[nagdu] June, 1991 Dog World article about the California State Board
Margo and Elmo
margo.downey at verizon.net
Sat Mar 28 00:30:46 UTC 2009
Now, Julie, that's a very interesting thought. It's not NAC but it sure
acts like it. hmmmmmm!
margo and Elmo
----- Original Message -----
From: "JULIE PHILLIPSON" <jbrew48 at verizon.net>
To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users"
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] June, 1991 Dog World article about the California State
Board
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/margo.downey%40verizon.net
More information about the NAGDU
mailing list