[nagdu] June, 1991 Dog World article about the California State Board
JULIE PHILLIPSON
jbrew48 at verizon.net
Fri Mar 27 21:37:08 UTC 2009
is this a reinsergence of NAC?
Julie Phillipson
----- Original Message -----
From: "tina thomas " <tinadt at sbcglobal.net>
To: "'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'"
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] June, 1991 Dog World article about the California State
Board
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/jbrew48%40verizon.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.30/2026 - Release Date: 03/27/09
07:13:00
More information about the NAGDU
mailing list