[nagdu] Legislative Consideration

Sun Jan 17 18:55:20 UTC 2010

I hear a song here somewhere, one bad apple shouldn't spoil the whole bunch
girl....

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 Tamara Smith-Kinney
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 1:40 PM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Legislative Consideration

I strongly agree that it makes more sense to punish those who cause actual
harm by bringing dangerous, dirty dogs where they shouldn't be, especially
in places where dogs are not allowed unless they are, in fact, service dogs.

There does seem to be an odd societal attitude towards dogs these days
though.  Every time there's a pit bull attack, people want to outlaw pit
bulls.  Generally, it turns out that it wasn't the dog that was the root of
the problem, but you never hear about how the owner was punished.

In a place like Portland, where you can't swing a cat without hitting a dog
out and about with its humans, people start getting really uptight about the
horrible, dangerous creatures, especially those who are well-trained enough
to heel and behave without leashes.  For years, people have been taking such
dogs to the Farmers Markets and all that wonderful outdoor summer stuff we
have around here, leash not in hand or attached to collar, and nobody
thought twice about it.  For the record, I would like for my dog to be that
well-trained, but she's not there; even if she were I would probably not
take her to such an event off leash even if she weren't working.  But that's
neither here nor there.

Anyone, some bozo -- or maybe a couple of bozos over the last two or three
years -- have taken their unsocialized scruffy curs without bothering to
leash them, trouble happens, and guess what?  All those people who took the
time and trouble to train their dogs suddenly have to have a leash to keep
their otherwise under-control dogs under control...  So they get all huffy.
Then people go the city council wanting to ban dogs altogether or require
that all dogs wear muzzles, even if they're service dogs, and...  Then dog
owners get huffier and....

Then some other form of entertainment comes along, and everybody forgets
about it for awhile.  /smile/

Anyway, what gets drowned out in all the rhetoric and new stories and
editorial rants and what not is the crazy notion of imposing severe
penalties on the bozos who are to irresponsible enough to own a goldfish,
let alone a dog!  Not that I have an opinion in the matter.  /grin/

Anyway, this dog-lover Portland quirkiness sometimes seems to be reflected
in comments quited in articles about service dog access issues and the like.
The solution to problem dogs in places where they shouldn't be, people seem
to think, is to crack down on all dogs.  Never seems to occur to them to do
something about the people who took the dogs to the problem in the first
place.

Tami Smith-Kinney

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Julie J
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 8:23 AM
To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Legislative Consideration

Not necessarily.  I don't think that just because a person chooses to use a 
very small service dog negates the possibility of it being a legitimate 
service dog.  Examples might include hearing alert dogs and seizure alert 
dogs.

Also I absolutely do not like the idea of having to perform some sort of 
circus act to "prove" that my dog is indeed a service dog to gain access 
someplace.   It leaves too much interpretation up to the individual's 
judgment.  It also hinges on the necessity of the service of the dog at that

exact moment.  How is that going to work for someone who uses a service dog 
to alert to a life threatening medical condition?  Would the person have to 
have a seizure, diabetic lapse of consciousness or loose the ability to 
breathe from an allergic reaction in order to "prove" that their dog does 
indeed perform a service?

And of course all service dogs have moments of confusion or 
miscommunications with the handler.  What happens when one of these occurs 
when trying to prove the legitimacy of the service dog?  I know myself and 
how frustrated and annoyed I would be at having to perform for someone like 
this.  Frustrated and annoyed don't bode well for me having a good moment in

communicating with my dog.

I was thinking about this whole thing this morning with people using 
fraudulent service dogs and claiming disability when that is questionable. 
In thinking back about all the news articles I have read over the past few 
years, the one thing they all have in common is the lack of appropriate 
behavior.  I cannot think of a single news story of someone claiming they 
have a disability that is in question and need their dog to do xyz and the 
dog being beautifully behaved.  I think the  issue is bad behavior.  I would

really like to see a law that address penalties for a person whose dog 
causes harm to another person or damage to property.  I think that would be 
a greater deterrent to using a service dog fraudulently or an unsuitable 
dog.

Training a service dog is an incredible lot of work.   If there were 
penalties for dangerous or unsuitable behaviors from these dogs, I think the

result would be two fold.  It would deter people from training their own who

haven't the knowledge or skills to be successful.  And it would require the 
programs to better screen and place dogs.    The end result would be better 
behaved dogs and isn't that what we really want?

JMHO
Julie

----- 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 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Legislative Consideration

> Julie,
>    Though it is incumbant upon a person claiming protection under the ADA 
> to show that they are a "qualified person with a disability" should 
> litigation result, I believe it is less difficult to prove whether a 
> service animal has been trained to perform tasks that mitigate a person's 
> disability. The person, for instance we sw in a grocery store with her 
> pocket dog in the cart or the one with the dog in her purse at WalMart, 
> are examples of individuals abusing the provisions. I agree with Anne that

> the key is education; at the same time, such educational efforts can be 
> enhanced by legal penalties.
>
> Fraternally yours,
> Marion
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Julie J" <julielj at windstream.net>
> To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users" 
> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 3:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Legislative Consideration
>
>
>> Who decides who is disabled and who isn't?
>>
>> Because right now that can only be done through court proceedings.  I 
>> think the sort of law you are proposing will put a lot of strain on law 
>> enforcement officers to make decisions of who is disabled and who isn't. 
>> Unless I am missing some piece of the puzzle?
>>
>> Could you give a fictional example and how your proposed law would work?
>> Julie
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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%40verizo
n.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/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/albert%40myblindspot.
org