[nagdu] June, 1991 Dog World article about the California State Board
tina thomas
tinadt at sbcglobal.net
Fri Mar 27 17:56:12 UTC 2009
Hello Ed and Toni- Hopefully this time, we can get this board abolished once
and for all. The board has even drafted a bill that would make the CA
schools pay 5% of their annual expenses to the board for licensing of the
respective schools.
Tina
"Trust your own instinct. Your mistakes might as well be your own instead of
someone else's."
- Billy Wilder
-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Ed and Toni Eames
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 10:01 AM
To: nagdu at nfbnet.org
Subject: [nagdu] June,1991 Dog World article about the California State
Board
Hi folks,
Things don't change much, do they!
Ed and Toni
California State Board
Ed and Toni Eames
In an article called "Toni and Her Golden Girls," (Dog World December
1988) Ed described Toni's decision to purchase Ivy, a golden retriever, and
pay a former guide dog trainer to prepare her to be Toni's future guide.
Many considerations went into Toni's decision to select this option rather
than attend a guide dog school where there would be no charge for the dog
and training. As a resident of New York State, her choice was not hampered
by legal restraints. Ivy, an exemplary guide dog, has been Toni's guide and
companion for the past seven years. Little did we know when we moved to
California that Ivy's right to continue to guide Toni might be challenged by
proposed legislative recommendations.
California is the only state with a government agency controlling
guide dog activities. Established more than forty years ago, this agency,
known as the California State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind, was a
response to the proliferation of guide dog organizations emerging to provide
services to blinded World War II veterans. While the Board was effective in
eliminating many of these bogus organizations, a similar "shaking down"
process took place in the rest of the country without the establishment of a
government agency. Presently, the seven-member Board, only two of whom are
guide dog users, is part of the Department of Consumer Affairs. However,
the Board seems less concerned with securing the rights of blind people than
in preserving the power of the three California guide dog schools.
In 1989, the Board was empowered by the state legislature to conduct a
year-long study, including holding public hearings, to develop
recommendations about the future of assistance dogs in California.
Assistance dogs include guide dogs partnered with blind people, hearing dogs
partnered with deaf people and service dogs partnered with physically
disabled people.
Although the Board held nine public hearings throughout the state,
very few disabled people were informed of them. Even fewer were aware of
the mission of the Board. On the other hand, representatives of the three
guide dog schools, Guide Dogs for the Blind, San Rafael, International
Guiding Eyes, Sylmar, and Guide Dogs of the Desert, Palm Springs, presented
their views at most of the meetings. Representatives of the other
assistance dog providers, Canine Companions for Independence, Santa Rosa and
Rancho Santa Fe, The San Francisco SPCA Hearing Dog Program and the Mary Ann
Salem Companion Animal Program for the Deaf, Riverside Humane Society,
presented testimony at some of the public hearings. Representatives of bus
driver unions, the restaurant industry and other businesses presented their
concerns.
After concluding the study, the Board prepared a preliminary document
summarizing the results and suggesting changes in the current law and in the
Board's status. Major points developed in this document called for the
expansion of the Board into an eleven member Board of Assistance Dogs for
the Disabled including service and hearing dog users. It further suggested
extending licensing to hearing and service dog trainers and programs,
outlawing privately trained assistance dogs, placing residential training
options entirely in the hands of the guide dog schools and requiring an
identification card for all school graduates.
It was at this stage we began our discussions with representatives of
the Board. As the co chairpersons of the Guide Dog Committee of the
National Federation of the Blind of California, we were concerned about the
Board's legislative recommendations. The National Federation of the Blind
is the largest organization of blind consumers in the country and is a
constant advocate for consumer rights at the local, state and national
levels. After reading the preliminary report with great care, we responded
by suggesting a wide range of changes in the Board's approach. In addition,
the three service and hearing dog programs developed statements opposing the
Board's attempt to impose licensing on them.
