[nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort
Julie J
julielj at windstream.net
Fri Jan 1 16:55:11 UTC 2010
Albert and all,
Service dogs in training are not covered in the ADA. I understand that what
I said to Tami is probably very confusing. I'll try again.
A service dog is ONLY a service dog when three conditions are met. These
three conditions MUST be met in order to fall within the scope of the ADA.
1. The animal must be individually trained to perform tasks that will serve
to mitigate a disability. Sit, down, stay and the like, while very
necessary serve no mitigating function on their own. Sitting in front of
the deaf handler when the doorbell is rung is a task that mitigates the
disability of deafness.
2. the handler of the animal MUST be disabled under the ADA definition.
Examples often given are seeing, hearing and walking. The disability must
be a substantial impairment of a major life activity. Blindness is a
pretty clearly defined disability.
3. The training of the animal MUST match the disability of the handler. A
dog that has been taught to pull a wheelchair or alert to seizures is not a
service dog if I am it's handler, since I do not use a wheelchair or
experience seizures. Since my dog has been trained to choose clear
pathways, stop at steps and the like he is a service dog because these
trained behaviors serve to mitigate my disability, blindness.
Okay now lets look at service dogs in training being covered under the ADA.
The typical situation is that of an able bodied trainer with a dog that is
not trained. This scenario doesn't meet items 1,2 or 3 and is therefore not
covered.
Next scenario...an able bodied puppy raiser with a young dog learning
manners in public. Still none of the requirements are met, no ADA coverage.
Scenario 3. An able bodied trainer working with a dog that has some basic
tasks down pat, but is working on more advanced skills like navigating
escalators. Item 1 is met, but 2 and 3 are not.
Scenario 4. A disabled owner trainer is working on basic socialization and
manners with a young dog. Item 2 is met, but 1 and 3 are missing.
Scenario 5. A disabled owner trainer is working with an adult dog on basic
service tasks. the dog is not reliable with any of these basic tasks yet.
Again item 2 is met, but 1 and 3 are missing.
Scenario 6. a disabled person that experiences seizures has taught their
dog to reliably alert them to the onset of a seizure, but is currently
working on getting the dog to get help from another person. Items 1, 2 and
3 are met. the handler is covered under the ADA definition even though the
dog is still learning new tasks. I, personally, would consider this not to
be a service dog in training, but a trained service dog that is just
learning new skills, no different than a guide dog from a program whose
handler teaches him to find a seat or trash can after arriving home.
Of course there are lots of other scenarios, but I think you get the point.
all you have to do is work through the three requirements, if all three are
present you have a winner!
HTH
Julie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Albert J Rizzi" <albert at myblindspot.org>
To: "'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'"
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort
> Julie,
>
> As The definition of a service animal stands, it makes sense as presented,
> that a dog in training is not by definition a service animal until such
> time
> as it graduates as it were or is given to a handler to perform trained
> tasks and or services. Then as you stated a dog in training is also
> covered under these same protections as afforded under the ADA and FHA
> and
> such protections are further reinforced as is found time to time in any
> number of states. So, dogs in training which as I had always understood
> to
> be the case are protected as such and are afforded public access during
> such
> trainings. Where I would appreciate your help in clarifying a discussion
> point is the present legislative effort to include certification in the
> mix.
> As I understood the issue there is concern about adding the word certified
> or that a trainer be certified not so much that a dog be certified per
> say.
> Would you help me understand the position of why this has caused such
> alarm,
> how it would raise our taxes if trainers were held to a measure such as
> certification, which I would hope would not be determined by individual
> schools, but by seasoned professionals and end users with vested
> interests
> in the well being of mobility issues for those of us who rely on properly
> trained guides if we choose not to self train. Then too, how would
> certification be passed on to us in any cost at all if such a measure were
> passed. You see, I like you, am of the position and have confirmed
> independently and now as you stated here, that dogs in training are
> protected under the ADA. Why is certification of trainers such a hot
> topic?
>
> Albert J. Rizzi, M.Ed.
> CEO/Founder
> My Blind Spot, Inc.
> 90 Broad Street - 18th Fl.
> New York, New York 10004
> www.myblindspot.org
> PH: 917-553-0347
> Fax: 212-858-5759
> "The person who says it cannot be done, shouldn't interrupt the one who is
> doing it."
>
>
> Visit us on Facebook LinkedIn
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
> Of Julie J
> Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 2:23 PM
> To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort
>
> Tami,
>
> This is incorrect:
> *Also, service dogs in training are already covered in the ADA and (I
> think)
> FHA. As an owner-trainer, I had the same rights I do as a handler.*
>
> The ADA is a civil rights law. It guarantees disabled Americans the right
> to equal access, which includes the right to utilize a service animal.
> The
> definition of a service animal is one that has been individually trained
> tasks that serve to mitigate the handler's disability. A service dog in
> training has not been trained to mitigate the disability of it's handler,
> does not meet the definition and therefore cannot legally accompany the
> disabled handler into public places.
>
> Now, as an owner trainer I can tell you that I have always taken my dogs
> into public places before they were fully trained. You have to or they
> will
>
> never get fully trained. Fortunately my state has additional laws to
> cover
> service dogs in training. If I didn't have those I would need to train in
> only pet friendly places or ask permission at each place.
