[nagdu] Legislative Consideration

cheryl echevarria cherylandmaxx at hotmail.com
Sat Jan 16 16:19:47 UTC 2010


Well for one, I had to educate my bus driver on the Suffolk County Bus 
system here a few years ago, and if I wasn't on the bus, this person was 
probably allowed on.

At one stop on my way to go to the gym, a woman with a pit bull, because the 
bus driver said it was a pit bull, proceeded to board the bus, and growled 
at Maxx (my guide dog), the woman said that her dog was a service animal. 
And as a good guide dog user, and not wanting maxx to get hurt, she said he 
is a comfort animal, and that she had paperwork, not a card she must have 
gotten off the internet, again the bus driver told it looked like this for 
the ADA Laws.  I proceeded to mention that comfort animals are not service 
animals (working dogs).  She was getting nasty.  At that point, the driver 
who has known me for years, said that the dog would not be allowed on the 
bus.  And she said that she would contact the county.  I said I would be 
glad to do that for you since I have them on my speed dial on my cell phone, 
which I do, because I am quite friendly with the supervisor.

She called me and the bus driver some names that I cannot put here, and 
left, yes I feel that there should be something that states a penalty or 
fine should be imposed on those passing off there dogs or animals as service 
animals.

Some one like Craig or someone else remind me, isn't that fraud.


Cheryl Echevarria
Independent Contractor
www.Echevarriatravel.com
1-866-580-5574
Reservations at echevarriatravel.com
Affiliated as an Independent Contractor with Montrose Travel CST-1018299-10


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marion & Martin" <swampfox1833 at verizon.net>
To: "FLAGDU List" <flagdu at nfbnet.org>
Cc: "NYAGDU List" <nyagdu at nfbnet.org>; "NAGDU List" <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 11:10 AM
Subject: [nagdu] Legislative Consideration


> Dear All,
>     Last week, someone claiming protection under the ADA brought what they 
> purported to be a service animal onto a Hillsborough Area Regional Transit 
> (HART) vehicle and this animal bit the employee. Though we are unclear 
> about all of the circumstances, such as if it was a fixed route or para 
> transit vehicle or if the dog was a legitimate service animal, the 
> incident has caused some issues.
>     When Merry was coming home from her internship last Wednesday, the 
> operator told her she needed to provide documentation for Kappie, which 
> she refused to do. He refused to move the vehicle while he contacted the 
> dispatcher. ITM, Merry called me concerning this. When I called the 
> dispatcher, I was told that HART had implemented a new policy that "all 
> animals, including service animals, must show proof of vaccination" (his 
> words). I advised him that such a policy was in violation of the ADA, to 
> which he asserted it was not. When I asked him if he was an attorney, he 
> said he was not but he would be happy to transfer me to HART's legal 
> counsel. He also told me that Merry could ride this time, but would need 
> to provide such documentation  of vaccination the next time she traveled.
>     I left a message for HART's counsel, Sylvia Berrien,  and received a 
> return call the following morning. I have discussed this issue with Ms. 
> Berrien, with HART's  Director of Customer Service, Sylvia Castillo, and 
> Katherine Eagan, HART's Chief of Route Development, all of whom apologized 
> for the incident, assured me that there was no such policy, and 
> immediately issued a memorandum to all HART operators concerning this.
>     This all leads me to the subject of this message. Florida statute 
> 316.1301, Commonly known as the "White Cane Law", states in paragraph (1), 
> "It is unlawful for any person, unless totally or partially blind or 
> otherwise incapacitated, while on any public street or highway, to carry 
> in a raised or extended position a cane or walking stick which is white in 
> color or white tipped with red. A person who is convicted of a violation 
> of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree". In 
> addition to this incident (HART seems to believe this animal was not a 
> service animal under the definition of the ADA), we have encountered 
> others claiming their pets were service animals in order to gain access 
> with them.
>     How would you feel about a measure to create a criminal penalty for 
> those who pass their pets off as service animals in order to gain access 
> with them, similar to those provisions mentioned above? I am also 
> circulating this message to other affiliate divisions and to the NAGDU 
> list to gain input on this issue. All comments are invited!
>
>
>
> Fraternally yours,
>
> Marion Gwizdala, President
>
> National Association of Guide Dog Users
>
> National Federation of the Blind
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cherylandmaxx%40hotmail.com
> 




More information about the NAGDU mailing list