On June 30, 1990 the Board presented its final report to Senator
Milton Marks, Chairperson, Senate Subcommittee on the Rights of the
Disabled. It was obvious from this 22-page document, the Board was not
interested in consumer input or the opinions of the three unlicensed
California assistance dog providers. One of the few changes made was the
abandonment of what came to be known as the "visa program." This was the
requirement that out of state assistance dog users apply to the Board for a
temporary identification card at least 30 days before visiting the state.
In almost all other respects, the final recommendations remained unchanged.
Dismayed at the Board's unresponsiveness to our suggestions and those
of many other organizations, we wrote the following letter to Senator Marks
on August 9, 1990:
"For years, blind people have been struggling for autonomy and
independence. We believe the Board is destructive of this goal. It is
custodial and paternalistic and wants to assume the responsibilities, which
we, as blind people, should assume. It now wants to extend its custodial
stance to deaf and physically disabled people. The Board should not be
expanded-it should be abolished. It is regulating an industry, which, by
the Board's own admission, does not need regulation. No other state has
such a regulatory agency. The National Federation of the Blind contends it
is a waste of taxpayers' money. This money would be better spent on
developing employment opportunities for disabled people or improving library
services for us.
An increase in the Board's membership and the assumption of the
responsibility for licensing signal and service dog programs and trainers
would only increase the budgetary needs of the Board. It [the Board] will
place barriers in the way of developing new and innovative assistance dog
training programs.
After stating several times in the report there is no evidence of poor
training or abusive fund raising by existing hearing and service dog
training programs, the report concludes:
"The licensing of assistance dog programs will be possible and beneficial."
Who will benefit? We do not believe we, the consumers, or the public will
benefit from a licensing program. Obviously, the two major hearing dog
providers in California do not believe they will benefit either. We wonder
where the "substantial community support for licensing" comes from.
Members of the assistance dog using community had little knowledge of
the purpose of the public hearings nor were their views sought.
As guide dog users, we object to several specific recommendations,
which will have a direct and detrimental impact on us. These are:
1. Home training will only be available to those who have gone
through a four-week guide dog training program at a licensed California
school. The schools will determine who is eligible. This recommendation
disregards the track record of Fidelco Guide Dog Foundation in Connecticut,
which has successfully been training first time guide dog users at home for
several
years. Fidelco is the fastest growing guide dog
program in the country based on consumer demand. An innovative program,
like Fidelco's, would not be permitted in California. In addition, the
right to extend this form of training to alumni is placed squarely in the
hands of the schools. No guidelines are set forth. No definition of
"necessary conditions" for home training is provided. No power is given the
blind consumer who wants to challenge denial by a guide dog school of a
request for at home training.
2. No opportunity is provided to certify a privately trained
assistance dog. The Board notes that the vast majority of disabled people
cannot afford such training. We agree, but does this mean the small
minority who want and can afford it should be denied the opportunity? We
think not. Toni's guide dog, Ivy, was privately trained and, if the Board's
recommendations are translated into law, Ivy will become illegal and lose
access rights. In addition, many hearing and service dogs have been trained
by deaf and physically disabled owner/trainers. No evidence, other than
rumor and hearsay, has been provided by the Board to suggest privately
trained dogs do not measure up to licensed school standards.
3. Licensed trainers who are no longer employed by a licensed school
lose their rights to train assistance dogs. Such a recommendation, if
accepted, gives monopolistic power to the schools and deprives consumers of
the services of experienced licensed trainers. It is the equivalent of a
physician who can only practice medicine at a hospital; private practice
would be illegal. Once again, the Board is operating in a custodial fashion
and is giving more and more power to the schools.
Several issues are raised in the report, which are never dealt with or
are misperceptions of reality. We do not believe an identification program
is a solution to our problems of public access. The taxi driver in San
Francisco who drove off as we and our guide dogs were getting into his taxi
couldn't care less about whether or not we, or our guide dogs, had
identification.
