[nagdu] Legislative Consideration

Sun Jan 17 17:35:30 UTC 2010

Hello Marion and everyone,

    If the law summaries were left on the division's Web site until they 
could be replaced with copies of actual statutes you would have had some of 
them. New Hampshire has such a statute. It imposes penalties against those 
that fraudulently pass off pets as guide dogs. Sorry guys but I feared that 
the removal of the state law summaries would come back to haunt us one day 
and it looks like  it did. They should have been left on the site until they 
could be replaced with complete language of each state law. Again sorry to 
get up on the wrong side of the bed. All the best for a great weekend.

Peter Donahue

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marion & Martin" <swampfox1833 at verizon.net>
To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Legislative Consideration

Peter,
    When you say that "several other white Cane Laws have such a provision",
are you referring to the violation for carrying a white cane or for
fraudulently passing off a service animal? If the latter, do you have
citations for this? If so, it would certainly help our efforts.

Fraternally yours,
Marion

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Donahue" <pdonahue1 at sbcglobal.net>
To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users"
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Legislative Consideration

> Hello Marion and listers,
>
> Several other state white cane laws all ready have such a provision.
> Go for it.
> Peter Donahue
>
> ----- 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 10:10 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/pdonahue1%40sbcglobal.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/swampfox1833%40verizon.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/pdonahue1%40sbcglobal.net 