there are so much more
problems of this type with people with hidden disabilities who have
service dogs. 
That's what makes it such a shame when people abuse disabled people's
rights by bringing untrained dogs and passing them off as service dogs.
Just my observations.

Linda and Landon
----- 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: Saturday, June 06, 2009 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] More information on Taco Bell incident

>
> On Jun 6, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Allison Nastoff wrote:
>
>> I do wonder though if guide dog schools should stick with  
>> traditional breeds like Labs and German Shepherds.  Maybe this would

>> make it easier for the public to trust that a dog is, in fact a
guide dog.
>> Theoretically, someone could get a harness on the black  market, and
put 
>> it on their pet poodle and say he's a guide dog.   The same could be
true

>> for someone's pet Lab of course, but I just  think that sticking to a

>> few

>> standard breeds might make the guide  dog access issue less confusing

>> for

>> the public.  Just my opinion.
>
> I couldn't disagree with you more. For one thing, if we stuck to 
> "traditional breeds" and started doing so at the beginning, we'd all  
> have

> shepherds. But more to the point, well, actually, there are  several 
> points.
>
> 1) There are many kinds of service dogs, not just guide dogs, and if  
> they

> are task trained (etc. etc. etc.), they have the protection of  
> Federal law. Many of these dogs are non-traditional breeds, even mixed
breeds.
> Would you deny access to handlers of such dogs only to make  the issue

> easier for the public?
>
> 2. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is absolutely no 
> magic in guide dog equipment. Moreover, there is no law that  
> stipulates what constitutes proper working equipment for guide or, for

> that matter, any other service animal. Someone could as easily take  
> his pet dog somewhere and as easily claim it to be a service dog. This

> is a sticky issue, but the issue of working equipment just clouds the
issue further.
> A harness does not a guide dog make, nor does it prove  legitimacy. 
> This issue of "harnesses falling into the wrong hands" has  always, 
> frankly, puzzled me. A harness proves nothing, nor does it  give one 
> service animal

> more legal weight than another who might  require different equipment.

> Whether or what equipment a dog wears  does not define it as a service

> animal, and propagating statements to  the contrary can't help the 
> larger community of service dog owners,  especially those who don't 
> require specific equipment. (Besides,  anyone with the requisite skill

> set can make a harness, this really  isn't any sort of arcane 
> knowledge jealously guarded by the guide dog  schools.)
>
> 3. None of this about sticking to "traditional breeds" takes into  
> account

> the needs or desires of owner trainers. Julie? Rox'e? Marti?  Let's 
> say one of you found a dog of just the right temperament but it  
> wasn't a "traditional breed". Would you not find it a supreme waste  
> that you couldn't use such a dog on the basis of its not conforming to

> someone else's idea of the "right" kind of dog?
>
> Don't forget that Jenine was just talking about some access trouble  
> she had when she brought her (very traditional) Golden into a store  
> and someone thought this couldn't possibly be a guide dog, because it

> wasn't a GSD. Would you like to so narrowly define what constitutes a

> working service animal? OK, consider this. Right now, the most common

> breed of service dog (especially guide dog) is the Labrador Retriever.

> Several decades ago, it was the German Shepherd dog. In several more  
> decades, let's suppose this changes again. If we rigidly define that  
> only labs, Goldens, GSD's, and lab/golden crosses are legitimate  
> service dogs and in

> 30 years the labradoodle becomes dominant, how  would this affect such

> a law? What do we do about people who,for one  reason or another, need

> to use a boxer, or a poodle, or a Doberman?  Shall we deny them use of

> a guide dog for which they may in all other  respects be suitable?
>
> Buddy
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/linda.gwizdak%40c
ox.n
et
> 

_______________________________________________
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/dcwein%40dcwein.c
nc.n
et

_______________________________________________
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/queen.marsha.lind
sey%
40gmail.com

_______________________________________________
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/rebecca.pickrell%
40ngc.com