[nagdu] researching programs

[Marion & Martin]

    There was a case a few years back in which the Court declared a guide 
dog a "dangerous animal" because it mauled a Pomeranian. NAGDU and the NFB 
took on the case until the owner publicly declared that he had retired the 
dog for health reasons not related to the attack. We took on the case 
because we truly believed the dog was acting in a reflexive, protective 
manner. The handler and the dog entered a medical office that had the pet 
there. The Pomeranian acted aggressively toward the guide dog and the dog 
protected the team. Unfortunately, the handler was a very loose cannon and 
continues to be so! After investing $5000 in his legal fees, we dropped the 
case and he threatened to sue us for breach of contract! "You don't know who 
you're dealing with!" were his last words to me! "I do know who we are 
dealing with!" I replied. "This is why we are baqcking out!"
    BTW, he called me again about six months ago asking for some sort of 
help with an issue he was having. When all I said in reply was "Good luck!" 
he uttered a few obsenities and hung up!
    I say all of this to illustrate that animal control will take action 
when they feel they have solid evidence and can demonstrate criminal intent, 
whether or not the person is disabled!

Fraternally yours,
Marion Gwizdala



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jenine Stanley" <jeninems at wowway.com>
To: "'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] researching programs


> Rebecca asks: Can you describe a scenario where animal control would think 
> a
> person
> was fine with a guide dog, but where a school would want to take the dog
> away?
>
> Good question or premise for a discussion. Let me think on it to develop a
> valid scenario. I do want to note though that most animal control officers
> who receive complaints or investigate issues involving service animals are
> not "fine" with the person possibly neglecting or mistreating the dog. 
> There
> are limitations to what they can bring to court in terms of prosecuting
> someone and just like police officers, if they bring too many cases that
> aren't founded on solid evidence and things that fall under the animal
> cruelty statutes, they will only gain a bad reputation with the judge and
> probably some kind of disciplinary action. The judge will just toss out 
> the
> cases and everyone gets frustrated.
>
> So, even when they would like nothing better than to take a dog out of a 
> bad
> situation, service animal or not, they really have to consider how it will
> play out in court and what steps they will need to take to get a 
> conviction
> under the statutes to stick.
>
> Imagine the PR nightmare if the blind person, who is indeed guilty of some
> level of animal cruelty and has had his/her dog taken,  decides to go for
> the heartstrings in the media. If the school is less than responsive in 
> its
> handling of the issue, the locals get hung out to dry.
>
> Never an easy situation in these cases, eh?
>
> Jenine Stanley
> jeninems at wowway.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/swampfox1833%40verizon.net