[nagdu] Legislative Consideration

[Sherri]

Marion and list,

I think this is an excellent idea! The ADA had gotten so watered down with 
acceptance of every kind of dog you can think of as a service animal that 
there has to be some penalty for those who pretend that their animal is a 
service dog. I will help in whatever way I can. I feel bad that Merry had 
such a problem on the bus, but it is problems like this that cause change. 
Think of Rosa Parks!
Sherri
----- 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/flmom2006%40gmail.com