Managers of restaurants, apartment complexes or hotels who refuse to read
the copy of the law we always carry with us would not be impressed by a
fancy identification card. Although the issue of public safety is raised
several times, nowhere in the recommendations is this issue addressed. It
is assumed if all assistance dogs in the state are trained by licensed
training programs, the public will be protected.
For purposes of legal access and
identification, the Board suggests the
recognition of assistance dogs graduated from out of state training schools
considered to be "substantially equivalent" to California licensed programs.
Since currently there are fifty such programs in the other forty-nine
states, how is the Board going to determine which of these is "substantially
equivalent?" Are members of the Board, at our expense, going to travel
throughout the country to investigate and evaluate these programs? Will it
be necessary to hire new staff members to carry out these duties? If all
out of state programs are accepted as "substantially equivalent," as we
suspect they will be, then licensing has no value. If non-licensed
assistance dog training programs are accepted as "substantially equivalent"
to California licensed programs, then why should we, as taxpayers, have to
assume the financial burden of an unnecessary licensing Board?
As you can see, we believe the results of the year-long study and
series of public hearings have many negative implications for those of us
who are assistance dog users. We strongly urge you to disregard the
recommendations of the Board and move for its abolition. We do not need
regulatory boards which regulate us rather than the industry they are
supposed to control."
On the afternoon of November 15, 1990 a public hearing was conducted
by Senator Marks in Sacramento. In order to testify, we had to take a 7
A.M. Amtrak train from Fresno to Stockton and transferred to an Amtrak bus
to Sacramento. Our bus driver was an obvious dog lover. When we asked her
about getting to the capitol from the bus depot, she whispered to stay on
the bus and she would drop us at our destination. Before the hearing began,
Ed had the pleasure of indulging in the food delights sold by the food
vendors surrounding the capitol plaza. Toni, who had just begun her Jenny
Craig weight loss program, did not indulge.
During the three-hour session, more than fifty people presented their
views of the Board's proposal. Every disabled person who spoke attacked one
or more elements of the Board's suggestions.
Toni criticized the proposed ban on private training and the
de-licensing of trainers who no longer work for licensed schools. Ed
criticized the Board on several points, including its proposal to give the
existing schools more power, its avoidance of any description of how the
Board would determine which non California assistance dog programs were
"substantially equivalent" to California licensed schools and the Board's
inability to deal with our current problems of denial of access rights.
Representatives of the Hearing Society, the San Francisco Lighthouse,
the Blinded Veterans Association and even the American Kennel Club spoke out
against the proposed recommendations. Testimony presented by
representatives of Canine Companions for Independence and the San Francisco
SPCA Hearing Dog Program attacked the Board's demand they should be
licensed. In fact, one of the major themes dominating the hearing was the
interpretation of the recommendations as an attack on the rights of disabled
people to choose the kind of training they desired.
Only two individuals who spoke endorsed the
Board's proposals. They represented Guide Dogs
for the Blind and International Guiding Eyes.
Since the hearing, we have been working to eliminate the Board and its
recommendations. More than forty individuals have written to Senator Marks
testifying to Ivy's competence as Toni's guide. We have become engaged in
the political process in order to abolish the Board and have discovered
something quite interesting. Despite a projected California budgetary
deficit of several billion dollars, no legislator is willing to propose a
bill to abolish the Board and save California taxpayers $100,000 a year.
Apparently, once a government agency is in place, legislators will not
remove it no matter how ineffective or even harmful.
For those of you who want to help in this political battle, we suggest
you write to Governor Pete Wilson, State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Please send copies of your letters to Ed and Toni Eames, 3376 North Wishon,
Fresno, CA 93704; Tel. 559-224-0544.
_______________________________________________
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/tinadt%40sbcglobal.ne
t
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.283 / Virus Database: 270.11.30/2025 - Release Date: 03/27/09
07:13:00
More information about the NAGDU
mailing list