>
> Owner trainers only have the same access rights once the dog has been
> trained to perform tasks that mitigate the handlers disability. Of course
> you could certainly train some very basic tasks to gain the level of
> service
>
> dog to be able to have public access. then when in public places train
> the
> rest.
>
> I hope that makes sense.
> Julie
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tamara Smith-Kinney" <tamara.8024 at comcast.net>
> To: "'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'"
> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 11:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort
>
>
>> Steve,
>>
>> I agree!
>>
>> Also, service dogs in training are already covered in the ADA and (I
>> think)
>> FHA. As an owner-trainer, I had the same rights I do as a handler.
>> Also,
>> the same responsibilities. Including the responsibility for my own
>> safety,
>> her safety and that of others.
>>
>> Someone mentioned socialization apart from training... For a service
>> animal, socialization *is* pat of the training. True, you do a lot of
>> ground work and obedience and exposure to people, kids, critters,
>> everybody
>> and everything you can while the dog is young. But sooner or later, you
>> have to take your pup into the milieus in which it will be working as an
>> adult. A lot of those milieux are pretty high stimulus, let me tell you!
>> But the dog needs to learn to walk by the meat counter at the grocery
>> store
>> without trying to snag a snack along the way! There are some early
>> training
>> techniques I'm going to use next time to cut down on potential
>> scavenging,
>> but a dog is still a dog. /smile/
>>
>> Anyway, with Mitzi I did what the guide dog schools do: I used PR when
>> it
>> was time to take my wild and woolly one into the stores in our
>> neighborhood.
>> I would explain that I was training her, that I needed to work with her
>> in
>> stores, and I assured them that I would take her out immediately if she
>> got
>> out of hand and would pay for any damage. It was a ridiculously
>> dog-friendly neighborhood, which helped. /grin/ The fact that my little
>> beast had *no* training until she came to me at the age of 7 months
>> didn't!
>> Next time, I am starting with a baby puppy so I can start civilizing it
>> while it's young and impressionable. /smile/
>>
>> Still, we worked on it together so that she could learn to deal with the
>> overstimulation of it all, and now she's an old pro who can take me
>> shopping
>> and dining and traveling without a hitch. Well, I still feel a bit
>> nervous
>> about that scavenging nose in restaurants, but it seems to be staying
>> where
>> it belongs! Actually, it's never gotten too far out of bounds, but I
>> know
>> my dog! It used to terrify me that I would have to buy someone's meal
>> because my dog tried to help herself to it. I would just have died if
>> that
>> had happened! /grin/
>>
>> Anyway, I just say "no!" to legislatively required certification,
>> especially
>> when it comes to service animals for the disabled. The whole issue is
>> just
>> too fraught, and the people it is meant to protect will be the ones who
>> get
>> the short end of the stick!
>>
>> As for unscrupulous, unqualified trainers of service dogs for others....
>> Well, changing the access laws to require that they show certification to
>> take a trainee on a bus will just mean they don't train the dogs to
>> travel,
>> right? If someone is going to bilk a distressed clientele to begin with,
>> they can't be too long on character or concern for others. Or is that
>> just
>> my prejudices showing?
>>
>> Tami Smith-Kinne
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Steve Johnson
>> Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 11:24 AM
>> To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort
>>
>> Well stated Rox.
>>
>> The other issue is cost, and this idea of certification will have a
>> price.
>> Unless legislation has direct input from an organization like the NFB for
>> instance, it has the potential to be that between the constituent and the
>> legislator and honestly, that leaves the door wide open for
>> interpretation.
>> Tell me the last legislator who knew the difference between a guide from
>> a
>> formal agency or one that was self-trained? Take it one step further,
>> tell
>> me a legislator who knows the difference between the different dog guide
>> agency names, or what they are actually trained to do? My point, is that
>> they don't have a clue, and if they really want to do something
>> impressive,
>> don't run again.
>>
>>
>> JMO
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "The Pawpower Pack" <pawpower4me at gmail.com>
>> To: "NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users"
>> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 12:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Fw: [buddy-l] A very bad legislative effort
>>
>>
>>> and who certifies the trainers?
>>>
>>> There is no certifying body for dog trainers. If I want to call
>>> myself a dog trainer, I can. There are outfits like CPDT who are
>>> trying to certify pet dog trainers but it's all voluntary. The guide
>>> and service dogs, with the exception of California, may "certify"
>>> their trainers but it's about as valuable as the paper it's printed on.
>>>
>>> California "certifies" it's trainers but frankly, I would hate to see
>>> an outfit like the California guide dog board become the norm.
>>>
>>> I also think it's a step awy from certifying trainers to certifying PWD.
>>>
>>>
>>> Rox and the Kitchen Bitches
>>> Bristol (retired), Mill'E SD. and Laveau Guide Dog, CGC.
>>> "Struggle is a never ending process. Freedom is never really won, you
>>> earn it and win it in every generation."
>>> -- Coretta Scott King
>>> pawpower4me at gmail.com
>>>
>>> Windows Live Only: Brisomania at hotmail.com
>>> AIM: Brissysgirl Yahoo: lillebriss
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/stevencjohnson%40cent
>> urytel.net
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.722 / Virus Database: 270.14.119/2586 - Release Date:
>> 12/25/09
>> 03:33:00
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/tamara.8024%40comcast
>> .net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/julielj%40windstream.
> net
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/albert%40myblindspot.
> org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/julielj%40windstream.net
>
More information about the NAGDU
mailing list